See you around

[Elad n]

See you around guys, i wont be using this platform anymore since they shut my mouth and removed my avatar.

They say its not professional so the PROFESSIONAL thing to do is to ask them to close my account.

Good luck you all!

---

Moderator response:

• https://www.namepros.com/posts/7754873/

Important questions:

• https://www.namepros.com/posts/7749064/

 

[Recons.Com]

I think some people just have trouble accepting authority. The mods are the authority on the forum. Someone has to be, right?

When you're the authority, you're listened to first, and then you discuss later. Parenting 101. It goes for basically all situations where someone makes the rules and someone follows them.

This is not a church, you are not a preacher on Sunday sermon. Any authority is not automatically from God. We use our own judgement and if the authority is unfair we use something called freedom of speech. If the authority here has problem here, we just leave.

 

[Joe N]

If the authority here has problem here, we just leave.

Yes! Exactly. That is the freedom we all have. They make the rules. We follow them or leave.

 

[Recons.Com]

Well now you're putting words in my mouth. I was just using an analogy to make a point.

So you think the mod should reverse his decision. Does that mean you're okay with a member ignoring a request from a mod?

If mod's request is not warranted by the rules and/or common sense, then it should be ignored. We made it clear that the rules don't cover this. 70+ voters also made it clear that it is not warranted by common sense either.

 

[Joe N]

If mod's request is not warranted by the rules and/or common sense, then it should be ignored. We made it clear that the rules don't cover this. 70+ voters also made it clear that it is not warranted by common sense either.

So anytime a member feels like a mod's requests aren't in line with the rules, the member should just ignore the mods...

You don't think that sets a bad precedent?

 

[Recons.Com]

Yes! Exactly. That is the freedom we all have. They make the rules. We follow them or leave.

Leaving is not an easy decision. This thread is clear illustration that there are dozens of conscious caring users that would rather first try to reason. But, yes, if the outcome is boss/parent analogies and insisting on the wrong decision, that will be the outcome...

 

[Joe N]

Leaving is not an easy decision. This thread is clear illustration that there are dozens of conscious caring users that would rather first try to reason. But, yes, if the outcome is boss/parent analogies and insisting on the wrong decision, that will be the outcome...

I'm not sure why the analogy is such an issue. The simple fact is that, as members of this forum, we're expected to abide by the final decision of the mods. That's how forums have worked since the dawn of the internet.

 

[Recons.Com]

So anytime a member feels like a mod's requests aren't in line with the rules, the member should just ignore the mods...

You don't think that sets a bad precedent?

Bad precedent is using a single complaint against common sense and also not being flexible enough to listen to common sense as illustrated by the poll above (yes, I know it says disturbing and not professional, but again your avatar doesn't fit professional in a strict sense either)

 

[Joe N]

Bad precedent is using a single complaint against common sense and also not being flexible enough to listen to common sense as illustrated by the poll above (yes, I know it says disturbing and not professional, but again your avatar doesn't fit professional in a strict sense either)

If Elad had stuck around, respected the initial request, and then made his voice heard in a productive way, then yes it would set a bad precedent for the mod to ignore this kind of support from the community.

But that's not what happened.

 

[Compassion]

As a parent, I get where the mod is coming from.

In the heat of the moment, I'll tell my kids to do (or stop doing) something. If they freak out and ignore me, there's no way I'm going to apologize to them (even if I think I overreacted). If they do what I ask, and I think on it later and realize I was in the wrong, I'll tell them.

NP members are the kids in this analogy, like it or not.

I'm a parent too.

My son doesn't freak out and ignore me because I speak to him on a level stream of communication and integrity. If things get fiesty I reason with him and we can unite our intentions into resolution.

His relationship with his mother?

more like a ...Listen to me or else mentality that she projects into situations which creates rifts that my son and I do not have.......a dynamic that you may have with yours?!?


...And your comment seems to have little relevance to the fact that changing the avatar of an honest active member by the moderation team was inappropriate.

 

[Joe N]

My son doesn't freak out and ignore me because I speak to him on a level stream of communication and integrity. If things get fiesty I reason with him and we can unite our intentions into resolution.

His relationship with his mother?

more like a ...Listen to me or else mentality that she projects into situations..a dynamic that you may have with yours.

As the parent, do you or do you not have the final say?

 

[Mahogany]

Does that mean you're okay with a member ignoring a request from a mod?

We have a moral responsibility to break unjust laws. - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Joe N]

We have a moral responsibility to break unjust laws. - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

So you want everyone in the forum to personally embody this quote, and break forum laws that they feel are unjust?

 

[Compassion]

As the parent, do you or do you not have the final say?

