RWO site changes, bugs, disruptions thread

**neilfws** · 4th August 2022, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by liz

I have a question for a technical person - probably Neilfws.

I don't think StevoSwan posted a link in his post (though I can't see the post so I am guessing). What he did do was quote someone else who had successfully provided a link to a Fairfax article. This isn't the first time I've seen a thread that appears to have been broken by someone quoting another post with a correctly provided link, rather than by posting a faulty link themselves.

Any ideas why this is happening, or suggestions on how to avoid (aside from the obvious of not quoting the part of a post that contains a link, which I imagine will be hard for people to remember to do)?

How interesting! I've tried to reproduce this by doing "reply with quote" on some posts that contain a link, but no success so far. I'll let you know if I find the cause.

All I can suggest is that people try to remember to preview posts before posting the final version. I always "go advanced" on the Web to check the post before submitting - I'm not sure how that works on the mobile site or Tapatalk. If you do preview, any issues (like the "link breaks thread" issue) will show up.

**MattW** · 6th August 2022, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by neilfws

How interesting! I've tried to reproduce this by doing "reply with quote" on some posts that contain a link, but no success so far. I'll let you know if I find the cause.

All I can suggest is that people try to remember to preview posts before posting the final version. I always "go advanced" on the Web to check the post before submitting - I'm not sure how that works on the mobile site or Tapatalk. If you do preview, any issues (like the "link breaks thread" issue) will show up.

I may be able to help.

I screwed up a thread with one of those Fairfax links, posting via website. I could edit the link through tapatalk, with the edited link and thread now operating fine. But when someone replied, despite the link being fixed, it screwed the thread.

Not sure it was this case, though.

**Ludwig** · 11th August 2022, 05:25 PM

Someone commented that TheBloods has been suspended. I checked the Members' records and that seems to be the case.

I want to make it clear that I am not commenting or expressing an opinion on this specific suspension, but rather on the methodology of suspending a member.

I also suspect Bangalore Swans has been suspended as well.

I have a few questions:

What is the process regarding the suspension of a member?
Why are members not informed about suspensions?
Are suspensions permanent, or for some specified period of time?
Who is involved in determining a suspension?

I can understand the difficulties of getting the entire membership involved in prospective sanctions for a member. Nonetheless, I think there should be more transparency in the process. We are not Argentina, where people are just disappeared. Or are we?

**Bloods05** · 11th August 2022, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Ludwig

Someone commented that TheBloods has been suspended. I checked the Members' records and that seems to be the case.

I want to make it clear that I am not commenting or expressing an opinion on this specific suspension, but rather on the methodology of suspending a member.

I also suspect Bangalore Swans has been suspended as well.

I have a few questions:

What is the process regarding the suspension of a member?
Why are members not informed about suspensions?
Are suspensions permanent, or for some specified period of time?
Who is involved in determining a suspension?

I can understand the difficulties of getting the entire membership involved in prospective sanctions for a member. Nonetheless, I think there should be more transparency in the process. We are not Argentina, where people are just disappeared. Or are we?

All good questions that deserve answers.

**liz** · 12th August 2022, 01:32 PM

If we set aside accounts that have been suspended for egregious breach of RWO posting rules (setting up a new account for the purpose of posting adult material or spam, or the use of foul or threatening language), all permanent exclusions of members that have occurred over nearly two decades that I've been helping out on RWO have been instigated by the site owner at the time. The site owner(s) is(are) the people who invest a considerable amount of their time and money in establishing and maintaining the site infrastructure and, in doing so, have a vision of the kind of online community they want to support. They set the overall ethos of the site, including the posting guidelines, and provide guidance and support to the moderating team.

No established member has been permanently excluded without compelling evidence that their behaviour is driving other members away from the forum.

No established member has been permanently excluded before private communications with them to try and persuade them to change their behaviour, or before substantial time has been spent cleaning up the messes that they leave in their wake, which, if left, would contribute to driving other members away from the forum.

In the two decades or so that I've been helping out on RWO, which includes three separate site owner(group)s (Steve/Des, Frog/Scott, Danzar), I reckon I could count the number of established members permanently excluded on one hand. I know for sure I wouldn't need my feet.

