Blog Threads

[Wonderflonium]

The original thread bothered me, not because it was calling out the Dame, but because it was disrespectful.

Let's put it this way.  Suppose there was a thread by Poster Bob where Poster Bob expresses an opinion that Poster Jane disagrees with.  Poster Jane starts a new thread quoting the old thread and quoting Poster Bob's opinion that she didn't like, calling out Poster Bob by name.  That would be pretty disrespectful to Poster Bob.  Someone might even accuse Poster Jane of trying to stir up trouble.  Poster Jane's opinion is certainly as valid as Poster Bob's, but the way she went about expressing it was done disrespectfully.

It's not the same situation at all. In your scenario, it's possible to continue the conversation with Bob in that thread, and others are free to chime in. Frankly, the blog is not conducive to discussion. The comments are moderated so not all are posted, and those that are posted appear much, much later.

Either way, it seems more than a little unfair to lock a thread for breaking a rule that isn't written and to issue vague threats to people who support breaking the (non) rule.

In the Dame's OP, she says this:

There are people commenting in the blog who are banned from this forum and therefore cannot come here to defend their positions.   If blog topics have become a frequent source of commentary of the forum as has been brought to my attention, and particularly the comments people in the blog community have made, then I will have to rescind the forum policy to allow both communities to discuss each other's opinions.

Her main concern seems to be that people who can't comment on the blog can't defend themselves. The thing is, no one was talking about the comments on the blog EXCEPT those of the Dame. 1) Those comments are part of the public blog and therefore open for discussion and 2)she is quite well able to defend herself, so the argument doesn't hold.

In the end, the Dame doesn't owe us the real reason, but if she wants to keep traffic on her site, she'd do well to make a rule and publicize it.  If the rule is that forum posts are OK for the blog, that's fine, but I predict posts on this site will decline even further if that becomes the case.

[Moray]

So, Jeanne, are you making a rule against this?

[Aeris]

Anyway, apologies to EHellDame if I've misrepresented her here, but personally I don't want the structure of the forum messed with (much) and would be really annoyed if that happened because some people couldn't let things go. The correct response to "I don't like what you've done on my forum" should not be an argument, or if it is a quiet and private one because after all it IS EHellDame's forum and if she wants to make us all type our posts in pig latin that is within her rights. Our only vote really is to stay or to go.

A number of us must have completely misunderstood Ehelldame's posts in this thread then. I did not see a post that explicitly said "Here is the new rule, you have been warned". She seemed to be soliciting feedback from the EHell community members on the potential rules.

If the Dame does not want feedback, and merely wants to change the current rules about whether posts on the blog are allowed, or whether we are on notice that our posts may be fodder for the blog, I think everyone is in agreement that she's within her rights to do that. I would expect if that were the case, though, that she would explicit state what the changes to the rules are.

[Iris]

Anyway, apologies to EHellDame if I've misrepresented her here, but personally I don't want the structure of the forum messed with (much) and would be really annoyed if that happened because some people couldn't let things go. The correct response to "I don't like what you've done on my forum" should not be an argument, or if it is a quiet and private one because after all it IS EHellDame's forum and if she wants to make us all type our posts in pig latin that is within her rights. Our only vote really is to stay or to go.

A number of us must have completely misunderstood Ehelldame's posts in this thread then. I did not see a post that explicitly said "Here is the new rule, you have been warned". She seemed to be soliciting feedback from the EHell community members on the potential rules.

If the Dame does not want feedback, and merely wants to change the current rules about whether posts on the blog are allowed, or whether we are on notice that our posts may be fodder for the blog, I think everyone is in agreement that she's within her rights to do that. I would expect if that were the case, though, that she would explicit state what the changes to the rules are.

I agree, and I already gave my feedback in an earlier post. My second post was in response to posters who had gone (it seemed to me) off on a tangent, discussing what forum policy in the PAST had been and a few who were making (again, it seemed to me) snarky comments about a "Don't question the Dame" rule. Obviously I didn't explain that well.

[Wonderflonium]

a few who were making (again, it seemed to me) snarky comments about a "Don't question the Dame" rule.