The parent has the final say, but it always comes with an explanation if there was a disagreement and often times an agreement is negotiated by us.


....And I still do not see a correlation to the fact the moderation team deleted the avatar of one of the top 2% of contributing members on this forum who likely didn't have any or many previous strikes and seems to have been well liked enough that not a single member has complained about anything he did on the forum. (aside from the gripe about the avatar)

The member was an enhancement to the forum
not a newbie,
not a troll,
not a scammer.

 

[Joe N]

The parent has the final say, but it always comes with an explanation if their was a disagreement.


....And I still do not see a correlation to the fact the moderation team deleted the avatar of one of the top 2% of contributing members on this forum who likely didn't have any or many previous strikes and seems to have been well liked enough that not a single member has complained about anything he did on the forum.

The member was an enhancement to the forum
not a newbie,
not a troll,
not a scammer.

Yes, agreed. Explain. But do as I say, right?

Did the mod not explain?

Top 2% of members doesn't give him special rights to decide when and when not to listen to a request from NP. Or is there a secret platinum membership package that I'm not aware of?

 

[Samer]

i’m not antagonizing you @Mod Team Bravo

I’m not piling on.

Just treat everyone the same. This “professional standard” is bs. Delete all the women avie used by men. Not professional. almost Catfishing & irrelevant in domain forum

 

[Joe N]

i’m not antagonizing you @Mod Team Bravo

I’m not piling on.

Just treat everyone the same. This “professional standard” is bs. Delete all the women avie used by men. Not professional. almost like Catfishing & irrelevant in Domain

Agreed. And the mod did say to report all offenders that we notice. Start reporting!

 

[hawkeye]

As a parent, I get where the mod is coming from.

In the heat of the moment, I'll tell my kids to do (or stop doing) something. If they freak out and ignore me, there's no way I'm going to apologize to them (even if I think I overreacted). If they do what I ask, and I think on it later and realize I was in the wrong, I'll tell them.

NP members are the kids in this analogy, like it or not.

And, like it or not your way of parenting is just that 'your' way, and it doesn't mean it's the 'only', 'correct' or the 'right' way!! And comparing the adult 'international' members here to your children is pointless and belittling to the case at hand.

The main issue here is that the op was 'suddenly' requested to change his long term avatar on the spur of the moment, due to 'one' persons complaint, and a mod agreeing with them of the interpretation of what is a professional avatar. (One persons pov a new rule does not make!) If avatars and their interpretation-of is a 'now' issue/problem with NP policies, then it should have been noted for all members prior that offensive avatars will need to be removed along with guidelines as to what is 'offensive'. But the now enforced never before known rule and action of "I'm the mod and you do as I instructed or I'll do it for you", was over handled, and came off as mean and authoritative, hence why the op reacted as he did.

Mods need to make 'new' changes/rules noted for all to know of and when so before enforcing, so everyone in on the same page. And the power hunger needs to be curtailed and used when necessary, not ad hock.

 

[Joe N]

This thread is clear illustration that there are dozens of conscious caring users that would rather first try to reason.

I'd also like to point out that, a page or two ago, the mod gave us all an opportunity to use reason and open discussion to improve things. Not many people bothered to provide feedback.

 

[Joe N]

And, like it or not your way of parenting is just that 'your' way, and it doesn't mean it's the 'only', 'correct' or the 'right' way!! And comparing the adult 'international' members here to your children is pointless and belittling to the case at hand.

The main issue here is that the op was 'suddenly' requested to change his long term avatar on the spur of the moment, due to 'one' persons complaint, and a mod agreeing with them of the interpretation of what is a professional avatar. (One persons pov a new rule does not make!) If avatars and their interpretation-of is a 'now' issue/problem with NP policies, then it should have been noted for all members prior that offensive avatars will need to be removed along with guidelines as to what is 'offensive'. But the now enforced never before known rule and action of "I'm the mod and you do as I instructed or I'll do it for you", was over handled, and came off as mean and authoritative, hence why the op reacted as he did.

Mods need to make 'new' changes/rules noted for all to know of and when so before enforcing, so everyone in on the same page. And the power hunger needs to be curtailed and used when necessary, not ad hock.

I agree that the rules were either non-existent or unclear.

You need to also recognize that each mod is human and will make mistakes.

But the only way you can have order in any setting where laws are open to interpretation, is for everyone to agree that someone (or some people) have the final say. And when someone has the final say, you listen to them first, and seek to make changes later (if you disagree).

 

[Joe N]

I agree that the rules were either non-existent or unclear.

You need to also recognize that each mod is human and will make mistakes.

