Discussions
An Open Letter to the Admins
Posted by Epicharis • 8/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: admins, bc
I'm really sorry to put a downer on the discussion board as it has been really fun the last couple of days, but I (and others) think this is necessary. I emailed this letter to the admins a few days ago, and today I got an automated email saying that the ticket was closed. The admins have chosen not to offer any response at all.
Please read this and make it known if you agree, and if you would like the admins to respond.
Dear Admins,
I think that as BC is a business (and not a volunteer-run, not-for-profit website) the administrators should adhere to a standard. The fact that many members 'support the community' financially means that they should be entitled to a consistent level of service that is not subject to the personality, mood or prejudices of individual administrators.
I am not the only member to express dissatisfaction with the arbitrary nature of the moderation of this site, it seems to be a prevalent sentiment amongst the regular users of the discussion forum and has been for some time.
Comments and threads are removed from the discussions when they do not breach any of the rules or the Terms of Service. This is a source of considerable frustration for the members who have had their comments deleted. No explanation is offered beyond "Read the Guidelines", and as the posts do not breach these guidelines it is impossible to tell what was wrong with them. I understand that explaining every decision is not practical, but the current situation is not working. If you feel that everything deleted breaches the TOS, then you need to expand upon your understanding of the Terms, because they are not clear to anyone else.
Similarly, many comments that do definitely breach the rules and the TOS are not removed despite attention being brought to them. This leads to confusion about what is and isn't allowed, and leads members to feel that the administrators are biased towards certain individuals or opinions, and so allow those comments which break the rules to remain.
As this is a place where people of all different backgrounds come to socialise it is not surprising that there are occasionally clashes and people start making personal attacks when they get angry. Choosing to suspend those individuals may well be a reasonable response, however we have often seen one participant in a dispute punished and the other not, despite the fact that each person was equally at fault. When this happens it makes it look like the admins are favouring one person over the other rather than breaking up a fight and punishing those who broke the rules.
While having admins that are involved in the discussions like normal members is very nice, at times I feel this is inappropriate. I have witnessed (and experienced) admins making snarky comments to and about members when that individual wasn't doing anything antagonising. That kind of behaviour makes members feel that they will not be treated on an equal footing as other members, and as people are paying for the community that is unacceptable. Every member ought to feel that if they approach an administrator, or become involved in some kind of dispute with another member, or have a problem with their account, that they will be treated fairly. If the administrators openly make comments that demonstrate a dislike for some individuals the members can't feel that assurance.
It is not acceptable for the administrators to block people from their profiles and to stop them being able to communicate with them, and it is not acceptable to ignore members of your site because you disagree with them or do not like them. Every member should have full access to the administrative staff and should be treated equally. Choosing to offer a diminished service to certain members based on personal tastes (especially if those members pay you) is very unprofessional.
As administrators or owners of this site and this business, when you interact with the members you are representing BC. Though you may be commenting under your personal username rather than as 'BC' the members of this site know that you are the owners/administrators and so if you behave in a way that demonstrates bias or favouritism it is damaging to the community and to the inegrity of your business. Even if your personal feelings are hurt, behaving impartially undermines you and drives people away from your business.
Obviously you get to set the rules, but if you want people to enjoy and fund your site you must operate with professionalism. If you want people to follow the rules then make the rules clear, because so many of the removed comments have broken no rule that anyone can find.
This is not a personal vendetta. This is not a personal attack. This is a sincere request to the administrators that they adhere to a basic level of professionalism so that we can all enjoy the community without having to worry that we will be censored or punished on a whim. If you think that you behave with impartiality then you need to write up some rules that account for the seemingly arbitrary moderation that has been going on. And if you do that it will save you quite a lot of time dealing with people who break rules they didn't know existed.
I have shown this letter to several members of BC and they have agreed with my assessment, so after you've banned me it would still be nice for you to take what I've said on board because they are not merely my opinions.
Epicharis
User Comments
-
The failure to make an attempt to remain unbiased and objective is really frustrating. I agree with this letter. (I read the rough draft.
) -
I think their business is their business. Any of us who don't enjoy the free service they provide are free to do "business" with another entity where the processes are more to our liking.-
But there are members who pay, so it's not really a 'free service'.
-
Not to them, anyway.
-
Yeah, that's what I meant. Obviously many of us don't pay, but at the very least, those who do should be entitled to a professional service.
-
That's a choice, too, isn't it?
-
MadameX--that's true--but I'll tell you something, businesses are hurt when they don't treat their clients/customers well. You get a bad reputation and sooner or later it will hurt you.
I think BC could take a page from my husband on running a company. He would absolutely *never* not respond to someone--even the smallest person on the planet. He'd give them the same ear as he gives bank presidents.
So, while it is well within their rights to ignore their customers--it might not be the best business practice. -
I think there are a lot of members who pay a subscription before experiencing BC, and they are owed an unbiased service. And as members can't cancel their subscriptions immediately and get a refund I think it's really unreasonable.
-
-
Epi, I honestly believe this is a great letter--very professionally and respectfully written. I think you have raised some very important points--points that deserve to have a response.
Personally, I am quite disappointed that you didn't get any kind of response from the admins of BC. I'd like to think this community is a place where members can ask the administrators questions about issues, such as this.
I think it is a real put down to you to simply close your ticket without responding to the valid points you raised. Communication is the key to any successful relationship--no matter what type it is. I am troubled by BC's lack of communication when you sent them such a thoughtful and respectful letter.
I agree with the letter also.-
Melinda, I think that you have to consider context. Maybe a "thoughtful and respectful" letter is less likely to be viewed as such when it comes on the heels of vulgar public name-calling by the same person. And maybe the whole flavor of "now that you've reinstated me despite my absolutely inexcusable behavior in your forums, let me tell you what you're doing wrong" isn't sitting all that well.
You have to admit that there's some irony to a letter requesting "a basic level of professionalism" from someone whose earlier communique involved language that my teenagers would consider immature and unacceptable. -
Well, Tiffany--I do understand what you are saying--BUT--the fact remains that all people, regardless of who they are can lose their temper as Epi did. She admitted she was wrong in calling them names--and I believe she said that.
I could see not responding to a letter that was abusive--but you would think that the administrators would be interested in keeping the community harmonious and to that end, it would be better to not simply file a thoughtful letter such as this in the trash.
I'm not a businessperson--but my husband is the most outstanding businessman I have ever seen. He would *never* in a million years just throw a letter like this in the trash--regardless of who it came from.
But you DO have a point that they are well within their rights. I don't think they are making the smartest decision here. I disagree with not communicating. -
@ MadameX
Did you witness the behaviour that got me suspended? I really doubt it, and so you've only heard reports out of context. The whole thing started with me making these observations. The admins deleted these comments (made in a very reasonable and polite way) and so I got angry. -
Yes--that's very true. It was definitely an escalation that could have been stopped had the valid questions been addressed at the time.
-
Epi, in my mind the context is irrelevant--there exists no appropriate context for that kind of name calling. You are correct that I didn't observe what came before, and it's quite possible that I'd have agreed with your point at that stage. Melinda also raises a good point regarding good business decisions, and it's entirely possible that this isn't the best one from a purely business standpoint. But I know that I personally would not choose to engage with a person who had spoken to me like that ever again, so the lack of response seems quite reasonable to me. I think it's both reasonable and healthy to reach a point at which you simply say "This is not the kind of person I wish to interact with." That line probably falls in very different places for different people, and some don't have it at all. I certainly don't pretend to know where Tony's line is. All I'm saying is that IF someone has made the decision that once someone publicly calls them vulgar names, they're going to cease to interact with that person, I think that's a reasonable decision.
-
They are not private individuals who have decided not to be my friends, they are the owners of a business who have decided to operate with bias. That is quite a different situation.
Please also consider that we swear more in the UK than you seem to in the US, so what you consider immature and unacceptable is quite normal here. -
Well, Tiffany--it could be. But I also sent Tony and Angie a letter--the original last week that started all the hoop-la. I was very put off that they didn't email me back. That they chose to make it a public discussion. Had they emailed me back, I doubt all of what followed would have happened.
I actually see a trend in noncommunication here. And I personally don't think that is a very smart business practice. The online community is a small one in some ways. Reputations/businesses can be killed by noncommunication. -
It's indeed very professionally written! Nicely done Epi!
And I fully agree with it! And if you run a business it's only fair if you respond to serious matter. And you addressed them very professionally! I mean I think it's normal that you would try to solve a problem by ignoring it, well this just adds more fuel to the fire. -
Okay, I'm giving the cultural difference some thought, though it's hard to weigh because I don't have the experience/context. In my world, anyone beyond college-age who talks to others like that has pretty much told me everything I'll ever need to know about him/her.
I think it's important to separate out what's "right" and what's "good business". I think one of the things that is bothering me about this discussion is that they seem to be getting blurred together, and "good business" and "fair" or whatever other form of that notion people are tossing out aren't necessarily related.
I agree that it's probably not good business to ignore customer complaints, at least in most cases. I think there are exceptions to that, and that opinions may differ on whether or not this situation would constitute such an exception.
More to the point, though, is that the admins here don't have any OBLIGATION beyond what they've promised in the Terms & Conditions here and what's required by law. If they make bad business decisions, presumably they'll see fallout from that, and it may or may not influence how they decide to act/react in the future. But that's a separate issue entirely from "should", "have to", "fair", "right", etc. etc. etc. So far as those things go--they're private people operating a private company, and it's their call. -
In this situation I do believe that the fair and proper thing to do is also what is best in business-terms. They have already lost financial support from some members because of this behaviour.