In the time that Dan(zar) has been site owner, I am pretty sure there is one person only who has been permanently excluded from the site, at least for now.

Those who have been around on RWO for a while will know that we do have the functionality to issue warnings and infractions to members for breaches of community standards, often minor breaches. These warnings and infractions have points attached to them that can accumulate and result in temporary suspensions. When Dan(zar) took over site ownership, he indicated he'd prefer to move away from this system. Nonetheless, there have been a small number of occasions where repeated and deliberate breaches of the standards have resulted in a short suspension. Off the top of my head, I can recall two instances in the last few years where I personally have suspended a member for 24 hours, and one instance where that suspension has been longer. It's possible there have been one or two others that I no longer recall. And there may be suspensions issued by other moderators that I don't recall.

Any such temporary suspension is documented within the moderation system and is subject to review and scrutiny by the moderator team and the site owner(s).

Danzar might like to add his own comments, but I don't believe that a public prosecution of members would add anything to the community or would result in any different outcomes. It would also likely cause embarrassment to, and breach the privacy, of certain members.

**Ludwig** · 12th August 2022, 02:25 PM

Thanks for the clarification, liz. You, Dan and others involved in managing RWO have done a fantastic job.

May I suggest one small modification, which is to inform the membership about extended or permanent suspensions of membership. A short statement of explanation should suffice. This would help to stop members speculating on suspensions.

Could you kindly clarify another matter for me? I have been under the impression that site ownership was more of a legal matter and didn't represent ownership as is used in a business sense, and RWO existed for the benefit of the members. The owners and mods are performing an administrative service as such. Is this correct, or am I mistaken?

The fact that RWO has been running for nearly 20 years is testament to the success of it's management. Despite the success, it's always healthy to review procedures to keep up with the times. Even the best of systems can be improved. I think a bit more transparency in the area we are discussing is one such example.

Thanks again for the exemplary job done of so many years.

**liz** · 12th August 2022, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ludwig

Could you kindly clarify another matter for me? I have been under the impression that site ownership was more of a legal matter and didn't represent ownership as is used in a business sense, and RWO existed for the benefit of the members. The owners and mods are performing an administrative service as such. Is this correct, or am I mistaken?

RWO is nothing more than a domain name. There is no business. The site generates no income, only costs. It has no monetary assets.

The owner of this site is the person in whose name the domain name is registered and who currently pays the bills. When that person decides they no longer want to administer RWO, they hand the domain registration to whoever puts their hand up to take it on. That person is then free to do what they like with the domain - whether that be keep the forum going, close it down, or use the domain for some other purpose. We have been very fortunate that people with the necessary technical skills and patience have been willing to take on the responsibility each time an owner (or owner group) has decided their time is up, and has decided to maintain the forum pretty much unchanged. The future of RWO is entirely dependent on the time and goodwill of the likes of Steve and Des, Frog and Scott, and now Danzar. Don't take it for granted.

We may refer to posters as members of the site, but they are only members to the extent they have a registered (and current) user ID. Anyone's ongoing participation is at the absolute discretion of whoever owns the domain name, and sets the participation rules. Some posters may have made voluntary financial contributions in the past to help cover costs, but on the basis that this gives them no rights. Dan has chosen not to do a whip-round for a couple of years now. That's his choice. Other than those voluntary contributions, no poster pays anything to register or participate.

If anyone were ever to sue RWO (for copyright or plagiarism or for defamation) they might first try to identify the person who actually made the offending post, but if that's too hard or unrewarding, they would likely come after the personal assets of the owner and likely moderators too. If sometimes it seems that we are ultra-cautious regarding legal risks, you can probably understand why.

Re the disclosure of suspensions, that's Dan's call. If we were to have a vote on it I'd vote against it. I don't think it's anyone else's business. It's not hard to work out when someone is suspended and I daresay it never comes as a surprise. Dan did make an announcement when the first incarnation of a certain person was permanently excluded, and that created just as much discussion as not announcing the second time around. People come and go all the time, whether voluntarily or otherwise, and we all move on even if we might miss some contributors.