But the only way you can have order in any setting where laws are open to interpretation, is for everyone to agree that someone (or some people) have the final say. And when someone has the final say, you listen to them first, and seek to make changes later (if you disagree).

And if that doesn't work, organize a revolution! I think @Mahogany might join you.

 

[Compassion]

Yes, agreed. Explain. But do as I say, right?

Did the mod not explain?

Top 2% of members doesn't give him special rights to decide when and when not to listen to a request from NP. Or is there a secret platinum membership package that I'm not aware of?

When a single member of average distinction reports he is offended and disenchanted by the avatar it could warrant a note to the member with the avatar later if there are more complaints.

But until numerous complaints come, why pester an active member?

A response to the offended complainant could mention that the good standing member is within the rules because the image itself is not violent/pornographic/derogatory/racist and suggest methods to hide the image such as blocking the member.


If I post an image of Barack Obama and someone in Iraq reports me because they are offended because his country was bombed and pillaged by the Obama regime and every time they see a smiling Obama they get PTSD thiking about the maimed bodies they saw from his actions - will you zap my avatar if I choose not to erase it willingly?

....or would you suggest methods to the disgruntled member with PTSD from Obama's killing regime block my image other ways?

What if I am a US Army Soldier with a picture of me in a desert holding an AK47 in my profile and the same Iraqi member gets PTSD everytime they see my image and reports my avatar.

Do you delete my avatar if I don't comply?

 

[HotKey]

I had seen that avatar for years and it did not trouble me, and yes I have seen the film. In part it is about the risks of isolation and obsession, which are also domainer hazards. And we don't have to take the image literally as a threat to kill - yes I've head NP does feature those - but as someone "about to make a killing" in the domain market.

And what does professionals mean here? Verifiable traders? Verifiable turnover? People who meet ethical standards? Paying members? Who is setting the standards?

Wow. Fantastically put Carob.

To add, as professional individuals, most of who we are and what we contribute is done in the method in which we carry ourselves, via our interactions with other members. Our chosen profile pic/avatar should bear little to no impact on judgment towards our professionalism. In the rare case an image was truly despicable or offensive, I think it would be plainly obvious. This is not the case here whatsoever.

Have not gone through the entire thread yet, will not finish it tonight however, wanted to throw my voice in before signing off.

I hope decision gets revisited, and the number of votes showing support taken into some sort of account, at the very least for retaining a semblance of community spirit and sharing of sorts, which in and of itself is a hugely positive thing.

 

[Joe N]

When a single member of average distinction reports he is offended and disenchanted by the avatar it could warrant a note to the member with the avatar later if there are more complaints.

But until numerous complaints come, why pester an active member?

A response to the offended complainant could mention that the good standing member is within the rules because the image itself is not violent/pornographic/derogatory/racist and suggest methods to hide the image such as blocking the member.


If I post an image of Barack Obama and someone in Iraq reports me because they are offended because his country was bombed and pillaged by the Obama regime and every time they see a smiling Obama they get PTSD thiking about the maimed bodies they saw from his actions - will you zap my avatar if I choose not to erase it willingly?

....or would you suggest methods to the disgruntled member with PTSD from Obama's killing regime killing block my image other ways?

What if I am a US Army Soldier holding an AK47 in my profile and the same Iraqi member gets PTSD everytime they see my image and reports my avatar.

Do you delete my avatar if I don't comply?

He wasn't asked to remove it because of the report. He was asked to remove it because NP felt it was unprofessional. The report just brought it to their attention.

Would I find it reasonable if you had to delete an Obama avatar for those reasons? No.

Would I make a stink about it if I were you? Maybe.

Would I feel strongly enough about it that I would leave the forum instead of just picking another picture and moving on with my life? Hell no.

 

[Joe N]

@Mod Team Bravo - If NP wants to make rules surrounding what avatars are allowed in a professional setting, my suggestion would be to allow only the following:

1. A picture of the member (inoffensive, of course).
2. A picture of the member's business logo (again, inoffensive).
3. A default picture provided by NP.

And yes, NP has final say on what is "offensive".

There are ways to verify if a person's picture of themselves is legitimate. I think the above would be a reasonable solution.

 

[Compassion]

He wasn't asked to remove it because of the report. He was asked to remove it because NP felt it was unprofessional. The report just brought it to their attention.

Clearly you haven't been active enough to see that member had chosen that profile picture a long, long time ago - at least three years ago, likely more. Amanda, Eric, Edward ...multiple mods have seen that image thousands of times and taken no action - even some of the more aggressive moderators chose not to take action all these years.

Are you and Mod Team Bravo going to hunt down the two or three accounts I see displaying Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator?

Are you going to hunt down the members that use hot babes as their avatars?