[Matt Q]

Roger,

I also belong to another poetry forum that does exactly the same some parts of the site. It also uses the vBulletin software that we use here. Once you're logged in, you can see the hidden parts, and since you need to log in to use the site, it's absolutely painless: no additional levels of bureaucracy or extra typing needed.

-Matt

[Matt Q]

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

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

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).

Yes, you're assuming incorrectly.

[Ed Shacklee]

Does Holly publish his poetry under another name? If so, I would like to know what that name is. He might have been a terrible contributor as far as give-and-take goes, but he's a fine poet.

Best,

Ed

[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by Ed Shacklee

Does Holly publish his poetry under another name? If so, I would like to know what that name is. He might have been a terrible contributor as far as give-and-take goes, but he's a fine poet.

I remember seeing him say recently that he only wrote for pleasure. (This despite the fact that his name is almost certainly a pseudonym taken from Greene's The Third Man),

-Matt

[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

I remember seeing him say recently that he only wrote for pleasure. (This despite the fact that his name is almost certainly a pseudonym taken from Greene's The Third Man)

Matt, I asked him once. You can remove the 'almost' before certainly.

Odd, isn't it, that the character was originally called 'Rollo', but Joseph Cotten insisted on changing it to 'Holly', which might be considered a rather more effeminate name.

[Wintaka]

Someone asked:

Tell me, how many poets do you reckon you've personally marched off this workshop?

Not enough, obviously.

-o-

"Death is just Nature's way to tell us it is time to stop writing.
Unfortunately, she never arranged a similar signal to tell some
people they should never start...."

- Maz (Eratosphere, "Is Mark Allinson Dying?", 2006-11-25)

[Matt Q]

Shaun thanks,

My apologies for making that assumption. I can appreciate that it may not be politic to discuss the precise details of what went on in Holly's case. In retrospect, I should probably have made this point in entirely general terms. It would have been far more appropriate.

I also apologise if my previous post came across as accusatory. That wasn't my intention when I sat down to write it. I am, and remain, rather confused about how this site is policed, especially the whole public confrontation thing which seem to go against the site guidelines. I'm now possibly more confused, since if the mods are dealing with infringements, then what purpose does public confrontation by members serve?

Anyway, perhaps I could simplify my question and state it in general terms and hopefully open it up for discussion: Is it a good thing that members publicly confront/accuse others of infringements (not critting sufficiently, not being a good enough poet, bumping old threads) or would that be better left to the mods?

Personally I think that leaving this to the mods would lead to a more harmonious site, and that this would be a good thing for participation (which is why I raised it in this thread). I also think mods are far better placed to resolve member infractions effectively than a public confrontation from other members is. I think people's egos are better able to cope with the former than the latter. I accept of course, that there may be something that I'm missing here. I'm genuinely interested in some constructive discussion.

All the best,

Matt

[John Whitworth]

I have recently been disciplined by Alex. Why not? It's his job. And without him there would be no Sphere. Let's hear it for Alex. On the other hand, other people taking it upon themselves... (non-mods) fill me with... er, annoyance.

[Siham Karami]

Some people, such as myself, are very enthusiastic to participate, especially posting poems and crits, but have absolutely nowhere near the time to do it properly at the moment. Many have said this relates to the academic, seasonal and work schedules. It may also relate to some extent on reading periods and contest schedules (not counting the UK comps which are continuous and with whom the sphere has a symbiotic relationship). Work comes in waves, and so will participation. And I don't see where making TDE password-protected could cause any harm. It is a world unto itself in some ways, and for those who find this somehow off-putting, the metrical board is open and more popular to begin with.