Cheryl Marchek AKA JM said:
I am not upset over the slap on the wrist. I'm hurt and disappointed over the way it was done.
If the treatment I got when I broke the rules is the way oldtimers and new comers are being treated, well then thats the way it is. If I where new I would have been insulted and probably not come back. I'm not new~ so I was more than insulted, I was insulted and hurt by the treatment I got. Thats all there is to it.
We all have to live in our own skin. Rich has drawn his line in the sand and decided how he wants to deal with issues of this nature. I've made my position that I don't like how I was treated clear.
Well gee, when I decided to crack down on the enforcement of the rules and get tough on straightening this place out, who exactly was I supposed to apply this enforcement on? If new people and oldtimers are verboten, who is left?
Again, Cheryl, why should I have treated you any differently then I did, or should, the other 25,000+ members here who might have done the same thing? That is the crux of this entire matter, now isn't it? Why do some people think I should take the time to make special allowances for them because of some criteria they have delineated in their complaint? Your starting this thread fully indicates that you are incensed with how I handled your rule violation, yet I have done exactly the same thing to many other people in similar instances. You were not singled out. You were treated just like everyone else has been on this site. Yet the whole argument you present is that you feel I should have treated you differently. I, quite simply, just disagree. This site NEEDED this crackdown now. Things were spiralling way out of control, and I felt certainly that either I step in and slap down hard on the abuses or just let this site slide completely into the cesspool it was headed towards. The crackdown was fully intended to get people's attention and get it QUICKLY.
Chamco said:
I read where you said this of Cheryl's last post
So I went back and read her post three times, and came to the same conclusion that I thought I had after the first time. I do not draw any conclusion that Cheryl, intentionally or otherwise, was asking for a dual class, etc. My conclusion is that whether intentionally or otherwise, you have mischaracterized what she said. All I saw Cheryl saying was that she had valued the site, and thought that she was a valued member. You instituted the pay system to get rid of a lot of the nonsense, and it may have achieved that goal. It also made us all paid members who chose to stay. Additionally, some of us made significant add-on contributions. At this point, I think that the statement that all members were valued members would have been accurate. Cheryl felt like a valued member. All of that was done under an existing set of rules. The rules changed, with much explanation on your part as to why you did so, what you hoped to accomplish, etc. Many of us concur with the need for change, although we will differ some on the specifics. Cheryl and others in this thread have tried to draw a distinction between the new rules and the gusto with which they have been at times enforced, for they are not voicing much disdain for the rules. Some members have left the sight because they ended up in a urinating contest with moderators, and the "gusto" of the moderator was, in the view of some members, more antagonistic than it needed to be, making mountains out of what should have stayed molehills. Some of the involved members were more than willing to go out in a ball of flames. Cheryl and MS Terese are not inclined to be such flamers.
I for one still post pretty regularly. I certainly do it with more caution now. I also think that the added caution has improved the overall quality of what I have to say once it is in print. I have always enjoyed the site, as well as posts by the above contributing individuals in this thread. I would ask them to consider jumping back in, as they have much to offer. But like me, take the extra time to choose more careful wording. The site is better if you stay.
Well I am confused. Why would someone bring up the fact of their contributions or other criteria concerning their "status" here unless they felt it was significant and relevant to the conversation? And if it is relevant, WHY do they think it is so and how do they wish for me to perceive it in relation to how I am expected to treat them? If someone does expect to be treated differently because of their involvement, contributions, or anything at all that may be different from someone who has NOT provided those itemized details, then what does that mean?
I am sorry that you and I are not interpretting the facts of this matter the same, but that's life, I guess. Not everyone is going to agree with everything everyone else does. But all in all, I think my position has been stated here fairly well. If you break the rules, then you get penalized, regardless of who you are or what you have done here for this site. That is the only fair way to do it. Some people are certainly not going to like me doing it this way, just as some people wouldn't like me doing it any other way at all.
But my intention is to run this site the best way I think is best at the time. That may change as situations mutate, forcing me to adapt to the new reality. I don't expect everyone to agree with my methods, so this is just par for the course. I expect some people will leave because of them, but on the other hand some other people may decide to stick around when they had been planning on leaving because of the unacceptable status quo. Sorry, but this sort of thing is my decision to make, so that is what I have to do.
