It's sad to think that some members have taken so close to heart what others spew here that they wish to leave AW. Developing a thick skin is a very personal evolution.
The definition of a "trouble-maker" can be vague. If someone doesnt like what another is posting, give them the option to ignore the posts in public forums and to ban the "trouble-maker" from leaving comments on their personal pages (we can still do that on our pages?). If you think the offender is leaving messages anonymously, then buckle down and ban anonymous posts on your page. It's harsh and unfair to those anonymous visitors who like your work and who want to comment, but if you truly have trouble from a member, then it will solve that particular problem.
If any of AW's message board rules are broken, the poster should be warned once. If he or she continues, suspend the account for a month, even if its a premium acct. The attacks based on age, gender, race, sexuality, etc etc. have to stop. Those blatant posts need to be deleted and the account placed on suspension and finally deleted if the offender doesn't stop.
Most of us here probably don't want to read personal attacks. honestly, i consider the source and scroll on by. We always have the option to scroll past those posts.
Calgon...take me away.....
I don't think you will make everyone happy with this idea so go with a combation of both and make the rules a bit harder.
1) Continue to run things as they have been and allow these type of posts to continue, as long as the rules are not broken. - That sounds OK at first glance, but the trouble is that lately the rules HAVE been broken deliberately by trouble-makers who knew perfectly well what they were doing and yet were still allowed to continue.
2) Start banning members from the message boards, if we determine that they fit into the trouble-maker profile. - This isn't an alternative to #1, it simply means enforcing the rules that were there from the beginning.
So I vote for #2, but AW is going to have to do it properly, by monitoring the boards more closely (especially the General Discussion board, where a lot of posts seem to go unnoticed by AW until somebody complains). Issue warnings by all means, but be prepared to back them up with actions.
Just to add - complaining about the current rules and suggesting changes doesn't make somebody a 'trouble-maker' (that's called 'freedom of speech'), but deliberately breaking the rules, in the full knowledge that this will cause offence, shouldn't be allowed. The sure way to deal with that sort of behaviour is for all posts to be moderated BEFORE they appear, but since that probably isn't practicable, the solution has to be first to issue warnings and finally to ban persistent offenders from the boards.
PS - Matthew posted while I was writing this - we seem to have the same idea!
Some people may think Sean is a trouble maker, I don't, I understand where he is coming from and what he is doing his utmost to prevent, but it's not about who WE think are trouble makers, it's AW's definition that counts.
"This small group of people always seem to have something to complain about or feel the need to rip on others opinions on various topics." Is this AW's definition? "always seem" and "various" make it a bit vague.
I'm with the others who want an AW definition. So if AW could tell me exactly what determines fitting into the trouble-maker profile I could perhaps make a more informed decision, in the meantime I'm sticking with #1.
IT IS NOT OPPINIONS THAT ARE CAUSING THE TROUBLE.
It is the INTERUPTION of peaceful threads, by DELIBERATE interjection of provocative remarks for the sole purpose of causing chaos, like it were some kind of funny game. Beleive me, that is what's happening. This is not an opinion, it is an observation. Look around.
As for those who have slipped in insinuating remarks throughout this thread, I have never in all my years here, gone to AW to report names of "Trouble Makers". I am not "btw", nor am I a trouble maker, simply because I stand up for those too intimidated to come to the board.
So the rules are already in place to take action against the people who break them.
"No interuption of peaceful threads, by deliberate interjection of provocative remarks for the sole purpose of causing chaos." would be an excellent rule to add IMHO. Well worded Bob.
Perhaps adding that rule would make some people think twice before posting that type of remark and if not then they will have to accept the consequences of breaking the rules.
ok lets say someone said something to me off color on this message board....I dont see what REAL bearing that would have on my life..
another thing someone said that there is a problem with someone popping in on a "serious " thread, and disrupting it with some funny statement...I do that all the time....why? because I think at least half of you need to reach back and yank the friggin shorts out..lighten up and live a little this is a WEBSITE!!!
remember entertainment???
Think twice?...I barely bother to think once.
I wonder what some people here would do if they ever had real problems. I have been attacked for real...and this aint it.
I have a strange perception of things and I'm always popping in with something bizarre or humerous. It's my personality; it's the way I am. Do I need to pretend to be someone else up here?
It's never my intention to hurt anyone's feelings. Written words are constantly perceived differently from spoken words.
I don't think I'm breaking any rules and you're free to ignore me. Accept me the way I am or skip my posts, very simple.
