Ishvala wrote:I also contacted support for info about being Tenured and whether or not i was applicable for it. Even if I'm not right now, I'll have a better idea of where I am as far as how long I have to wait.

I had thought it was at most around 6 months before you can apply for tenure. I think I found the rule on that once when searching the forum. I vaguely recall reading that some users who are known to the Admin / owners of the Forum may get tenured earlier. It's a matter of trust and familiarity I think.

Just spotted my application has disappeared from the Usergroups tab in my User Control Panel, so I've reapplied. I'll give it a week then chase up via a CH support ticket. I originally applied in October (ie after 6 months).

CH has been taking some freedoms away over the years here, also by closing down their social platform and stuff, it has become quite impossible to have a talk with anyone privately. Many times I would like to send something to someone, without writing it in public and I just don't at all, just because the possibility does not exist. Most members who find this forum, just don't have the ability to write and read PMs.

However, I also no longer care, there is nothing going to change on how CH is doing this. At all. Ever.

They fear, that people will go away from here? Well, that's what happened anyway... so, if they want to restrict people on what they can do, let them try to do so.

As I see it, what was once a big community here with knowing a lot of people and communicating with each other, is no longer truely the case. It has become mostly only the random things here and there. Why? Because many have went to other places which you cannot even mention here (Dis...), as if they would be something like cancer, as they get immedietally removed from text. It's like almost anything is banned, where the owners don't profit from. We are also not kis who need a babysitter, but anyone is responsible for their own. Safety stops being about safety, when it cuts into the freedoms of a person. Whatever, let it be so. It's their own platform, they can do as they wish. If it's for safety reasons or for personal gaining, I think we are all adults and can judge it as we wish to do.

People have created platforms and alternatives elsewhere, for all those reasons you mentioned in your first post, how hard it has become here to share some things or get in contact with others and have the natural things which the members of a community must have, to be and feel like one.

Correction (for lack of possibility to edit the post):

When I said "... taking away freedoms" I rather meant "... taking away possibilities and features to do things". It may sound more harsh than what I wanted to say. So, I wanted to correct it for avoiding misunderstandings.

Jimy wrote:CH has been taking some freedoms away over the years here, also by closing down their social platform and stuff, it has become quite impossible to have a talk with anyone privately. Many times I would like to send something to someone, without writing it in public and I just don't at all, just because the possibility does not exist. Most members who find this forum, just don't have the ability to write and read PMs.

However, I also no longer care, there is nothing going to change on how CH is doing this. At all. Ever.

They fear, that people will go away from here? Well, that's what happened anyway... so, if they want to restrict people on what they can do, let them try to do so.

As I see it, what was once a big community here with knowing a lot of people and communicating with each other, is no longer truely the case. It has become mostly only the random things here and there. Why? Because many have went to other places which you cannot even mention here (Dis...), as if they would be something like cancer, as they get immedietally removed from text. It's like almost anything is banned, where the owners don't profit from. We are also not kis who need a babysitter, but anyone is responsible for their own. Safety stops being about safety, when it cuts into the freedoms of a person. Whatever, let it be so. It's their own platform, they can do as they wish. If it's for safety reasons or for personal gaining, I think we are all adults and can judge it as we wish to do.

People have created platforms and alternatives elsewhere, for all those reasons you mentioned in your first post, how hard it has become here to share some things or get in contact with others and have the natural things which the members of a community must have, to be and feel like one.

I agree with this in some parts. I feel CH could change if the owners wanted to change it, and I believe that personal freedoms to say certain things and share information should be left up to the individual, but I also believe that Owners of a site can do as they wish whether I like it or not because this is their domain and that's just how it is. On most platforms, not even just CH. Fortunately most platforms give members more leniency (or perhaps the more correct word is trust?) when it comes to such matters. Unfortunately unless we jump through six dozen hoops finding friends from CH is nigh impossible no matter how people like to dress it up unless you already had connections elsewhere due to other friends and social networks.

As I said before, I'm sure CH has their reasons. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them. It also doesn't mean I don't feel the need to question them, send help desk tickets, and challenge view points for the sake of debate and blatant curiosity. There's a difference between malicious intent, trolling, and genuine passion and/or concern. I hope I don't get banned for the prior two and am instead at least a little respected for the latter.

Given the first few responses, logical opinions they may be, there is little factual evidence to backup the current paranoia of the owners. I'm sure things happened in the past, all forums go through hard times and clearly CH went through hell due to their niche and hard to understand market given how new it was (and still is) to the Witchy community. I'm not denying that. I am however expressing that there is a clear line to draw between safety and a desperate need for control. I feel that line has been blurred here. But that is just a feeling, an opinion made after reading many threads and noticing many responses ignoring many blatant things. Both in the past and even in this thread now.

To summarize, I won't leave as I see value in the threads and I enjoy the shop, but I am a bit disheartened that the first responses I received were so adamant about defending CH instead of looking at the bigger issue, and while members like Sid are a bit more bitter than me, it's clear that they used to be passionate about this site before they were ultimately tired of trying and moved on. I don't want to become like that. I want to continue aiming for a better sense of community, or as a more achievable goal, perhaps shortening the tenured member time so members can have access to pms quicker and not feel so restricted. Say, three months instead of half a year...

I dunno.

The more I suggest and theorize the more I feel as if it will just be seen as meaningless dribble by the majority of members who have been here longer or have close ties with the owners. It's pretty saddening actually. I wish the atmosphere felt different, but it doesn't. I can't just ignore that...

Ishvala wrote: My implication was that CH doesn't trust the majority of its members to be adults and avoid things like scams and dramatic trolls, etc.

Well, maybe the majority of people can't be adult as you envision it : p
And minority of them may inflict severe damage that it shuts down the community.

One direct way to understand is to make your own site or platform, or use existing ones, focusing on the meta as well. Don't use any restriction. See how it goes : )
I saw several ones including forums and discords that were created because they were dissatisfied with CH, yet ended up so bad that they put harsher restriction and ban people for simpler reasons. But if you can prove that you can make the ideal community with no restriction, that'd be quite an accomplishment.


This:

Ishvala wrote: Not sure where in the world CH is, but I'm 80% sure the site itself wouldn't be held responsible.

and this:

Ishvala wrote:Issues on a platform directly affect the owners too. For instance, there was a plagerism issue on an RP forum hosted by proboards and the owner of that forum wound up having to go to court.

contradict each other.

And you have to understand that meta sites are different from other mainstream ones, in that they are at risk from 3 major accusations: scam, blasphemy/heresy, and cult. The first and third directly involve the law. The second, while may not be within legal system depending on local ruling, can still be dangerous in that fundamentalists and fanatics can gather to harass the sites, including slander, death threats, etc. In any case, they all can damage the sites

Ishvala wrote:

darkwing dook wrote: And you do know even mainstream social media employed restriction to avoid problem, even though they establish themselves as platform, right?

How do you mean?

Can't link any since it's related to political topics, which is a no no here. If you want to know, just google it : p

Ishvala wrote: As I said before, I'm sure CH has their reasons. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them. It also doesn't mean I don't feel the need to question them, send help desk tickets, and challenge view points for the sake of debate and blatant curiosity. There's a difference between malicious intent, trolling, and genuine passion and/or concern. I hope I don't get banned for the prior two and am instead at least a little respected for the latter.

Well, as long as you remember this:

Ash & I founded this forum to be open. An Open Forum means that we welcome all ideologies, theories, beliefs, and thought processes. It means that we welcome open posting that provokes thought, discussions, and debates. Since we do not push one ideology here we request that members do not do it either.

topic20963.html
It might be safe (might be, not should be : p).
Additional note: ideology is not the same as rule.

Ishvala wrote:Given the first few responses, logical opinions they may be, there is little factual evidence to backup the current paranoia of the owners.

That's because the evidence is not publicize, which is not a bad idea in order to avoid further drama with the involved parties.

If you really want to know, as Noc said, you need to contact them directly. But don't just say, "Hey, what's the proof of X and Y?", that's not gonna earn you their trust to tell you, which goes back again to whether majority of people are trustworthy. Show them you can be trusted : p

darkwing dook wrote: Well, maybe the majority of people can't be adult as you envision it p
And minority of them may inflict severe damage that it shuts down the community.

One direct way to understand is to make your own site or platform, or use existing ones, focusing on the meta as well. Don't use any restriction. See how it goes )
I saw several ones including forums and ***NO REDIRECTS ALLOWED*** that were created because they were dissatisfied with CH, yet ended up so bad that they put harsher restriction and ban people for simpler reasons. But if you can prove that you can make the ideal community with no restriction, that'd be quite an accomplishment.

Maybe. If I had the time and felt the need was great enough. Currently I'm more focused on creating stories to sell online via books and interactive fiction. Devoting my time to creating an entire community on my own would require more time I don't have. But hey, again, maybe one day.

darkwing dook wrote: This:

Ishvala wrote: Not sure where in the world CH is, but I'm 80% sure the site itself wouldn't be held responsible.

and this:

Ishvala wrote:Issues on a platform directly affect the owners too. For instance, there was a plagerism issue on an RP forum hosted by proboards and the owner of that forum wound up having to go to court.

contradict each other.

I was referring to site owners not the platform owners. Stating an example that members of a site are held under scrutiny just as much as anyone else and the responsibility of a life wouldn't fall on the heads of CH themselves. It would fall on the people responsible. If CH clearly states they aren't responsible for members actions than that is that. Us adults have been warned. So long as they don't directly involve themselves they should be fine.

darkwing dook wrote: And you have to understand that meta sites are different from other mainstream ones, in that they are at risk from 3 major accusations: scam, blasphemy/heresy, and cult. The first and third directly involve the law.

A scam is only a scam if you don't get what you pay for. This is why a lot of sellers list their items for entertainment purposes by law and sell items as items versus Spirit bindings. That way the argument could be made that the person got what they paid for, even if they're unhappy about it. For example if I went shopping for milk and I didn't look at the date, but I bought it anyway, and found out it was spoiled a week or two later...that wouldn't be on the store. They made it blatantly obvious when it would spoil. I should have read the expiration. The same logic applies to products on meta sites.

As for cults, this is much easier to disprove. Do you have the option to leave... Are people threatening you if you make the attempt... Are people trying to brainwash you through gaslighting, etc. If no is answered to either, it's not a Cult, it's a clique if anything. Sure, people could say there are cultish aspects (such as censoring and strict rules) but Mormons aren't much different and nobody calls them an actual Cult. Maybe cultish, but no full logical accusations with consequences can be made.

darkwing dook wrote: The second, while may not be within legal system depending on local ruling, can still be dangerous in that fundamentalists and fanatics can gather to harass the sites, including slander, death threats, etc. In any case, they all can damage the sites

To me it seems that slandering CH is the only realistic fear and to that my only response is...CH is already slandered on many sites. It can be seen through a simple Google search. This is because of many reasons but the two I've seen most often are that people don't believe in Spirit Keeping or they have a personal vendetta against the site and/or its owners. I understand wanting to mitigate this, but again, there's a blurred line here.

darkwing dook wrote:

Ishvala wrote: How do you mean?

Can't link any since it's related to political topics, which is a no no here. If you want to know, just google it p

That's a shame.

darkwing dook wrote: Well, as long as you remember this:

Ash & I founded this forum to be open. An Open Forum means that we welcome all ideologies, theories, beliefs, and thought processes. It means that we welcome open posting that provokes thought, discussions, and debates. Since we do not push one ideology here we request that members do not do it either.

topic20963.html
It might be safe (might be, not should be p).
Additional note: ideology is not the same as rule.

I'll take a strange comfort in that.

darkwing dook wrote:

Ishvala wrote:Given the first few responses, logical opinions they may be, there is little factual evidence to backup the current paranoia of the owners.

That's because the evidence is not publicize, which is not a bad idea in order to avoid further drama with the involved parties.

If you really want to know, as Noc said, you need to contact them directly. But don't just say, "Hey, what's the proof of X and Y?", that's not gonna earn you their trust to tell you, which goes back again to whether majority of people are trustworthy. Show them you can be trusted p

I the most trustable truster that could ever be trusted!

Ahem
But yeah on a serious note I'm not sure if I want to do anything extreme like grovel for their respect and trust, as I'm sure my blunt honesty and overly curious nature has probably rubbed one of the two of them the wrong way, but I see no harm in politely asking as that was the plan already. If they don't trust me that's fine, I don't trust strangers either. It's kind of unnatural to do so. But still, I believe members have a right to know why restrictions are placed on them outside of "Its for your own good". That auhhhoritarian-esque response just makes me uncomfortable I guess. x3

Ishvala wrote: Maybe. If I had the time and felt the need was great enough. Currently I'm more focused on creating stories to sell online via books and interactive fiction. Devoting my time to creating an entire community on my own would require more time I don't have. But hey, again, maybe one day.

In that case, you are only talking about the ideal, not the practical.

In a similar way, these:

Ishvala wrote:A scam is only a scam if you don't get what you pay for. This is why a lot of sellers list their items for entertainment purposes by law and sell items as items versus Spirit bindings. That way the argument could be made that the person got what they paid for, even if they're unhappy about it. For example if I went shopping for milk and I didn't look at the date, but I bought it anyway, and found out it was spoiled a week or two later...that wouldn't be on the store. They made it blatantly obvious when it would spoil. I should have read the expiration. The same logic applies to products on meta sites.

As for cults, this is much easier to disprove. Do you have the option to leave...? Are people threatening you if you make the attempt...? Are people trying to brainwash you through gaslighting, etc.? If no is answered to either, it's not a Cult, it's a clique if anything. Sure, people could say there are cultish aspects (such as censoring and strict rules) but Mormons aren't much different and nobody calls them an actual Cult. Maybe cultish, but no full logical accusations with consequences can be made.

...

To me it seems that slandering CH is the only realistic fear and to that my only response is...CH is already slandered on many sites. It can be seen through a simple Google search. This is because of many reasons but the two I've seen most often are that people don't believe in Spirit Keeping or they have a personal vendetta against the site and/or its owners. I understand wanting to mitigate this, but again, there's a blurred line here.

are the ideal condition. In practice, they are not that simple and easy to handle from both legal and business perspectives.

Ishvala wrote: If they don't trust me that's fine, I don't trust strangers either. It's kind of unnatural to do so.

Well, this makes the whole "CH doesn't trust their members to be adult" moot.

Ishvala wrote:But still, I believe members have a right to know why restrictions are placed on them outside of "Its for your own good". That auhhhoritarian-esque response just makes me uncomfortable I guess. x3

Members can always contact CH directly. But CH also has the right to not disclose any confidential information.
When did they use the authoritarian-esque response?

darkwing dook wrote: In that case, you are only talking about the ideal, not the practical.

Yeah I guess that could be said.
But the practical comes from ideals. I'm sure CH as a whole was once just an Ideal too.

darkwing dook wrote: In a similar way, these:

Ishvala wrote:A scam is only a scam if you don't what get what you pay for. This is why a lot of sellers list their items for entertainment purposes by law and sell items as items versus Spirit bindings. That way the argument could be made that the person got what they paid for, even if they're unhappy about it. For example if I went shopping for milk and I didn't look at the date, but I bought it anyway, and found out it was spoiled a week or two later...that wouldn't be on the store. They made it blatantly obvious when it would spoil. I should have read the expiration. The same logic applies to products on meta sites.

As for cults, this is much easier to disprove. Do you have the option to leave... Are people threatening you if you make the attempt... Are people trying to brainwash you through gaslighting, etc. If no is answered to either, it's not a Cult, it's a clique if anything. Sure, people could say there are cultish aspects (such as censoring and strict rules) but Mormons aren't much different and nobody calls them an actual Cult. Maybe cultish, but no full logical accusations with consequences can be made.

...

To me it seems that slandering CH is the only realistic fear and to that my only response is...CH is already slandered on many sites. It can be seen through a simple Google search. This is because of many reasons but the two I've seen most often are that people don't believe in Spirit Keeping or they have a personal vendetta against the site and/or its owners. I understand wanting to mitigate this, but again, there's a blurred line here.

are the ideal condition. In practice, they are not that simple and easy to handle from both legal and business perspectives.

Again, you make a fair point...but also a very general one. Of course not everything goes the way we would expect or prefer a hundred percent of the time, that's just life. Yet there is a likely and unlikely event that can happen and there are statistics we can lean on.

darkwing dook wrote:

Ishvala wrote: If they don't trust me that's fine, I don't trust strangers either. It's kind of unnatural to do so.

Well, this makes the whole "CH doesn't trust their members to be adult" moot.

I disagree. Understanding why they wouldn't trust a stranger does not excuse the lack of respect that putting out a basic level or human trust requires. For example I don't trust them to take care of my God daughter while I'm at work but I do trust them to deliver a good product. They don't have to trust their members enough to have personal private conversation with them, but it's basic decency to extend that trust to allow them to use basic forum commodities. As said before, it's subjective. Not moot.

darkwing dook wrote:

Ishvala wrote:But still, I believe members have a right to know why restrictions are placed on them outside of "Its for your own good". That auhhhoritarian-esque response just makes me uncomfortable I guess. x3

Members can always contact CH directly. But CH also has the right to not disclose any confidential information.
When did they use the authoritarian-esque response?

I agree with the first statement. As I said before, it's worth a shot. As for the question...

Let me put it to you this way. If you were at work, and you were used to doing things in a certain way or routine, and suddenly your new manager comes up and says you can't do A, B, and D because "I don't want you to for safety reasons" but you couldn't see any clear safety issues and from years of past experience it's been the norm...wouldn't you feel as if your metaphorical new boss was being a little controlling?

Whether or not you benefit from your job (Payment or in members case, sharing content) doesn't change the feeling that comes with it.

Again I'm not going out of my way to try and insult them, these are all just personal feelings and opinions based on experience.

Edit: Also they didn't answer my email yet. I was using that as an example. I haven't quoted them line for line and I don't claim to do so. As far why their response to forum having restrictions via their posts seems authoritative to me is because of pretty much everything said above. Both in this post and others.

Ishvala wrote: I disagree. Understanding why they wouldn't trust a stranger does not excuse the lack of respect that putting out a basic level or human trust requires. For example I don't trust them to take care of my God daughter while I'm at work but I do trust them to deliver a good product. They don't have to trust their members enough to have personal private conversation with them, but it's basic decency to extend that trust to allow them to use basic forum commodities. As said before, it's subjective. Not moot.

Bad analogy.
If you argue about their shop, sure. The forum is not the product nor service. It's free to sign up and use for both clients and non-clients, extending to other sellers as well. There's not even ads from other companies in the forum, meaning they pay for it themselves.
If you use the argument that it's subjective, then what you called "basic decency" is also subjective, depending on local tradition, morality, personal preference, etc.
Again, moot point.

Here's an analogy: Do you trust all the adult-aged people in your surrounding and social circle to be adults? And do they all have the same concept and definition of basic decency as yours? If yes to both, then I'd say you live in a good (and a bit creepy : P) place.

Ishvala wrote:Let me put it to you this way. If you were at work, and you were used to doing things in a certain way or routine, and suddenly your new manager comes up and says you can't do A, B, and D because "I don't want you to for safety reasons" but you couldn't see any clear safety issues and from years of past experience it's been the norm...wouldn't you feel as if your metaphorical new boss was being a little controlling?

Whether or not you benefit from your job (Payment or in members case, sharing content) doesn't change the feeling that comes with it.

Again I'm not going out of my way to try and insult them, these are all just personal feelings and opinions based on experience.

Your example doesn't show any evidence that CH has committed authoritarian-esque response. More like you are projecting your personal negative feeling based on what you've experienced somewhere else into CH.

darkwing dook wrote: Bad analogy.

If you argue about their shop, sure. The forum is not the product nor service.

It's not a product but it is a service they provide to people. Just because something is free to members doesn't mean it isn't a service (look at free to play MMO's). They do advertise here, their own shop, as well as others in topics such as reviews and love for CH specifically. They get an audience out of this forum and a lucrative one. In my mind, that makes this place more beneficial to them than one might think.

darkwing dook wrote: If you use the argument that it's subjective, then what you called "basic decency" is also subjective, depending on local tradition, morality, personal preference, etc.
Again, moot point.

If respect, what it is, and how much of it an owner should give its members has to be debated on I suppose this is a moot point.

darkwing dook wrote: Here's an analogy: Do you trust all the adult-aged people in your surrounding and social circle to be adults? And do they all have the same concept and definition of basic decency as yours? If yes to both, then I'd say you live in a good (and a bit creepy P) place.

No, in fact due to past experiences I have some pretty bad trust issues. However again, there's a difference between trusting everyone around you to not trash your house during a party and trusting a few members to be able to use pms without breaking a website. That said, I'm not even advocating for much more than less strict policies. I'm not expecting the site to become some wild house party with no rules because "I'm sick of workin for The man, Timmy! Eff the system!!"

It's really not so colorful.

darkwing dook wrote: Your example doesn't show any evidence that CH has committed authoritarian-esque response. More like you are projecting your personal negative feeling based on what you've experienced somewhere else into CH.

That's my point. I Feel this way. I have opinions based on both what I've read and my feelings. I have seen other members feel this way and worse, and debate leaving such as Sid, or leave entirely - and I haven't even been here for that long.

Yes, my feelings are subjective but the fact remains that I'm not the only one, at least three members I know personally and several I've been told of echo my problems to some degree if not more so but have given up in expecting change.

There is a lack of information CH has provided to us to comfort us or make their members more aware and thus accepting of things, there are statements above that have been brushed off as "Well it COULD happen" or "Well they COULD choose not to be mature" instead of focusing on the facts of the matter, and on top of that let's say I'm completely wrong and everything I said was just emotional passion taking a turn for the worst...

Well the original message still stays. This site needs change to better accommodate its members. Sure, it functions. Sure, CH is popular enough to sustain itself on its store and they'll get new members through there consistently, but the care FEELS gone. That feeling is driving away a heck of a lot of people. I figured setting up slightly less restrictions or even just getting a more detailed response as to the why behind them would be good for the community. I suppose I am mistaken?

Edit: Also I don't think I'm projecting anything negative outside of feeling shut down for merely wanting better for a site I enjoy being on. I understand emotions, my own and others, to a very deep degree and I don't think it's fair of you to make that assumption but I also think it's your right to theorize so...take that as you will.