Ruth's Friendship Fellowship-everyone welcome-come on in! Part 3

[Romanos]

Good afternoon.

 

[MarkFL]

Good afternoon.

Howdy! Gorgeous sunny day here too!

 

[Lamb]

Humid day here. Did anyone get bad storms? They stayed south of us.

 

[psalms 91]

No we are supposed to get storms tomorrow

 

[Rens]

I try to get someone over here who got banned for no reason on christian chat forums. So many people that leave those forums or get banned. They even banned a female pastor who's really nice. Maybe I can advertise there for this place LOL.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes please do Messy

 

[MarkFL]

I try to get someone over here who got banned for no reason on christian chat forums. So many people that leave those forums or get banned. They even banned a female pastor who's really nice. Maybe I can advertise there for this place LOL.

Please be careful posting links to competing sites...not only can it give the site for whom you are "advertising" a spam rep, if a user posts a link to a competing math help site on my site without my explicit approval beforehand, I typically wield the spam ban hammer because I don't feel my site should be used as a means for advertising my competitors. I may allow such links if I am asked about it first, and the other user agrees to post a link to my site on theirs.

 

[Rens]

Please be careful posting links to competing sites...not only can it give the site for whom you are "advertising" a spam rep, if a user posts a link to a competing math help site on my site without my explicit approval beforehand, I typically wield the spam ban hammer because I don't feel my site should be used as a means for advertising my competitors. I may allow such links if I am asked about it first, and the other user agrees to post a link to my site on theirs.

Oh a spam rep. Thanks for the warning. Then I won't do it. If they would only ban me for it I wouldn't care.

 

[MarkFL]

Oh a spam rep. Thanks for the warning. Then I won't do it. If they would only ban me for it I wouldn't care.

If you ask the admin(s) at the other site about it first you should be fine. And when I said I would wield the spam ban hammer, I really meant for a new user...if a user I knew to be a contributing member of my site did so, I wouldn't ban them, I would simply advise them they need to get permission first before posting links to other sites for the express purpose of getting views. I also ask my users to go through proper channels if they are going to post links to my site elsewhere.

 

[psalms 91]

What I did at CF was I pm'ed people and included the link, and invited them over, that is not against the ruiles

 

[MarkFL]

What I did at CF was I pm'ed people and included the link, and invited them over, that is not against the ruiles

Yes, that's more discrete and doesn't place a link in plain view. I have done the same with trusted friends at other sites as well.

 

[Lamb]

What I did at CF was I pm'ed people and included the link, and invited them over, that is not against the ruiles

Well, actually I was told that it was (advertising they say but their rules used to say for a product or service, we provide neither) which it's not when you merely tell people where you're going to be instead of there

 

[Rens]

Well, actually I was told that it was (advertising they say but their rules used to say for a product or service, we provide neither) which it's not when you merely tell people where you're going to be instead of there

Yes I did that once on christian chat forums when they banned someone and I made a thread with 'one does not simply ban ....'
They didn't listen, but they let me make it and I just posted that in case he read it that he could always talk to me here with a link. The mods didn't mind.

 

[Rens]

LOL they banned me already for indefinite time. I didn't even post a link. The guy they banned asked me to ask them a question, so I did.

ask why do they talk about mercy and forgiveness, yet they don't show it to certain ppl, they just ban them, never give opportunity to them for forgiving, the site never answers honest requests for second chances, and some of the members just go on like everythings peachy, but all they do is TALK about mercy and forgiveness, they don't actually give it.

Tsss, I used to be on a Dutch forum. If they dared to ban someone who was nice and posted there much, everyone would just say: hey mod, what is this? There was a special thread for it. You can't just do that mod and he had to explain page after page. Also they never just banned someone, first a warning, explaining it to the rest, then a ban for a week. Guess they never heard of the Dutch poldermodel on American sites hahahahahahaha.

