FREDDIESDOUBLE Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I was just about to comment on that myself. I agree. I don't like the concept of discussions taking place "in the shadows" and us being left to "trust" the "unified front". Not in this case nor in the case of Kata nor Yop nor Cynthia (in fact Kata has posted several times today stating that she still hasn't been given an explanation). It goes back to the issue of transparency: we'd like information (i.e. an explanation) and we'd like it as soon as a ban is instated not a day later or weeks later, please. Agree to some point But if you read up in Pinks case Wendi didnt want the MFC to know .. only the mods .. that held me back from explaining and therefore I had to make a decision As stated its upto me to make it a "safe" place amongst other things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niki27 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I was just about to comment on that myself. I agree. I don't like the concept of discussions taking place "in the shadows" and us being left to "trust" the "unified front". Not in this case nor in the case of Kata nor Yop nor Cynthia (in fact Kata has posted several times today stating that she still hasn't been given an explanation). It goes back to the issue of transparency: we'd like information (i.e. an explanation) and we'd like it as soon as a ban is instated not a day later or weeks later, please. I'm chatting to Kata right now via PMs. She knows why I didn't contact her before. It's now up to her to share what I said with you or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phunkygal Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 *hugs FD until he cant breath* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mika4Life13 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 *hugs FD until he cant breath* *looks aat the blue FD and calls the paramedics* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandilambi Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I wanted to post a PM here - that I sent to Diana and Fred regarding the 660 lollies and candles. I will post the following for the moment until I can get my PM!! It was Pink and Tomomi who were responsible - Pink did the buying and sending - whilst Tomomi just knew what was going on. I did not put there names in the thread as I didnt want any nasty PM's heading their way. It was a joke - and when Pink realised that others in the forum had received nasty things anonymously in the past she informed me straight away. I said in my PM that as far as I was concerned it was a joke - and was now over, and I didn't want any consequences because of it. If this was the reason she was banned then I find it unfair as it was not at my request, and if you read my posts on that thread none of them were ranting or angry. She had the decency to own up, and apologise to both myself, and my daughters - where she could have just not said anything and stopped sending the things, then I would have had no idea who was sending them, and been left wondering!! So she sent you the packages as a joke? Honestly, that really strikes me as a childish thing to do and not very funny at all. I'd like to think that all of us on the MFC would be responsible when we are given other people's addresses. Then again, I guess some of us can't do that, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scut Monkey Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I'm chatting to Kata right now via PMs. She knows why I didn't contact her before. It's now up to her to share what I said with you or not. Good, I just wanted that matter to be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greta Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I was just about to comment on that myself. I agree. I don't like the concept of discussions taking place "in the shadows" and us being left to "trust" the "unified front". Not in this case nor in the case of Kata nor Yop nor Cynthia (in fact Kata has posted several times today stating that she still hasn't been given an explanation). It goes back to the issue of transparency: we'd like information (i.e. an explanation) and we'd like it as soon as a ban is instated not a day later or weeks later, please. well said..I don't remember the html for underline TRANSPARENCY I still use an IP anonymizer..but it's not so funny to use, please let me know if I can "trust" you or I'll be tracked and banned as soon I log in normally {sarcastic tone} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FREDDIESDOUBLE Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 So she sent you the packages? Honestly, that really strikes me as a childish thing to do and not very funny at all. I'd like to think that all of us on the MFC would be responsible when we are given other people's addresses. Then again, I guess some of us can't do that, eh? Now you see why I do things <takes all the hugs> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mika4Life13 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Mandi, they're also really really good friends, and it was lollipops... I see your point and I was concerned too not knowing it was Ponk that sent them, but it's relieving knowing it wasnt someone that would actually do harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scut Monkey Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Agree to some point But if you read up in Pinks case Wendi didnt want the MFC to know .. only the mods .. that held me back from explaining and therefore I had to make a decision As stated its upto me to make it a "safe" place amongst other things I understand that you may not have wanted to post it publicly without Wendi's permission, that's fine, but you could have informed Pink at least since it concerns her - you owed her an explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greta Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Agree to some point But if you read up in Pinks case Wendi didnt want the MFC to know .. only the mods .. that held me back from explaining and therefore I had to make a decision As stated its upto me to make it a "safe" place amongst other things how do you call this, "dictatorship" in charge of "security"? what dangers would've happened if you didn't ban Pink? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandilambi Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Mandi, they're also really really good friends, and it was lollipops... I see your point and I was concerned too not knowing it was Ponk that sent them, but it's relieving knowing it wasnt someone that would actually do harm. Well, yes, I think all of us are relieved. I'm just failing to see how that could be humorous at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niki27 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 well said..I don't remember the html for underline TRANSPARENCY I still use an IP anonymizer..but it's not so funny to use, please let me know if I can "trust" you or I'll be tracked and banned as soon I log in normally {sarcastic tone} Transparency... Ok. Message understood. Now, we can be transparent, we'd love to be transparent, we'd love to come here and post we did this because 1-2-3. But then comes the question of privacy that you, Greta, so defended in the last few days. Fictional situation: User X complaints to us about user Y but wants to stay anonymous. We consider X has valid grounds to complain and we warn user Y. User Y then says, tell me WHY, WHO, WHAT FOR? We're stuck... You want us to be 100% transparent? Fair enough. But then you all have to agree to be 100% transparent too... I'm telling you this so that you realize it's not THAT easy... unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mika4Life13 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Well, yes, I think all of us are relieved. I'm just failing to see how that could be humorous at all. Yeah :/ I don't know ... maybe to them it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandilambi Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Yeah :/ I don't know ... maybe to them it was? I suppose. That just seems like taking advantage of people to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FREDDIESDOUBLE Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I understand that you may not have wanted to post it publicly without Wendi's permission, that's fine, but you could have informed Pink at least since it concerns her - you owed her an explanation. She didnt realise why and thought it was for no reason .. ok point take The reason for banning should of been more clear how do you call this, "dictatorship" in charge of "security"? what dangers would've happened if you didn't ban Pink? Is your post corrupted?? Anyways ... pink has addresses , pink send things to an MFC member , MFC member is upset , MFC membr posts thread , MANY people are upset , Pink is in that thread positively joking about it all .. teasing .. mmmmmm what else "can" happen As I said after 2 bans this was the final for me .... We all have different opinion , the final call has to go to someone .. I still 100% believe it was the right thing to do , but I also can back down <Im nice like that> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scut Monkey Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Transparency...Ok. Message understood. Now, we can be transparent, we'd love to be transparent, we'd love to come here and post we did this because 1-2-3. But then comes the question of privacy that you, Greta, so defended in the last few days. Fictional situation: User X complaints to us about user Y but wants to stay anonymous. We consider X has valid grounds to complain and we warn user Y. User Y then says, tell me WHY, WHO, WHAT FOR? We're stuck... You want us to be 100% transparent? Fair enough. But then you all have to agree to be 100% transparent too... They never asked for "who" merely "what": what posts or messages did they make to merit a ban. And we don't need you to tell the whole world in every single case: tell the people who were banned in the very least. Kata, Yop, Cynthia, Pink were all left wondering why they were banned; they, the ones banned, deserved a full and prompt explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah_loves_mika Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Yes difficult to make that call .. the fact that pink had been banned 2 times before made me think this was the final straw and deserved a permeant ban ... The last last resort is to ban someone , I can see that pink is a well liked members and does a LOT of great threads ... As I said , people may look and go FREDDIE WHY!! , but end of the day its my responsibility to make the MFC a safe and happy place (overall) To be fair Wendi didnt want it , but for it was a ban definate Anyways .... I actually quit Mika Mail because of the whole freaky packages thing. Its made me kind of angry that i told her that i was quitting because i was concerned over who had my address seeing as i was a youngling, and she completely played along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mika4Life13 Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 She didnt realise why and thought it was for no reason .. ok point take The reason for banning should of been more clear Is your post