If I've said something that hurts your feelings, tell me. If I've mixed up my thoughts and words (an ongoing problem I have) I'll fix it later when I can sort it out in my head.
Ammended: I'm not taking any of this as a personal attack. Chris has emailed me (was a very nice email) asking how I can take some things so lightly or think they're humerous. The reference to "humor" in a serious post prompted me to post this. I wish all problems could be worked out between people so easily.
Over the last month, I've just wandered around the site, the message boards a bit, commented on quite a bit of art and visited the work of those who have commented on my work. I've also noted some names of people who have commented on my one piece and saw how they interact in the message boards. I've read, laughed, read some more, skipped quite a few posts because of the contents or the atmosphere, tone or negativity present and to be honest, I'm not surprised at some of the content. A lot of it is for fun understandably. What does surprise me is that there does seem to be a few people who jump into enjoyable conversations and say things that seem to instigate trouble or change the tone or meaning of the thread to what they want to discuss. I find this disturbing and rude in some ways. Why push negative thoughts or ideas on a group happily communicating with one another and persist in doing so until no one wants to respond anymore? Why the negative tones and comments about other members and AW? Seems like a nice place with the exception of the same few I've made note of and purposely skipped.
There also seem to be a few "followers" who just hop happily from one subject to the next, comment, agree with whatever the content is, even if it contradicts something they just said on another message. I don't get that. Game-playing or just trying to fit in? Makes you seem not so genuine and indecisive, don't you think?
It seems to also be a place where a few proclaim their political view points (and other topics) to the point of nausea. I see now in the "rules" list that it is not encouraged and obviously should not be allowed if it continues disruption in otherwise benign threads. I skip those conversations....my opinions are mine and mine alone on those topics.
The same thing seems to be happening with the subject of posting "nude" art here. What is the deal? It's in the rules that it's not allowed so why continue begging, belittling AW and preaching to others about why to change it? Would you do that to a "real" gallery? Insist that they allow nudes, abstracts, sculptures or whatever their venue did not accept or allow? Is this any different?
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here. It seems pretty simple to me. #1 and #2 basically say the same things, just different ways. #1 implies that things will go on as normal unless rules are broken AND #2 seems to be the result of breaking the rules (#1). Am I the only one who sees this? If there are rules being broken, then AW should just enforce them. They have the ultimate say in who is causing trouble anyway, right?
Yes, I believe #2 needs enforcement by management if it continues to be a visual and obvious problem......to me, I see it there and I feel sorry for those being attacked "verbally." It's like someone coming to your home, church, civic center, private party, etc. and forcing their thoughts on everyone and then attacking those who disagree. It should only take the respect of those who disagree with a topic or comment to make the same choices and "pass" on paricipating since your negative interjections may not be welcome, let alone necessary. That means those who seem to preach this here on this thread need to also practice it. After observing this thread all yesterday and last night, I noted that some of the same people who say "pass" if you don't like the content are the very same ones that went to other threads that were started and made negative, belittling remarks to the participants, simply because they didn't agree? This seems to be rather hypocritical, don't you think? If you cannot debate, discuss or communicate in an intelligent, polite and respectful manner, simply stay away. If you are unhappy with AW or their guidelines and rules, find a place where you can be happier. Life is too short and those who choose to leave should not be branded "weak, insecure, or thin-skinned." They are simply passing on something that no longer appeals to them. That's life, like it or leave it.
And what's all this blocking going on? Isn't that childish to block someone who you just made nasty comments about? Small minds in my book. This should be a last resort and only last temporarily until both parties cool their heels. It's like virtual "duct-taping of the mouth."
Well, there is my two cents worth, like it or not. Those who feel the necessity to attack me too, go for it. I can make a mental note of it and remember to "skip" just like everyone else here.
Now, I'm off to see some new artwork. Or, maybe better yet, to work on my own artwork. That is what this site is all about, no?
Everyone smile to yourself in the mirror and try to have a nice day.
"Many members have been offended by certain posts, personally attacked for their opinions and others simply don't like the attitudes of these 'trouble-makers' that hang out on the boards. This small group of people always seem to have something to complain about or feel the need to rip on others opinions on various topics."
And this,
"We have e-mails every day from members asking for us to 'take action' and do something about this small band of trouble-makers on the message boards that seem determined to bring the moral (morale?) of the site down at every chance they can get."
Some people live to be offended. Some like to be attacked because they use that to play the martyr....and they do it very well. Surely you see that ....right?
Back to Category
