The Just Thought I'd Share Thread

[SisterNightroad]

I think there's some confusion among the members about how The Ledge works.
Like Louie has said this forum is owned by Michele and she pays and puts effort to keep running it for free, which in my opinion makes her a saint because I wouldn't do it even if I was payed for it. So, like all forums, this is a private space like it would be at all intents and purposes Michele's house or whatever other property. We moderators help her keeping it in order, for example removing fake profiles, spam posts or outrageously insulting posts. Sometimes if someone has collected more of the above infractions or has committed a particularly big one they may get suspended or banned; these decisions are discussed together.

To me it's obvious that the measures regard the single person alone, so they're not publicized for all the ledgies to see, this is not a courthouse and there's no need to hold people up for ridicule or otherwise involve other members that aren't aware of all the infractions the person in question may have committed.

Sometimes circumstances may arise in which "extraordinary measures" have to be applied. In fact, for example, in my early days as a ledgie I clearly remember discussions about Stevie's abortions rapidly escalated and that lead to a temporary block for, I think, two weeks. I also remember one of the oldest members saying that it wasn't the first time, and in fact a similar scenario repeated himself, even if without blocking, at least another time in my permanence here.

Now the problem is that while "overtly" political comments have been avoided, since I became a moderator I noticed many people have repeatedly poked the subject in not even a very subtle way (and I'm not talking about the criticism of the last days) which honestly feels like being jerked around. Adult behaviour and criticism aren't anything close to it.

The ban has never thought to be permanent, noone is backtracking, it's just me wrongly deciding that explaining its impermanence would have been a good decision, I thought people would have been relieved and it would have lifted the mood a bit. It seems I was wrong in believing that people would have handled the information maturely instead of jumping to conclusions on their own.
The initial idea was to restore the topic at some yet uncertain date after the elections; I was vague about it because the date is still to decide and also I don't make promises to anyone since it's a decision that doesn't rely on me alone and also if the infractions would continue it could be necessary to change plans. Next time, if you want to know I suggest that you simply ask, so we both can act and be treated like adults.

As it's been pointed out, the majority of other forums don't tolerate hot topic discussions. No one has talked of privileges but it is a bonus having a chit-chat section. Now that I'm more internet savy I was expecting the ban happening, and it doesn't have anything to do with my personal tolerance of political discussions, for example from what I understood Louie is even more tolerant than me on the topic. The ban itself in this perspective is indeed a warning.

I'd like to point out that while it may be true that there was a particularly problematic member, it would be wrong to shift all of the blame for what has happened onto him. It takes more than a single person to make a fight, maybe one is a troublemaker but he needs others that lead him on to make trouble.

Now sorry but I have to start getting fabulous for Halloween.