Was that referring to me? Because it was really uncalled for.

[still in va]

a few who were making (again, it seemed to me) snarky comments about a "Don't question the Dame" rule.

Was that referring to me? Because it was really uncalled for.

i think it was actually, honestly, some people who think that the Dame should not be questioned, so i don't think this applies to you.

i know there are people who feel that way, and operate on that assumption.  but when that is followed to the nth degree and there is a problem, we get posts from the Dame wondering why no one asked her the question.  the Dame wants to be asked.  and she gets irritated when she isn't.  of course, she doesn't necessarily answer when one does ask, but i suppose she's busy.

[Ceallach]

I think the Dame should definitely be able to be questioned (and personally I haven't picked up the vibe that she shouldn't from any of the posts myself), but I think she should be shown extra respect because this *is* her website and forum.   As others have noted, the post in question was specifically disagreeing with the Admin response to the blog post.  I agree with the analogy that it's like starting a post about a different poster saying "I disagreed with what <x poster> said on that thread over there, what do you all think?".  When instead you should disagree with them where they have said it e.g. at the time and place, or to them directly.  Complaining that the locking of the original post is "unfair" just seems ludicrous to me - the mods have the say as to what is productive discussion on the forums, if somebody posts something that they feel is inappropriate or unproductive they have to make a call at the time regardless of whether it's an overt rule break or not. 

In this case the dame could have just made a ruling and told us how it was going to be, instead she has raised the topic and asked for our feedback.    Some people here seem to be reacting as though she has just laid down the law, which isn't the case.  There is no new "rule", there's a discussion as to what the rule should be so that there is clarity for everybody.   And hopefully will give us a nice clear outcome.

[Solanna Dryden]

In the Dame's OP, she says this:

There are people commenting in the blog who are banned from this forum and therefore cannot come here to defend their positions.   If blog topics have become a frequent source of commentary of the forum as has been brought to my attention, and particularly the comments people in the blog community have made, then I will have to rescind the forum policy to allow both communities to discuss each other's opinions.

Her main concern seems to be that people who can't comment on the blog can't defend themselves. The thing is, no one was talking about the comments on the blog EXCEPT those of the Dame. 1) Those comments are part of the public blog and therefore open for discussion and 2)she is quite well able to defend herself, so the argument doesn't hold.

That's the other thing that kind of bothers me about this. To my knowledge, the people in that thread *weren't* commenting on blog-commenters' comments, only EhellDame's. So I'm not sure why that's being presented as an argument, unless it's proactive, ie, she wants to set a precedent in case some future thread *does* devolve into dissecting commenters' comments. I do agree that that would be inappropriate.

In response to the argument that it's like going into EhellDame's house and discussing her behind her back, I both agree and disagree. I can understand how it might seem a little rude to discuss her opinions without her knowing it, but the way I see it is twofold:

1) EhellDame is acting as a "Dear Abby" type figure. We have no problem discussing Dear Abby columns. Furthermore, we aren't attacking EhellDame as a person. In fact, I did not see a single rude post in that thread. Having a dissenting opinion to someone is not rude, of course, as it has been stated many times on here, as long as you back up your own opinion in a mature, intelligent, respectful way.

2) EhellDame is not an "unknown" to the forum. What I mean by that is that she knows it's here. Unlike the OPs or some/all commenters, she knows that there is a community that will discuss things. Therefore, she is aware that something could be discussed here. She can see who is talking about what, and what they're saying about her.

Now, I know that EhellDame can't and won't read every single thread. That's impossible. Which is why I think someone's idea upthread for a separate folder, with some ground rules, for blog posts is an excellent one.

[still in va]

I think the Dame should definitely be able to be questioned (and personally I haven't picked up the vibe that she shouldn't from any of the posts myself), but I think she should be shown extra respect because this *is* her website and forum.  As others have noted, the post in question was specifically disagreeing with the Admin response to the blog post. I agree with the analogy that it's like starting a post about a different poster saying "I disagreed with what <x poster> said on that thread over there, what do you all think?".  When instead you should disagree with them where they have said it e.g. at the time and place, or to them directly.  Complaining that the locking of the original post is "unfair" just seems ludicrous to me - the mods have the say as to what is productive discussion on the forums, if somebody posts something that they feel is inappropriate or unproductive they have to make a call at the time regardless of whether it's an overt rule break or not. 

In this case the dame could have just made a ruling and told us how it was going to be, instead she has raised the topic and asked for our feedback.    Some people here seem to be reacting as though she has just laid down the law, which isn't the case.  There is no new "rule", there's a discussion as to what the rule should be so that there is clarity for everybody.   And hopefully will give us a nice clear outcome.

as to the bolded, the Dame herself spoke to not appreciating comments being discussed here.  however, if one was to go to the blog and page back to July 30 to the post in question, the only reason that anyone was commenting on the Dame's comments is because only HER comments show up on the blog post.  all other comments go under, well, "Comments".  the post in question quoted the entire blog post, which contained the Dame's comments. 

i have great respect for the Dame, and what she has built here.  please show me where i've said something differently.  my point, throughout this discussion is as follows:  one blog post was made into a topic here.  it was respectfully debated and discussed.  then it was closed with a somewhat cryptic message from the Dame who closed it.  however, as was pointed out by a PP, another topic using a post from the blog is still open, and accepting comments here. 

i only ask for a policy.  no blog posts?  only the original post without Admin comments?  all blog posts allowed?  just pick one.

[WillyNilly]

I don't know if "don't question the Dame" is an official policy, but as she has the ability to wield an iron fist and ban anyone for any reason at anytime with no warning or probation or explanation, I have always operated under that as a personal rule. 

The way you phrase it, that almost sounds more like fearing retribution from her more than it sounds like a personal scruple!

Thats because I'm communicating poorly 

I think Knitterly and Iris explained  it better in posts 73 & 74, and that whole 'her house' analogy.  Its like ok we all occasionally have a disagreement or a gripe with a friend, but we don't bring it up at their dinner party.  Well we can disagree with the Dame but we tread a little more gently, cause, you know, she's the Dame.  We don't want to asked to leave before dessert.

[KenveeB]

I discussed things on the forum thread instead of the blog because I actually had no idea until that thread that there was a blog. Honestly, I barely keep up with E-Hell. Sometimes I read a ton of posts, sometimes I'll just read the posts I'm subscribed to. There are whole boards on the forum that I never look at at all because I don't care that much about the subject matter. The cross-posting made the subject come to my attention, so I read it. I have a lot of sites I follow, and any time I'm told "you have to go over here to read/talk about this", I just shrug and don't read/talk about that. There's plenty for me to read, I don't need to dig for extra subjects.

I'm with PPs that I don't care what the rule is, as long as the rule is posted somewhere and is applied consistently.

[still in va]

I don't know if "don't question the Dame" is an official policy, but as she has the ability to wield an iron fist and ban anyone for any reason at anytime with no warning or probation or explanation, I have always operated under that as a personal rule. 

The way you phrase it, that almost sounds more like fearing retribution from her more than it sounds like a personal scruple!

Thats because I'm communicating poorly 

I think Knitterly and Iris explained  it better in posts 73 & 74, and that whole 'her house' analogy.  Its like ok we all occasionally have a disagreement or a gripe with a friend, but we don't bring it up at their dinner party.  Well we can disagree with the Dame but we tread a little more gently, cause, you know, she's the Dame.  We don't want to asked to leave before dessert.

but see, i disagree with the bolded, because there have been several times here where we treaded carefully, and no one told the Dame (who, i definitely agree, CANNOT be expected to read every single thing posted here).  then the Dame came in, locked threads, and was not best pleased that no one had contacted her.  she's available.  she wants to hear from us.  and i would trust that hearing from us includes disagreements with what's going on here.

from what i've seen, the Dame doesn't expect anyone to tread carefully.