corrupted?? Anyways ... pink has addresses , pink send things to an MFC member , MFC member is upset , MFC membr posts thread , MANY people are upset , Pink is in that thread positively joking about it all .. teasing .. mmmmmm what else "can" happen As I said after 2 bans this was the final for me .... We all have different opinion , the final call has to go to someone .. I still 100% believe it was the right thing to do , but I also can back down <Im nice like that>:biggrin2: It's wonderful you can admit your mistakes...I know it's hard for me too. "You spilled the wine!" "I did NOT!" *ten years later* "Yeah it was me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scut Monkey Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 how do you call this, "dictatorship" in charge of "security"? what dangers would've happened if you didn't ban Pink? pink has addresses , pink send things to an MFC member , MFC member is upset , MFC membr posts thread , MANY people are upset , Pink is in that thread positively joking about it all .. teasing .. mmmmmm what else "can" happen As I said after 2 bans this was the final for me .... I think what Greta was trying to ask is what immediate security "dangers" did you prevent by banning Pink, not whether there were any other courses of action for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greta Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Transparency...Ok. Message understood. Now, we can be transparent, we'd love to be transparent, we'd love to come here and post we did this because 1-2-3. But then comes the question of privacy that you, Greta, so defended in the last few days. Fictional situation: User X complaints to us about user Y but wants to stay anonymous. We consider X has valid grounds to complain and we warn user Y. User Y then says, tell me WHY, WHO, WHAT FOR? We're stuck... You want us to be 100% transparent? Fair enough. But then you all have to agree to be 100% transparent too... I'm telling you this so that you realize it's not THAT easy... unfortunately transparency= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28humanities%29 {quite long explanation of this derived from politics term} bried dictionary version: The full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information I understand that communications have to be bilateral, and you? I've nothing to protect if we agree to be fair eachother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FREDDIESDOUBLE Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I actually quit Mika Mail because of the whole freaky packages thing. Its made me kind of angry that i told her that i was quitting because i was concerned over who had my address seeing as i was a youngling, and she completely played along with it. Hence the overall MFC security thing That was ALL based on trust , many threads involve taking peoples addresses , now we all may look on that as totaly innocent or we can look at that in a more sinister way .... I think it was a joke , but if she had said straight away in that thread instead of teasing us all I would have had more respect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FREDDIESDOUBLE Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I think what Greta was trying to ask is what immediate security "dangers" did you prevent by banning Pink, not whether there were any other courses of action for you. I wasnt banning for security , I was banning for MFC conduct ..... started off by a security issue Whether we like it or not it was very poor MFC conduct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greta Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 about the 100% transparency, I perfectly agee sorry I'm not good at english so I'm not gonna rewrite this concept with my own wrong words Radical transparency is much more transparent than accountability. It requires decision making to be transparent right from the beginning of the decision making process, while accountability is a process of verifying the quality of decisions or actions after they have been taken. This difference implies that while accountability generally implements some sort of punishment mechanism against individuals or institutions judged to have taken poor quality decisions or actions, after those decisions have been taken or actions carried out, radical transparency encourages corrections and improvements to decisions to be made long before poor quality decisions have the chance to be enacted. Hence, radical transparency potentially helps avoid the need for punishment mechanisms. The potential of radical transparency to allow corrections and improvements to decision making is likely to be higher when the decision making method is either a consensus decision making method or a democratic decision making method. However, even when the decision making method is authoritarian (unilateral), radical transparency may still encourage the decision maker to make better decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah_loves_mika Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Hence the overall MFC security thing That was ALL based on trust , many threads involve taking peoples addresses , now we all may look on that as totaly innocent or we can look at that in a more sinister way .... I think it was a joke , but if she had said straight away in that thread instead of teasing us all I would have had more respect It feels like i can't trust anybody lately. Its like you said, its a harmless joke - what turned it sour was the way that she completely played along with it in the 660 thread. Ughh. I dont even want to talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now