HI Just Asking, super woman. I am wondering if the Trump stuff needs to have its own category? So as not to anger your constituency?

While I understand that you don't want to direct a solution at a single individual, it appears to me that the first step in resolving the issue would be to reach out to that member and diplomatically explain that her actions are negatively affecting the site. I believe that the TOS calls for members to show respect and when one member is using the site for her own purposes without regard for others, that is not respectful. In addition the TOS states that members may not 'Post irrelevant content, repeatedly post the same or similar content or otherwise impose an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the Network's infrastructure'. Unless you make the member aware that you, as management, are concerned about the effect on the site, then she has every reason to assume that there are no issues with what she is doing. I think that implementing technical solutions, changing the rules, or other site-wide fixes should be considered as a last resort. You should at least try to see if appealing to her sense of fairness would be sufficient. 

I won't publicly discuss conversations I have with members in private. However, when there are things worth addressing with people, I do.

With that said, interpretations of the TOS vary, but here's what they mean to me:

"or otherwise impose an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the Network's infrastructure." The key phrase there is "or otherwise." Ergo, the entire phrase refers to the site's infrastructure. The hardware. The servers. The back end of the site and its resources. We aren't even using a fraction of the resources available. Nobody here is impacting the infrastructure. The only time that came into play was on the old site when a certain someone posted a heck of a lot of pictures for fun and used up all our server space. Thousands and thousands of them. Images take up way more space than text in storage and the single person accounted for something like 3/4 of our data storage, forcing me to either pay to upgrade our space or remove their photos. That's the type of situation the TOS refers to.

But, let's say we're ignoring the last line for now and imagine the first part doesn't relate to infrastructure. 

Irrelevant content: To whom is it irrelevant? Perhaps to you, but is it irrelevant to everyone here? No, it's not. That type of clause mostly gets applied to groups, which are designed for special-interest discussions. One example- we have an Oldies Music group and I think the cutoff for that is maybe through the 60s? The group description explains what the group is for and what should be shared there. If someone posted music from the 90s, it would be irrelevant to the group and could be removed. That was a rarity- I saw it more often with religious groups when he groups were more active. i.e. religious folks infiltrating the atheist groups and telling the atheists they're wrong and atheists slipping into the religious groups and attacking the scriptures. Both types of posts are irrelevant to the groups.

Repeatedly posting the same or similar content: So, this is the closest we're getting to a smoking gun, and it's arguably the one I've looked into the most. Probably from the "similar" angle, because they're not the same. Many fit into the same broad category, but they're asking about different things. And, this is what I have the greatest problem with because it's an arbitrary decision. I don't want to name names, but you're probably well aware of several people who talk about the same things over and over again. Hmm... maybe I'll use myself as an example. I used to talk about coffee a lot. It was in virtually every answer I gave- or at least 50% of them. There are other people here who do the same with their shtick, so to speak. Now, I think you and I probably wouldn't bat an eye at that. It melds into the scenery. It creates character- it's part of the local flavor. Can you definitively tell me how that's different- how one is posting the same or similar content and one is not? I know the argument here is "So and so wants an echo chamber" or "So and so doesn't care about the answers." Neither of those things are against policy. I cannot use that as a basis for moderation because there's no rule against it. Plus, it's arbitrary. How do I know what one person wants? Unless they tell me, I don't. I may think I know, but that doesn't mean I do. How exactly does the same or similar content policy get applied to one situation and not the other? I haven't seen anything here that I thought that policy applied to. I can think back to AB and I remember one time someone posted "Have you ever been to..." and made a question for each of the 50 states. Maybe even a bunch of countries. All in rapid succession. The board literally had like 100+ "Have you ever been to..." questions back to back on it. As I recall, they did pull those questions and I *think* the person got PBed over it. That's pretty much a slam dunk when it comes to "same or similar." I don't see these questions in the same light because, although maybe 1/4-1/3 involve the same person, they're asking different questions. 

Diplomacy... that's something else altogether. Like I said, I do reach out to people in a diplomatic way when something concerns me. Those discussions, unless the person I speak with says something publicly, stay in the inboxes. But, there are two big aspects of how I handle "diplomatic" issues. First, I feel like I do have an ethical responsibility to all of you. You choose to be here. I have to be as fair as possible and, often as gentle as possible, particularity when emotions are involved. I don't see myself as an intimidating person, but I guess because I do have the power to delete and nuke, people can be particularly sensitive to messages from me. Messages from me, no matter how gentle I set out to be, are often received as slaps across the face. Even when they're not necessarily corrective in nature. Even when they don't slam the person. I do take great care with my words because I know that there's a person behind the computer who chooses to be here and who wants to be part of the site, and most people genuinely want to get along with others. Being corrected stings. No matter how diplomatic I am, it's still going to be received as a correction. Unless someone opens up a dialogue about my letter with me, I leave it at that. Either they get it or they don't. If they're not breaking a policy, then it is what it is. I won't throw my weight around and coerce someone into conforming to my ideals. To continue with such dialogues, particularly when a member isn't breaking any policies, could be considered abuse of power. Maybe in some situations, you guys don't mind at all if I throw my weight around- but that's only true when we agree. I can almost guarantee that if I used those tactics on someone and you and I disagreed on whether they were "wrong" or not, you probably would call it abuse of power. People would be grabbing their pitchforks. 

That leads into the second thing. I do have considerable "power" so to speak. Because of this, I'm approached by people all the time to remove things that aren't violations. I get letters that tell me to remove the posts of our gay members because "gay people are gross." I get letters to remove posts about current events in specific countries because "I'm from such and such country and this doesn't represent my people. I find it offensive." Well, sure, I bet as you're reading, you already know those posts aren't going anywhere. Particularly with the first one, you may even be shocked that some people expect me to close the accounts of all gay people here. It's a ludicrous idea. What we're dealing with here isn't like that. It's not so clear cut. There are people like you who want the posts moderated or reduced (and, yes, I get those letters), and then there are people who message me because they feel certain members are being ostracized or that free speech is in jeopardy. Mmm... you know the old parable about the six blind men touching different parts of an elephant? It's here if you're unfamiliar. I swear, that's exactly what this is like. Each of you looks at the situation and sees something different. None of you are really wrong. 

I know I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but I have always believed that you guys have the power to make the site whatever you want it to be. I can lead and I can guide. I can enforce the policies, but what happens here is largely up to you. Some people want to dwell on this. Some people use their feeds to hide discussions of certain members, and they don't even see them anymore. Some people pose solutions. Some people create change.

You're a numbers person. I saw your remark about 40% the other day- it was 38% last I checked, but I think this is a fine starting point, because, the way I see it, it is a volume issue. Now, let's say we don't do anything more about the ones being posted. The obvious solution is in the hands of everyone here. Lets say Person A posts 20, and those are the only ones there. They make up 100% of the new questions. In reality, it's closer to Person A positing 20 and everyone else posting 29 more- 40% comes from Person A. Well, let's say you decide to post 5, and LyricalOne posts 5 more, and Sharonna posts 5 more and I post 5 as well. That's four of us, or 20 more, for a total of 49 others... 20/69. We're already down to 28% with just four more people participating. Let's say 8 people do. 20/89... 22%. We've nearly cut the disparity in half with just 8 people participating. If 16 people did it (20/129), those 20 questions would only be 15% of the total. We're not talking about moving mountains here. Each person matters. That's the real kicker here. If we had that many people contributing, nobody would even notice the 15%. But, that's not what I'm seeing. 