[LifeOnPluto]

Personally, I wouldn't mind if my thread topics on the forum were used as blog topics, but I can understand that other posters may feel differently. (Note: I'm referring to the public forums here, not the "members-only forums" - I think it would be a breach of trust if very personal posts from "I Need A Hug!" were suddenly used as blog fodder!)

That brings me to a question though - is it ok if a member was to post a story to the blog, and then start up a thread on the forum with the exact same issue? The rules "What happens on the blog stays on the blog" and "What happens on the forum stays on the forum" indicates the blog and forum should be kept completely separate, and thus the member would NOT be allowed to submit to both. But on the other hand, if the member was doing this voluntarily, I can't really see the harm.

[squeakers]

I don't know if "don't question the Dame" is an official policy, but as she has the ability to wield an iron fist and ban anyone for any reason at anytime with no warning or probation or explanation, I have always operated under that as a personal rule. 

The way you phrase it, that almost sounds more like fearing retribution from her more than it sounds like a personal scruple!

Thats because I'm communicating poorly 

I think Knitterly and Iris explained  it better in posts 73 & 74, and that whole 'her house' analogy.  Its like ok we all occasionally have a disagreement or a gripe with a friend, but we don't bring it up at their dinner party.  Well we can disagree with the Dame but we tread a little more gently, cause, you know, she's the Dame.  We don't want to asked to leave before dessert.

but see, i disagree with the bolded, because there have been several times here where we treaded carefully, and no one told the Dame (who, i definitely agree, CANNOT be expected to read every single thing posted here).  then the Dame came in, locked threads, and was not best pleased that no one had contacted her.  she's available.  she wants to hear from us.  and i would trust that hearing from us includes disagreements with what's going on here.

from what i've seen, the Dame doesn't expect anyone to tread carefully.

" and i would trust that hearing from us includes disagreements with what's going on here."

An owner seldom wants to hear disagreements with how things are run:" if you don't like what is "A" on my site.. get the heck out" with "A" being a policy, a leaning, a tendency or whatever, is what I have gleaned from a few years on the 'net.

Simply because of the old saying: "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians."

As far as I am concerned any "public" post I have posted is fair game for the blog. 

"Grant of Rights:

By submitting content to Etiquette Hell LLC , you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such content has expressly granted, Jeanne Hamilton the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt,publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.

Essentially, this is legalese allowing Etiquette Hell LLC's owner, Jeanne , to correct typos/spelling, protect copyright of the web site under one legal entity, to release edited (no names) stories to print news media and to cover her backside in case you used your story to libel someone else or stole someone’s copyrighted material as your own.   There are no plans for any future books based on Etiquettehell.com.

Members who post to the Ehell forum retain their copyright but grant a non-exclusive license implied by context to others to forward any message posted within EtiquetteHell.com's forum. They also grant the forum owner permission to maintain an archive or approve the archiving of forum messages. "

While any post can be reprinted.. I am guessing Ms Jeanne would never post anything from the "I need a Hug" folder unless it was so "genericed" as to be unidentifiable.. simply because burning the people one hopes to have as participants and supporters would be clueless and dumb.

And she aint dumb.

[Yvaine]

As far as I am concerned any "public" post I have posted is fair game for the blog. 

"Grant of Rights:

By submitting content to Etiquette Hell LLC , you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such content has expressly granted, Jeanne Hamilton the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt,publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.

Essentially, this is legalese allowing Etiquette Hell LLC's owner, Jeanne , to correct typos/spelling, protect copyright of the web site under one legal entity, to release edited (no names) stories to print news media and to cover her backside in case you used your story to libel someone else or stole someone’s copyrighted material as your own.   There are no plans for any future books based on Etiquettehell.com.

Members who post to the Ehell forum retain their copyright but grant a non-exclusive license implied by context to others to forward any message posted within EtiquetteHell.com's forum. They also grant the forum owner permission to maintain an archive or approve the archiving of forum messages. "

As mentioned upthread, none of us are talking about the legalities--in fact, not discussing law is one of the most set in stone rules we've always had here. It's possible to both realize that Admin has the legal right to use our posts and to also believe that it wouldn't be ethically right or etiquette-ly right without permission and a really clear rule change.