The Way It Works Here

About Site Feedback
21

I feel the quote of my post in Yellow Cartman’s reply might be misleading: in this instance I was referring / addressing to an individual ‘you’ (which I tried to make clearer by putting it into italics), not the community at large.
Just to make sure my post will be understood correctly. :slight_smile:

Generally I agree that the needs of the community should influence the decisions but it should not be based on the “needs” (I think demands is more appropiate here) of a small group that advocates more or less no moderating and often breaks the rules - just because they consider their behaviour as appropiate does not mean the rest of the community does, too.
In fact it is my impression that the majority seems to be quite happy with how things are run, but I could be wrong of course.

22

[quote=“Rascal”]I feel the quote of my post in Yellow Cartman’s reply might be misleading: in this instance I was referring / addressing to an individual ‘you’ (which I tried to make clearer by putting it into italics), not the community at large.
Just to make sure my post will be understood correctly. :slight_smile:[/quote]

Yes, I understood you to mean the poster Chewycorns. However, I take Chewycorns as a representative of the community at large. According to the logs, we have about 4000 large representatives of this community at large. Since being invited to become a mod, I find myself sort of caught between two worlds. One where I came from, a general member of this community at large and as a member of an “inner circle” where my posts could be directly seen by the powers that be. So that gives me a certain cachet which isn’t enjoyed by folks like Chewycorns.

Ok, granted. But I don’t see them in the same light because you and I “deal” with them in different ways. You moderate them mostly because certain posters “live” in your forum, whereas I come across a different kind of folks in my forum. I’m going to try to remain objective in their feedback because it’s still important to listen to it regardless of their biases.

Yup, very well could be. This is where I was alluding to the “vocal minority” vs. the “silent majority” phenomena. I could be listening to only what I want to hear and thus skewing my perspective too far from reality. Hence why I think everyone, should speak up. Make into a “town hall” atmosphere and invite everyone to take a turn at letting the powers that be to hear and understand.

In the end, as a moderator, while I serve the owner/admins and the rules that are explicitly posted as best I can, I am also serving my forum constituents in D&R so that their experience there is one where they can contribute and enhance Forumosa.com and its entire community.

=YC

23

Mh, I had started posting and then decided against it. Let’s see if I can make it a bit clearer what I was talking about.

I have no idea what Chewycorns thinks I am or what makes him think I prefer a snobby ABC atmosphere to Forumosans. The only Oriented gathering I ever went to (early 2002) was soooo out of my world, I never went back. And, though the posts might not be there anymore, I certainly was one of those who spoke out for Forumosa meetings because Forumosans were sooo different from the Oriented crowd. There’s no need to list the differences, is there?

It’s really hard to point out the differences between then and now. Maybe I have changed more than I realize. But the atmosphere didn’t seem as aggressive then. There weren’t as many newbies complaining about being harrassed. There weren’t as many long-termers complaining about the moderating. There were a few grumpy posters that scared me (monkey, Wolf), but I sort of tried to stay clear of them - I only really started posting after a couple of months of lurking (and most of my posts still are sorta boring informative ones, I guess). Most posters seemed a lot like I saw myself: open-minded, interested in enjoying a mid- or long-term stay in Taiwan, not too career- or networking-oriented. There were more posts that seemed interesting to me, less posts or even whole forums just going in circles and circles (or maybe that’s just a personal impression after 3 years here). The moderating was a bit different, too, then, less rules, but they didn’t seem as necessary as they are now. The growing size of the site is certainly a factor. And the broad range of poster opinions are definitely necessary.

I just liked the fact that compared with other forums, Forumosa seemed neither as puerile and aggressive and non-informative as for example my hometown’s forum nor as boring, pacifying and peaceful as what I’ve seen on TaiwanHo. That’s a big gap, isn’t it? Still, I feel that the general tendency is sort of leaning towards more aggressive and puerile posting than it used to be.

On the other hand, what do I care? I can always follow Wolf’s example and skip out. And as important as Forumosa used to be for me (I found 90% of my friends through Forumosa and had times when I spent 2-3 nights/days a week at Forumosa happenings), as soon as I’ve left Taiwan, Forumosa will become less important in my life anyway.

Does that make sense? A little bit?
Iris

24

[quote]Yup, very well could be. This is where I was alluding to the “vocal minority” vs. the “silent majority” phenomena. I could be listening to only what I want to hear and thus skewing my perspective too far from reality. Hence why I think everyone, should speak up. Make into a “town hall” atmosphere and invite everyone to take a turn at letting the powers that be to hear and understand.
[/quote]
But how can we do this without taking a compulsory census? A poll won’t give too much of an idea because it seems not too many people bother responding to them – I think the ICRT one got the best response, but even that was only around 100 people or less.
I tend to agree with Rascal that most people find we do things pretty well around here. If we were not, we would be getting far more complaints than we’re getting, I think.
IMO, based on my five years’ involvement with Oriented, Segue and now Forumosa, I have a pretty good overall view of how things are going here, and of how we are perceived, and I don’t think it is negative at all – quite the contrary.
Of course we’re never going to appeal to all the people all the time. That would be a ridiculous expectation. Nor am I suggesting that we sit back on our laurels even a little bit.
Personally, I have no problem with Cheweycorns and all the others who have complained – its always good to find out what people are thinking – but in no way do I feel they are representative of the opinions of anything more than a tiny minority here.
In any case, I’m doing nothing for the moment. I’d prefer to wait until Maoman and Gus show their hands and take it from there.

25

What are you going on about?

The Rules were not “done away with” when I moderated IP. The Rules, as they are currently written, are rather ambiguous and open to subjective interpretation. The Administration has already agreed that I did indeed apply the Rules as they are written. The reason that I stopped moderating IP is that I recognized that my subjective interpretation of the Rules produced a different result than that envisioned by the Administration. That is also why I have been pushing for a redraft of the Rules in order to reduce the possibility for subjective interpretation (on the part of all moderators, including you).

26

First of all this thread began by asking “newbies” for their thoughts. The closest thing to a “newbie” I’ve seen is funkymonkey and Frost.

I think the “philosopher-king” approach is acceptable. Mob rule has no place in this forum. Mob rule would be the death of forumosa. If you really believe the mods. are so entrench and stuck in their ways you could try adding some new blood or maybe rotating the mods. Nobody would have to leave their job forever. This would also give some of the whinners a chance to see what the job is really like.

I have to agree. You can’t shut us out or put us down for speaking out. If we don’t have a voice to tell you how to behave, how can you expect us to follow you. We grew up with the idea of free speech. It is ingrained in our personallities.

One of my personal pet peeves on forumosa is a tread hijacking. Two or three established members make the most commets on a thread. A prime example is Chewy on this thread. He has a comeback for everything written. It’s no wonder some newbies don’t post often. Thy’re afraid of getting in the middle of a private conversation.

I like forumosa. I don’t mind getting told when I’m wrong, but I don’t appreciate unconstuctive babble.

Opinions are like a**holes, everyones got one.

27

Amy,

Thanks for your constructive feedback. I will try and appear to be less intimidating. I am, in fact, a big teddy-bear.

However, you wrote

28

Thank you, Amy.

A reminder: We’ve had lots of criticism already. It’s more helpful when people say “I would like…” and go on to explain why.

Hello, newbies, where are you? Too many of the same old voices speaking here. (Admittedly with some good ideas too.)

29

[quote=“Yellow Cartman”]I’d like to describe this stage is where the needs of the community outweighs the designs of the owner/admins. The community desires are more important and that continued service (explicit or implicit) to the Taiwan expat community ought to dictate the vision and direction of forumosa.com. It is the reluctance or inability of the owners/admins to properly address or face these needs that have prompted a significant amount of commentary both publicly and internally.

Now, it’s really out in the open for public consumption. If this is truly a Taiwan-oriented online community, then it behooves the owners/admins to carefully listen and consider the voices of the community. Not what they think is the voice of the community or think the voice of the community should be.[/quote]

YC, agreed, and if truth be known so does Maoman, because this is the same basic concept that realised the petition to ICRT as it had moved away from its original theme. The Management of ICRT had forgotten the reason for its existence.

Maybe the community should think about buying out the site, as people say more could be done with it, even potentially making it self sufficient in terms of running costs.

Certainly some of the recent bannings that have happened may well be for good reasons, but the impression is that they are being done secretively, and no explanation given. By giving examples of why people were banned actually makes the understanding of the rules easier. Whether a poster readily agrees that the example is racist or not - as an example - they at least know what the line is to be drawn.

I also - heaven forbid - agree with TM, the rules do need clarification, otherwise they leave far to much open to subjective moderating, and within reason it should be the community that decides the rules, or at least a representative selection.

30

[quote=“sandman”][quote=“Yellow Cartman”]Yup, very well could be. This is where I was alluding to the “vocal minority” vs. the “silent majority” phenomena. I could be listening to only what I want to hear and thus skewing my perspective too far from reality. Hence why I think everyone, should speak up. Make into a “town hall” atmosphere and invite everyone to take a turn at letting the powers that be to hear and understand.
[/quote]
But how can we do this without taking a compulsory census? A poll won’t give too much of an idea because it seems not too many people bother responding to them – I think the ICRT one got the best response, but even that was only around 100 people or less.[/quote]

Yeah, I agree. This is a bit of a conundrum. There’s the unscientific method which is eye-balling the posters in the various threads. See their “sign on date” and make note of who the posters are that stay and contribute to the forums. We have had a number of new signees to the site but the percentage of new faces in the forums don’t reflect that. Of course, there’s a slight delay always to account for lurking but still it seems that the “new blood” hasn’t been sustained. In fact, the increase traffic to the forums seems to have coincided with the increased posts about “newbie abuse” both publicly and internally. We’ve had some public flame-outs about this.

I think it’s hard to know who represents what/who. Some people may think that Chewycorns and other complainants are the “silent majority” whereas some folks think they’re the “vocal minority”. Who’s to know for sure?

One approach is view the topics in certain forums to get a feel for the pulse of the general readership. IOWs, repeated topics in the same vein to me is more illustrative than the frequency that X poster posts. Another way is to take notes of certain posters, their styles and substantive posts to get a feel. I’ve noticed a drop off of certain posters and their contributions that to me, raise a bit of an alarm because I see them as moderating voices in this community that help give Forumosa.com an atmosphere closer to what I feel Forumosa.com is and should be. YMMV.

=YC

31

I see what you mean but if a former poll related to the IP forum is indicative then the “silent majority” was in support of having the rules applied (stricter) instead of been given too much freedom so that the forum was ruled by a small group (pun intended).

I believe that’s the intent of most moderators but I also believe that a moderator should not let his/her forum run astray too much from the rest of the site, in particular if the objective has been made known.

[quote=“Tigerman”]What are you going on about?

The Rules were not “done away with” when I moderated IP. The Rules, as they are currently written, are rather ambiguous and open to subjective interpretation. The Administration has already agreed that I did indeed apply the Rules as they are written. The reason that I stopped moderating IP is that I recognized that my subjective interpretation of the Rules produced a different result than that envisioned by the Administration.[/quote]
I didn’t say you did away with the rules but your “subjective interpretation” has resulted in a very agressive environment that resembled a place with no rules.
Therefore I did compare this to doing away with them altogether in my question to Chewy though I apologize if that comparision has been cause for a misunderstanding and/or offended you in any way.

With all do respect but free speech has it’s limits, everywhere. It’s just that the limit might differ and perhaps forumosa is stricter than where you grew up.
Thus I don’t see it as an attempt to stiffle free speech, instead it is IMHO an attempt to promote free speech in a friendly manner that benefits the entire community - without insults, racist comments or threats (including threats of violence) and the like. Is this unreasonable?

You are kidding, right?

32

It is my very sincere and heartfelt wish that Tigerman and Rascal can avoid turning this thread into yet another discussion about how the IP forum should be/have been moderated.

There is much more to this site than the IP forum. Can we keep this discussion a little less focused, please. Thank you.

33

I believe that’s the intent of most moderators but I also believe that a moderator should not let his/her forum run astray too much from the rest of the site, in particular if the objective has been made known.[/quote]

In this case however, people do notice that the standards from forum to forum are uneven, not standard, not whatever. In the case of the D&R Forum, it was made explicitly clear that the moderation style would need to be “tighter” than other forums. While it would still technically be within the Rules as stated, the moderating philosophy as explained to the D&R moderators dictated that we needed to be more proactive. One reason why there was a FAQ version 1 drafted for that forum was to let people know that participation in that forum was not going to be like Open Forum, Living in Taiwan, etc. The FAQ was notice to D&R folks that they would have to change their “usual” participation styles if they wanted to contribute there.

We’ve heard how some people don’t like that, don’t understand that, find it confusing and have posted their feelings about this. Not just that forum but generally speaking. There is confusion and we’re finally moving toward a mature FAQ style which is something I’ve long advocated for.

You are kidding, right?[/quote]

No, it’s not my style to be flippant in this forum. It’s apparent to me that there’s a profound divergence of opinion on the “state of Forumosa” if you will. The perception on-line as well as off-line in the feedback I’ve had in off-line Forumosa events seem to indicate to me that at the very minimum, Forumosa.com has hit a critical juncture in its life. Some people are fine with things as is, some people aren’t.

=YC

34

[quote]Rascal wrote:
Yellow Cartman wrote:
I think it’s hard to know who represents what/who. Some people may think that Chewycorns and other complainants are the “silent majority” whereas some folks think they’re the “vocal minority”. Who’s to know for sure?

You are kidding, right?

No, it’s not my style to be flippant in this forum. It’s apparent to me that there’s a profound divergence of opinion on the “state of Forumosa” if you will.[/quote]
I disagree. There’s a difference of opinion, sure. Profound? I think not. Ever since I began posting here five years ago there have been differences of opinion. Nothing much has changed in that respect and I don’t ever expect it to.
There will continue to be differences of opinion whatever we do or whatever direction Forumosa decides to take. How could it be otherwise?
Right now, the complainers are very much the “vocal minority” (note there is no “IMO” there. It’s a simple fact).
Just look at who is complaining. It’s a handful of posters – of course, I’m not counting the new posters who come on, start ranting, and disappear when things don’t go their way. My opinion on such people is the same as in real life: Who needs them? Should Forumosa ever decide that such posters should be humoured and catered to, that will be the day I do what I do in a bar when subjected to crap – make my excuses and leave.
There are still plenty of “nice” posters signing up, introducing themselves and entering the discussions in a reasonable manner – far more of them, actually. I would much rather Forumosa catered to those people.

35

[quote=“sandman”][quote]Rascal wrote:
Yellow Cartman wrote:
I think it’s hard to know who represents what/who. Some people may think that Chewycorns and other complainants are the “silent majority” whereas some folks think they’re the “vocal minority”. Who’s to know for sure?

You are kidding, right?

No, it’s not my style to be flippant in this forum. It’s apparent to me that there’s a profound divergence of opinion on the “state of Forumosa” if you will.[/quote]
I disagree. There’s a difference of opinion, sure. Profound? I think not. Ever since I began posting here five years ago there have been differences of opinion. Nothing much has changed in that respect and I don’t ever expect it to.[/quote]

I disagree. The incidents of the same topics are raised in greater frequency and by different people than ever before. That in itself is a sign that there’s more to it than you see.

It’s a cycle. Some people speak up, complain whatever, nothing happens, dies down, and then goes up again, speak up, complain whatever, nothing happens, dies down, repeat ad nauseum. This has been ongoing for the past 3-4 months with annoying regularity. Now unless this is some sort of seasonal thing due to the rainy weather and people are just normally irritable, sure, ok. But I don’t think so. And other long term Forumosans don’t think so either.

[quote=“sandman”]Right now, the complainers are very much the “vocal minority” (note there is no “IMO” there. It’s a simple fact).
Just look at who is complaining. It’s a handful of posters – of course, I’m not counting the new posters who come on, start ranting, and disappear when things don’t go their way. My opinion on such people is the same as in real life: Who needs them? Should Forumosa ever decide that such posters should be humoured and catered to, that will be the day I do what I do in a bar when subjected to crap – make my excuses and leave.[/quote]

Yes, we recognize with some fondness that you are the curmudgeon in this community. However, if new posters don’t stick around, then this place gets to be stale. It happens. Communities by its very nature evolve. But they can also die. The evolutionary model you seem to advocate would be along the lines of, the house stays the same, but the door is revolving. Some people think that the house ought to change and the door is revolving.

That is the profound difference of opinion and vision I am speaking of.

=YC

36

Absolutely, but I don’t see that as being the case here. New posters ARE signing up. They ARE participating in the fora. Dare I say they ARE having fun. As are other posters – most of them, in fact.
I just don’t want Forumosa to pander uneccessarily to the whiners, as I feel that would be like a dog chasing its tail and extremely UNproductive.
And let’s face it, what is the biggest bugbear of the longtermers who are complaining? Right. The rules, or rather the implementation of the rules. On this I’m in total agreement with you and them. Whether they’re the minority or not, they make some good points. But AFAIK, those points are in the process of being addressed as we type.
I say, give Maoman and Gus time to show their hands – they have already intimated that they have something to bring to the table. Let’s wait until we see what it is and THEN begin discussing options.
One more thing:

This has been ongoing not for the past 3-4 months but for the past 4-5 years. “Nothing happens” is perhaps a bit churlish of you, I think – things DO happen and HAVE happened and WILL CONTINUE to happen. The site has improved, the moderating has, if not improved, at least become a lot more focused and considered, and will I’m sure become even better once the new rules are unveiled and put into practice. It IS annoying, I’ll grant you. But don’t you feel it kind of comes with the territory?
I’ll tell you what, in my curmudgeonly way, if you DON"T feel that way, you’re in for a sore disappointment, because mark my words, these cyclical downturns or what-have-you are most certainly NOT going to stop no matter what we do.

Me, I relish it! :wink:

37

[quote=“Traveller”]Certainly some of the recent bannings that have happened may well be for good reasons, but the impression is that they are being done secretively, and no explanation given. By giving examples of why people were banned actually makes the understanding of the rules easier. Whether a poster readily agrees that the example is racist or not - as an example - they at least know what the line is to be drawn.
[/quote]
I strongly agree with Traveller. I think that the rules would be much clearer if the mods openly explained why they have banned a poster. In any society with the rule of law, the law is not just limited to statutes on the books. There is also a history of case law that shows how statutes have been interpreted. Forumosa has a bit of history and it is probably clear to folks who’ve been around here for a while that precedents are generally followed. This place has its own sort of “Common Law,” and those who’ve read and posted throroughly in these pages have a feel for what it is. Unfortunately, a newbie is not going to have the same level of awareness for what is acceptable. It would be a bit unreasonable to expect them to lurk long enough for them to figure everything out.

Having the rules for all to see is surely a good thing. However, I think that it should also be made clearer how those rules are applied. I was a bit disturbed to read this. The mods may have their reasons for not explaining exactly why a poster has been banned, but I can’t think of many reasonable excuses for not doing so. I looked at Mod Lang’s last dozen or so posts and found nothing that seemed bannable in any way. Maybe I missed something. Maybe something was deleted. Or maybe the mods just see things differently from the way I do and I may end up committing the same offense as Mod Lang. It disturbs me that they will not explain why he was banned, not because I have any interest in sticking up for Mod Lang, but because I would like to understand the rules. It makes me uncomfortable to see that such a long time member has been banned. I say this because after 2309 posts, it could be assumed that Mod Lang knew what “the law” was. If he could run foul of the mods, then perhaps I could, too.

In places that enjoy the rule of law, rulings on how to enforce the law are themselves part of the law. Almost all of those rulings are open for all to see. This transparency fosters a fair environment where all know where they stand in relation to the law. It may seem dramatic to compare the rules of Forumosa to the legal system of a country, but I think the long term health and vibrancy of this site depend on not just fair application of the rules, but also transparent application of the rules.

My suggestion is that in addition to having the rules, a brief explanation of every banning should be made public for everyone to see. In my opinion, to not do so will damage the long-term vibrancy of this community.

38

FWIW, here’s my few NT worth:

Re: Moderation -
The only thing I can think of that would be good would be notes from the mods when a post or posts are Floundered/Flamed in the originating thread - and the Flounder section, where applicable - stating where said posts have gone, and with a brief explanation of why. Nothing too in-depth, just a quick sentence or two, and that’s it. On the whole I think the mods do a good job all things considered, and while there are occasionally decisions I don’t entirely agree with, it’s not my decision.

Re: Rules and banning -
I agree that there should be an announcement of why such-and-such a poster has been banned. Bannings don’t happen often, and when they do they can serve as a warning to others. Especially when relatively established posters like Mod Lang, Toe Save, and Squiddy get canned. (Although in the case of the last two, it was pretty obvious :laughing:) Just a sticky, locked thread where bannings can be announced with the judgement posted, that’s all. The judges’ decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into. And it should be made clear that these decisions are final, and any bitching, moaning, or arguing the point will be binned on sight. And I happen to know personally, after my week or so of going right off the deep end, that a private warning is issued to those crossing the line.

Re: Growth in complaints -
I don’t think there really is a statistically significant growth in complaints. It’s just a simple function of the fact that more people are signing up - more people on-board will naturally lead to an increase in absolute terms in complaints. But in terms of percentage, I don’t see much of an increase, or at least in terms of original complaints and not retreads of the same moaning from the same posters.

With the board reaching such a major stage, I think that while the rules are entirely clear and functional, it may be time to revisit them. Even if they stay largely the same, or even entirely the same, what harm could come from it? Another possibility is one I’ve seen implemented successfully on another board, where it’s called “Newbie Tuesday” - any new signups in the week are blocked from posting until the first Tuesday of their membership. They can read the posts, but not respond. This forces newbies to lurk for a little while, and may help curb some of the recent diving in at the deep end and smacking their head on the bottom that a few newbies have done. If possible, this could be made only to apply to the “chat” type boards, and not the classifieds.