 

[MarkFL]

In my opinion banning should always be a last resort, with a couple of exceptions...blatant spam on the first post, threats of violence made to other members, posting porn (when that is explicitly not allowed), etc. And once the administration of a site is forced to use this option, a conscientiously run site will not have done so on a whim, but only after careful consideration and lengthy discussion among all the moderators/administrators. In some cases it may do more harm than good to publicly explain the details to the membership as a whole, as certain details simply need not be made public.

If I or a member of my staff is forced to ban an established user for repeated/habitual behavioral offenses, I will be irritated if another user openly questions me or a member of my staff about it (but I would not ban them, unless they repeatedly publicly posted about it after being asked to refrain from doing so). However, if I am asked privately about it, I will graciously answer the question, revealing only what it think isn't harmful to anyone involved, but I will try my best to be gracious and make sure anyone who has concerns knows it was not done on a whim, and was done because it was felt by the staff as a whole to be the best course of action. If enough people ask about it, I would consider posting an announcement to let everyone know that it was done only after due consideration, after many chances for the offending user to modify their behavior and as a last resort only.

I think if a site's staff maintains diplomacy and consistent moderating, and has well-defined guidelines for what is allowed and what is not, this kind of thing will be minimized. This conscientious moderating is the kind of thing you see going on here at CH...the moderating staff is a team, rather than a bunch of loose cannons going off at will like you see on so many other sites. Being a moderator is oftentimes largely a thankless job that can be unsavory at times. Moderating privileges should never be used as a means of getting the upper hand in a personal disagreement.

 

[tango]

In my opinion banning should always be a last resort, with a couple of exceptions...blatant spam on the first post, threats of violence made to other members, posting porn (when that is explicitly not allowed), etc. And once the administration of a site is forced to use this option, a conscientiously run site will not have done so on a whim, but only after careful consideration and lengthy discussion among all the moderators/administrators. In some cases it may do more harm than good to publicly explain the details to the membership as a whole, as certain details simply need not be made public.

If I or a member of my staff is forced to ban an established user for repeated/habitual behavioral offenses, I will be irritated if another user openly questions me or a member of my staff about it (but I would not ban them, unless they repeatedly publicly posted about it after being asked to refrain from doing so). However, if I am asked privately about it, I will graciously answer the question, revealing only what it think isn't harmful to anyone involved, but I will try my best to be gracious and make sure anyone who has concerns knows it was not done on a whim, and was done because it was felt by the staff as a whole to be the best course of action. If enough people ask about it, I would consider posting an announcement to let everyone know that it was done only after due consideration, after many chances for the offending user to modify their behavior and as a last resort only.

I think if a site's staff maintains diplomacy and consistent moderating, and has well-defined guidelines for what is allowed and what is not, this kind of thing will be minimized. This conscientious moderating is the kind of thing you see going on here at CH...the moderating staff is a team, rather than a bunch of loose cannons going off at will like you see on so many other sites. Being a moderator is oftentimes largely a thankless job that can be unsavory at times. Moderating privileges should never be used as a means of getting the upper hand in a personal disagreement.

Can't argue with that.

On another Christian site I used to be a mod/admin on we'd wield the ban hammer instantly in a few cases (spam, porn etc) but on the few occasions we had to ban a real person, even one who hadn't been a member for very long, I regarded it as a failure because nothing else had worked.

 

[Tom85]

Hi can I just post in the game forum?

 

[MarkFL]

Hi can I just post in the game forum?

We don't have a game forum...there is an arcade, but as far as I know we don't have a forum for posting about it.

 

[Romanos]

We don't have a game forum...there is an arcade, but as far as I know we don't have a forum for posting about it.

I think he means about the Fun and Games forum. http://www.christianityhaven.com/forumdisplay.php?31-Fun-amp-Games

How is everyone this evening/night?

 

[MarkFL]

I think he means about the Fun and Games forum. http://www.christianityhaven.com/forumdisplay.php?31-Fun-amp-Games

How is everyone this evening/night?

I bet you're right.

I'm doing well, sir...and you? eace: