Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Shaun Russell
That said, it was ultimately his decision to leave, and it is true that he offered very little in terms of criticism to other poets. I want him back, but he would need to show some more quid pro quo.
|
I guess anyone who leaves the site leaves as a result of making a decision to leave. Unless they're banned that is. The interesting question surely, and one that presumably that's this thread is here to debate, is why people make the decision to leave?
Shaun, you're a moderator here. What I'd be interested to know is why, if Holly's behaviour was so remiss, was no action was taken by the moderators (I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that none was). Isn't it the moderators role to enforce the rules/guidelines? It can't really be the job of the members to publicly confront and accuse one another, can it?
Might it not have been better if a moderator had taken Holly aside, so to speak, in private, by means of a PM, and raised this issue with him and told him needed to up his game? My belief is that such a course of action would have been far more likely to have resulted in a change of behaviour, and in Holly still being here posting poems.
Personally I think that relying on members to take it upon themselves to police the site by publicly confronting/accusing other members about rule infringements is a potentially divisive policy and one that is likely to promote ill will. It would seem to make so much more sense for these things to be handled by moderators.
Wouldn't it be better if people who have a grievance complained to a mod and left the mods to handle it? This last is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. Perhaps there's a good reason why things are as they are.
All the best,
- Matt