-
-
- I have not previously read this letter or any draft of it. I agree with the contents 100%. I cannot enter this discussion right now as I'm working but I will return later.
-
I agree wholeheartedly. -
Although I fully agree that one of blogcatalog's greatests shortcomings is it's shoddy forum moderation I feel it is important to put into context the benefits of being a blogcatalog member...
Sometimes comments or threads are deleted unfairly but given the gazillion comments and threads blogcatalog contains this should not be a major issue...
In my opinion blogcatalog should join the modern era of officiating and provide NFL style professional officiating vs. their status quo Vince Mcmahon nostalgic wrestling/rollerderby style of officiating...-
You used a lot of references I don't remotely understand there...
-
@epicharis
"You used a lot of references I don't remotely understand there..."
In simple terms in my opinion many times the officiating on the bc forums is unfairly biased although at times somewhat humorous...
-
-
I support the letter also. -
I think the letter is excellent. I agree.
I haven't really noticed very much of any biased comments myself (I barely know who the admins are yet), but I have been a bit puzzled about some things getting deleted quite quickly while other (possibly worse) comments have been left alone.
In my opinion the rules are *not* as clear as they could be. Obviously, specifically what the rules are is up to the admins, but I think it would be a good idea to clarify the rules so that there is no doubt about what is and isn't allowed. Then we can all just adhere to them happily ever after or have our threads or comments removed, happily knowing exactly why.-
Yes, that's precisely what I want.
-
well put, RH
-
-
I look upon my participation in BC as a free and wonderful gift I have done absolutely nothing to deserve. I'm thankful for this gift. So I don't support the letter.-
Many of us (including me) financially support this community--and it is partially through our support that this community exists. The administrators benefit from our financial support. And others (such as you NP) benefit from our financial contributions.
I donated money to BC unconditionally--but at the same time, I am troubled by the lack of communication here. I'm not saying BC "owes" me communication but I definitely see it as a common courtesy. -
Melinda-I respect your actions and have no quarrel with them. Obviously, my situation is different and so I have a different response.
-
Free doesn't mean one should forgo quality of promised service as stated. If we are expected to abide by TOS, then isn't it important that for this site to run smoothly the TOS rules should be clear and applied evenly?
-
Absolutely, NP--and I respect your opinion. I was just explaining that for some of us, it is not a free service. Not that they are charging--but we donated so the community would thrive.
-
-
Administering discussion forums has been one of the biggest challenges facing online service providers all the way back to the dark ages on Compu$erve. That old service was able to recruit lawyers, published authors and other successful professional people to donate their time as "sysops" who managed and maintained the forums and responded to user inquiries and concerns by waiving for those sysops the $8--$12/hour that other participants paid to be online in those days.
I know that at one time Tony did hold discussions and consider hiring an additional staff member to monitor the boards. I do not know why he chose not to, though I suspect that paying an additional staff member would turn the business model from profitable to not profitable. Please keep in mind that the FOUR members of the BC team each have many other duties and responsibilites beyond maintaining these boards and replying to user questions and concerns. I honestly can not hold the owners of BC at fautl for not paying someone to handle the forums, as no other online business that I know of has Ever had forums like these administered other than on a volunteer basis.
I do appreciate and sympathize with the issues that epi and melinda have raised. But in the end I have to agree with Tiffany that it is the owner's decision how to run their business and none of us on this forum has any right to say. I also re-iterate what I said before. If you walked into a small store or restaurant and called the owner a "prick" you should not expect ever to be served there again. Imho, Tony and Angie have been MORE than gracious in allowing epi to return to the boards and imho that should be enough. And fwiw, Angie still returns my msgs. I don't feel as though the mgmt is ignoring me, though I have been a member for a long time now and it does take time and effort to develop relationships.-
They do pay someone to do it. Jaybetee does that. The point is that people pay them for this service, yes they don't have to, but people are paying for this.
The idea that I just turned up at BC and called the admins 'pricks' is not an accurate representation of what happened at all. And it is not the point. I was making these complaints before I was suspended, and they are the very reason I lost my temper.
-
-
The letter is well-written, and I think the administrators would appreciate hearing the feedback. They may take a long time to respond, though, which could be an auspicious sign if that means they are thinking about the content.
The level of thought needed to write such a letter in the first place is indicative of pride and concern in BC. -
besides my non offensive thread getting deleted, i am happy with BC. but i still support you Epi because this is a community and we all deserve happiness here. -
We responded to you in your shoutbox. You used vulgar language numerous times in the discussions directed at the admins and for that reason your threads were removed.
Add Your Comment
This discussion has been locked.