Silencing someone because volume from the outside is low just seems unnecessary to me, and the idea of needlessly silencing someone makes me incredibly sad. It goes against everything I believe. It goes against the concepts that founded this site- and I mean way back to Wey's time. He didn't even want the site moderated initially. That is the site I fell in love with. The place where everyone belongs. The place where people can set aside their differences and just be. I believe, despite this ongoing debate, that it is still that place, but I think we can make it even better. If you believe in that dream, even a fraction of as much as I do, contribute. Keep posting. Ask. Be like the Whos in Whoville in Horton Hears a Who. Every voice matters. 

Maybe some kind of administrative decision or site change is necessary to overcome the hump. I'm open to that possibility as well. But, at this point, I don't see any policies that apply to the behavior- there are no TOS violations happening. So, I think we either need to come up with better positive solutions and/ or have each of us focus on creating the balance we seek. I really believe the latter is possible. I've seen it happen when we do our question challenge games. You have too. Short lived, yes, but a glimpse of what can easily be when people work together.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. FYI - after I posted, I regretted including the TOS. I don't really think there is a violation.

When we talk about diversity on the home page feed, that is not just due to questions but also to answers. I think if we want more diversity we need more people, because no one want to come on here and post q&a just to meet a quota or see the type of posts that are made just to fill space.  I do not want my time here to become a chore. I feel I am contributing what is right for me.

 I accept and understand your vision for the site. If this means that we risk losing current members and not attracting new ones, it is your site and your choice and I respect that. 

I agree- the site shouldn't feel like work. I don't like the idea of quotas either. I only mentioned the numbers to demonstrate how little it takes to turn things around. Activity creates more activity. I can say one person asks five questions, but you know there's a chain reaction. There are people who answer and there are people who are inspired to ask more when they see one. So, it winds up being much bigger than the cut and dry number. But, again, it shouldn't be work. This isn't a job for anyone. 

I can also see why it seems like some people would leave or not sign up because of it. There's always more to it than that. The example I gave of someone wanting me to delete our gay members- that was real. That came from someone who only publicly complained about the Trump stuff. From someone who was liked here. When he told me what he was really ticked about... good riddance. Each person who comes and goes has a complex story. It's rarely any one thing. I know of another who told everyone they were leaving over the Trump stuff. Nope. That person was mad because they were making racist remarks that got deleted, and they didn't like being moderated. Even in the online world, people have public faces and private faces. It's easier to maintain your "reputation" or keep face and say it's one thing sometimes, when it's really something else entirely. The day someone actually admits when they left here that they were mad they couldn't make racist or homophobic remarks... I think pigs will be flying, but that doesn't mean it isn't so. 

I don't have a tracking system that shows me who has DAed anymore. Not since we moved. People can come and go like ships in the night and I won't even know they're gone unless I knew them personally, I see their discussions, or someone tells me. I do find that sad and I'd like to have the dev make that change for me, so I have a better idea of who is leaving and why. The data would certainly help me identify pain points among members who  don't talk to me before they leave. But, despite the fact that I don't have that, I do get to track site activity- things like page loads, average time on the site, number of visitors, and so on. Those numbers are climbing and have been for some time. I know when you have a core group of friends and they start to fade away, it can feel like you're alone, but if I'm only following the data I have, we're actually headed in the right direction overall, despite the fact that we've lost some along the way.

Speaking of Wey, in the April 21st blog "What Does the Mug Stand For" he made the following comment, which you considered "beautifully said." I'm curious how you'd interpret the words I've cap-locked.

"I should note that I chose to allow moderators to moderate my content in order to make a point, the point that even though I was the owner, I was not immune to doing what is right for the site.

As far as conservative/liberal, I love questions regarding politics and religion AS LONG AS THEY ARE ASKED IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS DISCUSSION AND NOT SIMPLY PROMOTING THE IDEAS OF THE ASKER.

I think it all boils down to respect, if we would just respect others, just realize we aren't perfect ourselves and try and view things from the other person's point of view, we'd likely all be happy.

NO SITE CAN HOLD THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO RESPECT AND THINK THE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND THEM."


IMO, the questions and the asker are a perfect example of what Wey was talking about. The so-called "questions" invite no discussion and are nothing more than a thinly disguised point of view that's been promoted (aka beaten to death) for months on end. What respect is being shown by someone in a group setting who is hell-bent on doing whatever the heck they want with no regard for the feelings of the group? The group which then gets reminded of that f-u attitude ON A DAILY BASIS.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm the opposite of perfect. I've tried to offer respect and understanding. When my patience ran out, I blocked their feed from my homepage. Yet the problem persists.

I'm more than happy to do my fair share as I enjoy asking questions. But I gotta tell ya, it's somewhat disheartening when I post multiple questions and they get wiped off the homepage in a matter of minutes by Hurricane Spamella. Seriously, something's gotta give.

Let me give you some background on that blog. About a year before it was written, Wey was goofing off on the Mug. He spent a night asking dozens of bizarre and silly questions because that's what he does. Well, one of those questions was "Is answerMug dying?" Damned if that question didn't get reposted over and over again on several other Q&A sites and on review sites. Everyone was all abuzz... "The original owner says the site is dying." "Weylon hates what JA did to the Mug." "answerMug is about to shut down." OMG People. No. That was just Wey being Wey. He didn't think the site was dying. He didn't think the site was bad. He and I were (and are) still friends. The site is (obviously) not shutting down. Bless him, he just doesn't think politically and had no idea what would come of that question. 

When I saw all the crap being said about what Wey meant by it, it really hurt to have all these people twisting what he said and giving it meaning he didn't have, but I knew that the more I fought it, the more fodder it would give people, so I didn't say a word. I figured that, in time, it would blow over. And, for the most part it did, aside from one person who made a point of bringing him and what they felt his opinion was into every dispute about how things were handled. But, that one person was doing it maliciously to be hurtful. And, yes, it stung. Having someone constantly say a friend of mine was denouncing me- that's crap. Wey saw what was happening and offered to try to "fix" it. I asked him to let it be. I just wanted peace. After a year of it, though, I finally said, "Ok, I'd like to mention our discussion in this blog. It gives background of the policies and will settle the crap once and for all." He and I talked at length, I wrote the blog to hopefully settle the current issue and the Wey issue, sent him a copy, he approved of how he was represented in it, and I posted it. 

My comment to him was representative of that. I gave him accolades for having my back. Bear in mind, that blog had nothing to do with the topic at hand here and now. Had I known it would have been drug into this, I probably would have responded differently to him. Had he known it would be used against me or twisted, I'm certain he never would have posted it. But, he's not here to represent himself, and I'd rather not put words into his mouth. Don't ask me to justify or explain him. I can't. He's his own person, with his own thought processes that are unique to him. I've been friends with him for like 6 years now. I love him to the moon and back, but I wouldn't dare try to guess what he means by anything. His brain just goes. And stuff winds up on a page. I'm pretty sure he doesn't even think about the political ramifications of the things he says sometimes or about how his words might be taken because that's not him.

I referenced him in a "loving" (friendly) manner, that denoted kinship and appreciation for a concept he designed and for a site I love, but I'm not using his words to justify my behavior and actions. My decisions are mine and mine alone. If he would have handled this differently, so be it. There were five people on this site when I came here. I can name them all. That site and its moderation needs are not the same as what we have today. The site was an 18+ site, by invite only, private (nobody could see anything but the sign-in page unless they were a member), and no adult content was allowed anywhere at all. The five people who were here were all friends. We held weekly "moderation" meetings in the main chat room because almost everyone who was on the site was a mod. lol Different times. So much of what was here back then could not possibly be carried through. It evolved. It changed. But the heart, the heart will never change. If nothing else, that is what I hope to carry through. When the three of us mods sat down to talk about what we wanted for aM, it was always acceptance, tolerance, and kindness, as well as the sharing of information. Some people lost sight of that as we became bigger and tolerance no longer meant we only had to accept our four other friends. It meant we had to accept people who were radically different from us. Sometimes, putting aside those differences is hard. It makes us bend, lest we break. 

This is an opinion site. It's only natural everyone will have an opinion on how it should be run. You see it through your lens, and others see it through theirs. It will always be so. We are not all always going to agree. And, we all certainly don't agree on this topic. But, in some ways, we are very similar. We want to share. We want to know. We laugh. We cry. We stumble. We pick ourselves up. We can tear each other apart or we can lift each other up. I choose to lift. You'll have to make your own choice. 

With all that said, I am genuinely sorry that you sometimes feel disheartened by the traffic, but you should know that you make a difference. You brighten the days of many. I am glad you are here. I love the presence you usually bring with you. Nothing anybody else does diminishes that. Nothing. The people who like to interact with you- they find you. They seek you out. You should feel good about that- not darkened by the things going on in the periphery. 

The site will continue to evolve. That's the nature of the beast. Not only will members come and go, but the needs of the member base will change, technology will change, expectations will change. I remember having many talks with SurfDog (If you remember him from AB- he was here for a while as well, but has passed away). He was a salty and colorful fellow and was here when no adult content was allowed. He was the first one I ever had to moderate. lol But, in talking to him, I learned that we really did need an outlet for that kind of stuff, and so I talked to Wey and he agreed to let me make adultMug. Evolution. For the longest time, members could only get notifications via email. That was a big part of our redesign- to get them on site. More evolution. These are very basic and visible examples, but I could literally think of hundreds of changes we've seen since I got here, most of which were inspired by or recommended by members, and goodness knows there will be more. 

I know you're frustrated, and I understand why. It's not a forever thing. We'll find the right solutions and we'll implement them, but I'm not going to jump into criticism or take any course of action unless I'm 100% certain it's the best possible choice for the greater member base. Hang in there. Let's keep our thinking caps on and see what we come up with that creates a positive change that everyone (or at least the majority) feels good about. 

Thank you for taking the time to fill in some of the puzzle pieces. I really appreciate that, especially since you are obviously under no obligation to explain yourself nor your decision making processes. I will do my best to hang in and continue to actively participate on the site with the hope that this matter comes to a satisfactory conclusion.

Other people and things don't cause irritation---by the reaction you cause in yourself as a response to external stimuli, YOU yourself cause yourself that irritation.

Since the irritation is in you, perhaps your doctor could prescribe or suggest some medication to reduce the inflammation that is causing your irritation.

And it seems disrespectful for you to assert without any probitive evidence that "she doesn't care and just keeps posting."   It is quite possible that she is aware that if she bends over too far backward to unreasonably accommodate you, she may in fact hurt her back.

Perhaps you should strive to be a little more accommodating for her.

I occasionally answer her questions, but I probably scroll past the majority of them---simply because they do not interest me.  She and I are just part of the decor of this site---and I see no good reason to paint the sky black for those who don't like the color blue.

Tiresome, tiresome Tom. Funny how a man so impressed with his own intelligence doesn't realize when he's talking to someone who considers his opinion worthless. Next time, if there is one, I won't even bother typing a response. You're not worth my time nor energy.

Corey!!! If you leave me I will hunt you down ... and you've seen how I handle a gun ;) good to see you ;)

Oh snap!! I'd better stay put! Lol

LOL :) you've seen how I hold a gun .. offline ...and I've seen  how you hold a gun ... offline .... I'm betting on me ;) DO NOT TEST ME COREY! ;) seriously though , I'm happy see  you here ... missing you :)

Yay! Someone missed me! I feel so warm and fuzzy right now :P

Unlikely, not likely---oops.

Just curious, do you use the filtering on the activity feed?

I feel like I've asked you this and it isn't working for you because of a browser incompatibility issue, but maybe that wasn't you? If it wasn't you, I'd give the filtering options a go.

What is filtering?

Oops. That wasn't you! Sorry! Check out this video. It will walk you through it better than I can with words. If you have questions, gimme a holler.