Although the topic’s been discussed before, maybe it might be time to seriously consider the Newbie Board. Maybe make it accessible only to those with a postcount under a few hundred, or who’ve only been signed up for x number of weeks, after which time it is then hidden from view. Something like this would give newbies a place to at least start posting even if they weren’t entirely comfortable with taking on established posters. I know it sounds a little stupid really, but it could help. Give newbies a place to vent and all.

I’ve only been a member for less than a year, but even in that time there has been a perciptible evolution in the feel of the boards. I think in part it’s simply because as membership grows, so will tensions between members simply because there are more people to disagree with. It’s like normal life - in a room of six people it’s much easier to be friendly with everyone than it is in a room of sixty. And I reckon, personally, that some of the aggro and tetchiness may just be because it’s that time of year - end of the work year, just past the winter hump, it’s the sort of time that people get shitty anyway. If it’s still getting bitchier in a couple of months, then it might be a problem.

39

A quick reply: Both Goose Egg and I are aware of this thread and appreciate your comments.

Regarding rules:
For the first few years this website’s rules were the terms and conditions that one agreed to when registering for the site. If one wanted to review them, they would have had to reregister to see them. :laughing: And that was ok - in the beginning, we were a small community. Bannings were very rare (but probably at a proportionate ratio to bannings today), and were exclusively an admininistrative prerogative. As we got bigger, it became necessary to post the rules up where people could see them, which we did. Now we are a big website, at least by phpbb standards, with over a quarter of a million posts, and 4000 members. We’re getting bigger and bigger and a more comprehensive set of rules is needed to manage things. This has been underway for a couple of months, got delayed over Christmas & New Years and is actively being worked upon again now. We plan to have something up by Feb. 1st, at which point we will also issue a brief “Forumosan State of the Union Address”. :wink: For an idea of where we’re headed, rule-wise you can get a sneak peek by clicking on democraticunderground.com’s rule page. Of course, we will be adapting it to meet Forumosa’s needs.

Re: Banned Members:

We have a (very effective, IMO) process in place. To quote from our very own rules page:

Bannings will not be discussed nor cases retried in the court of public opinion. We simply do not have time. Even if we did, I don’t think we’d have the inclination. I think it might be possible to put a (locked) list of banned members up, however. (Thanks for the idea, Tetsuo!) You should be aware that the offending posts that get a person banned are stored in a moderator-viewable Flame Forum, (next to the moderator-viewable porn gallery.) Ummm… What else?

I think the new rules will straighten a lot of things out, but ultimately the spirit of Forumosa is going to have to come from the community itself. I’ve always felt the love in here, but I know there are other vibes here too, especially for newbies who aren’t that familiar with us. We hope to make this a friendlier place for them, without alienating any of our long-time users. :rainbow:

I’d like to say thanks to all of you for your support and generous feedback. :bravo: You have all taken a lot of time to help build Forumosa into what it is today. A very special thanks to our moderators, without whom we’d get nothing done at all. :notworthy: Stay tuned - there’ll be more in a week or so… :slight_smile:

40

sandman said:

"Absolutely, but I don’t see that as being the case here. New posters ARE signing up. They ARE participating in the fora. Dare I say they ARE having fun. As are other posters – most of them, in fact. "

This is where I fit in. I’m new to forumosa, but certainly not new to Taiwan, and for the most part, I’m having fun.

There are some forums I frequent for more serious issues and some I go for fun. Both have value as far as I’m concerned.

I do believe however the the oldies have a closeness that newbies might wish to model themselves after, and with more newbies coming in, that may be the source of conflict as oldies smack newbies down for toeing the line or stepping over it, while the newbies wonder wtf as they bite back. And newbies might bite other newbies and oldies as they step over perceived lines. See the confusion?

I agree then with some above who stated that a public explanation of why someone was removed from the forum would be a warning and reminder to all to maintain some courtesy, and think before they type.

Just last night, someone in the D&R forum was excessively rude and abusive. Today all the posts are gone. Where did they go? Did the poster go with them? I wondered in a post, “What am I missing here?” and was informed, “This is oldschool stuff. Watch and enjoy.”

And this is what I mean: as a newbie, will this oldschool animosity go unpunished? The posts I’m speaking of surely went past the stated rules.

Everyone wants to be in the know: What are the limits? Really.

Aside from the negatives that we seem to be dwelling on, the positives so far outweigh them that it means little to me what A calls B or what B calls me.

Thanks to the Creators! :notworthy: