SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Respectfully, Sister Milkshake, what you expect and what I expect are two completely different things. If I feel as though I've been cast in an unfairly negative light when I've broken no "formal" codes of conduct, I fully expect an apology. If my expectations for fair and respectful treatment put me at risk of "being banned," then I have to assume that I am NOT in a safe place. I'd like to think that's not the case here.

After all, many of us are here due to the fact that we've been treated unfairly - even unjustly portrayed as villains - and are trying to develop better skills in order to no longer be relegated to the role of victim. To me, the course of action you're suggesting is tantamount to accepting the unfair treatment of a WS just so said WS doesn't change the locks on the doors while I'm out. It's tantamount to saying, "thanks for letting me stay despite the harsh treatment you've impressed upon me." I now know why this bothered me so much - it is coming across to me as a double standard that's causing me to trigger.

Respectfully, Sister Milkshake, what you expect and what I expect are two completely different things. If I feel as though I've been cast in an unfairly negative light when I've broken no "formal" codes of conduct, I fully expect an apology. If my expectations for fair and respectful treatment put me at risk of "being banned," then I have to assume that I am NOT in a safe place. I'd like to think that's not the case here.

Well said, anewday, and I completely agree! If it isn't a formal rule, why word the reaction from staff so harshly?

It's important to remember that things do happen behind the scenes, and when we receive complaints from multiple members we take action.

As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact one of us.

It's important to remember that things do happen behind the scenes, and when we receive complaints from multiple members we take action.

I have no doubt there was plenty happening behind the scenes. I can only comment on what was made public. Again, the action taken (locking the thread) is not what is bothersome here. It seems that an "unofficial wrong" was attempted to be made right by locking the thread; however, the final comment that was made public in that thread, as benign as I'm sure it was intended, and even some of the justifications/defenses of it in this thread easily create a greater wrong by making a whole lot of assumptions on the character and motives of the OP.

it appears you've choosen to ignore your thread and those that took the time to reply.

The definition of "ignore" is to disregard on purpose. To suggest publicly that she was "choosing to ignore" the other posters who took the time to respond was an unfair assumption and CAN definitely be perceived as an attack on ones character. I do not think it would be an unfair assumption to say that she clearly felt the need to defend her character by starting this thread and clarifying that it was certainly not her intention to ignore her fellow posters. This is why a simple "the mods have decided to lock this thread due to concerns expressed to them by a number of posters. If anybody has any questions or concerns please feel free to PM one of the mods" would have sufficed.

[This message edited by anewday78 at 2:20 PM, October 6th (Sunday)]

It was a 7 page thread on a volatile topic. That makes it 'high profile' enough to merit attention from mods with that many participants; the OP had left the thread with direct questions unanswered and the discussion wandering into a place of No You replies to one another.

I've been on the Interwebs since I had to set up a 1200 baud screamer to download a 20 meg game over the course of 48 hours, been in a lot of communities, and there was absolutely nothing strange about the closing of that thread. In fact, the mods have been pretty understanding and patient about #10 of the guidelines, considering most forums would just lock this kind of thing too.

I thought the other thread had moved on, and people were having interesting exchanges, but some people couldn't seem to let go of their own need to hold my feet to the fire.

I was sorry to see that thread cut short, as others seemed to be contributing and interesting, intelligent posts were still being added there.

even some of the justifications/defenses of it in this thread easily create a greater wrong by making a whole lot of assumptions on the character and motives of the OP.

Right?

I am at a loss as to what I can even say on this thread without opening a whole nother can-o-whop ass. meh.

[This message edited by Safeguard at 2:29 PM, October 6th (Sunday)]

Please show respect for others

Very first line in the guidelines. Ignoring someone's question isn't respectful.

Excuse me, anewday78, but I have to make the more valid assumption that Safeguard purposefully ignored DS's question.

As I stated she was having a conversation with redrock. Redrock posted at 7:57 PM in response to Safeguard. I can assume she looked for the response of redrock. DS posted at 8:01 PM. I feel it is the more valid assumption to assume Safeguard saw DS's question and chose to ignore it. imo

Are you saying you didn't see DS's question, Safeguard?

Here's hoping I don't get reprimanded, but SMS, I've seen questions go answered in threads many times since I've been here. I simply assume the person being addressed chose not to answer or not to answer publicly, but they didn't called out by a mod or admin for not answering, and the thread wasn't closed.

The thread in question was closed b/c it was a volatile topic and that is fine, the question is; why the need to publicly call out safeguard instead of word it the way anewday suggested. It's also uncomfortable that the mod/admin can publicly slap a members hand for breaking a non-rule and then tell everybody to question THEM privately.

[This message edited by Kierst13 at 2:38 PM, October 6th (Sunday)]

What don't you all understand what Wifehad5 posted? They don't have to explain everything to all the members. I don't even feel it was harsh what they said. They were simply explaining why they were closing the thread.

It is quite common to close threads that the OP doesn't come back to after a couple of days and a couple of more pages are added.

In fact, the mods have been pretty understanding and patient about #10 of the guidelines, considering most forums would just lock this kind of thing too.

I agree with StillGoing, and frankly feel many of you are over reacting.

It's uncomfortable eh? Can I explain one of the many reasons we ask that you send us a PM? We have lives. We don't want to babysit a thread on a Sunday where members are going to argue and misconstrue what we say.

I was supposed to be cleaning my garage today, and installing the parts that arrived for the car I need to put in storage for the winter soon. Instead, I was here reading this thread and discussing with the others how to best handle this.

I will say this one more time as gently as possible. Read the Guidelines. As number 10 (which has been in place for many years) says, if you have a question regarding a staff action bring it to our attention by using the Private Message feature. Do not question staff actions on the public forums.

Other than that, I'm going to work on my car. PM me if you want to help me clean the garage.

PM sent.

You know, SisterMilkshake,

It's often said, that when someone says/does something, that upsets and angers, to the point that my posts seem to do you, it's often a reflection of something about yourself that you might need to examine.

So let me ask you, as you have repeatedly asked me:

Are you in IC?

Is it SI non-rule rule, that I am accountable to you personally, for my responses,

or lack thereof, to others, or do you just want to use DS to start shit?

Okay, I just edited this post because I'm not going to perpetuate an argument. Any issues I have with this debacle will be discussed in private from this point forward.

[This message edited by anewday78 at 2:57 PM, October 6th (Sunday)]

PM answered

Is it SI non-rule rule, that I am accountable to you personally, for my responses,

or lack thereof, to others, or do you just want to use DS to start shit?

Safeguard,

DS asked you a question which you ignored. That was the end of her involvement. You would do well to stop trying to make her the bad guy here. She did not flag or lock that thread.

So let me ask you, as you have repeatedly asked me:

Are you in IC?

To answer your question, I have been to IC. Many times. I find it quite helpful. I go as needed.

Now, let me ask you a question. Please point out where I repeatedly asked you if you were in IC? Also, why would you feel that is an inappropriate question to ask you, if that is what you do feel?

Is it SI non-rule rule, that I am accountable to you personally, for my responses, or lack thereof, to others, or do you just want to use DS to start shit?

Hhhmmmm, I am the one "starting shit"? I didn't start this thread or the other one. No one said you were personally accountable to me. I don't understand your point at all.

And, once again, you didn't answer my question.

eta: removed an extra "that"

[This message edited by SisterMilkshake at 3:11 PM, October 6th (Sunday)]

This is the LAST time I am going to say if you have a problem with staff action to pm staff.

It is completely unfair to continue to attack us for a decision we made as a team with all the information in front of us, when we can't present that information. That would result in further ridicule. We have asked that you pm us for clarification. I am sure Safeguard wouldn't want it all laid out here. We aren't going to discuss her staff actions publically or privately unless its with her. However please note she has not given us the courtesy of a pm as she would rather this play out on the board.

We run the site according to the guidelines, we don't make any decision without input from others and we are a team.

Anyone who doesn't want to pm one of us to clarify is welcome to find somewhere else that they feel is more suitably run.

We have children, lives, laundry, groceries, family, homework, chores, worries and struggles of our own. We've sat on our hands all damn day trying to bring this thread back to a place that isn't detracting from the real reason people are here. For help and support.

Enough.

Is it SI non-rule rule, that I am accountable to you personally, for my responses,

or lack thereof, to others, or do you just want to use DS to start shit?

Why did you bother to post it to a thread open for replies to everyone if you didn't want to get replies from people? If you didn't want to be 'accountable' to anybody with the ability to reply then why not just send a PM in the first place?

I don't understand your motives for this at all.

@metamorphisis, You have been heard and understood. I do not want this topic to degenerate any further. Following anewday's wise lead:

I'm not going to perpetuate an argument. Any issues I have with this debacle will be discussed in private from this point forward.

I will pm if I have any further forum etiquette, questions.