--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, "Take a wild, friggin guess"
<a_change_of_plans_at_y...> wrote:
>
> Hey all-
> After allowing a little time to dwell upon the matter concerning
> group deletion, I'd like to make the following statements and/or
> observations:
> 1)This group is set up pretty well with the moderating tactics
> employed by myself and the other mods. Many new messages require
> our approval, and many a flame war has been stopped cold by
> moderation. The only possible threat, which could lead to deletion,
> would be complaints brought on by a flame war run amuck. This is
> why it is essential for those of us with shorter tempers to refrain
> from replying to any messages with name-calling or other such
> vulgarity. Leave the vulgar stuff for the sexy pictures. ;)
> 2)While the idea behind the petition is a good-natured one, it is
> not likely to do much good, sad to say. The loss of a certain genre
> of groups, or the deletion of those members' accounts, would not
> even be a drop in the bucket for Yahoo. And they have a very big
> bucket. At the worst, such a petition may place certain groups in
> Yahoo's collective bulls-eye, and would therefore defeat it's
> intention.
> This group does not suck up huge amounts of bandwidth. There are
> a lot of members, true, but it's not like the group is a centralized
> hub for anthro erotica. I often try to space out the uploads I do,
> in an effort to keep activity levels in the black. The rules which
> Yahoo abides by may often be vague and left open to interpretation,
> but the moderators try their best to adhere to those rules, and keep
> the group running smoothly and noiselessly.
> Many of the features which Yahoo may employ for joining adult
> groups may seem to be a pain in the ass, but they are there for a
> reason. I'm not saying we have to like it, but if it ain't broke,
> don't fix it. This group has survived previous round-ups and
> deletions, and, provided we all stick to the way we've been thus
> far, it should survive many more. The mods may make a few changes
> here and there, in an effort to tighten things up, but the group
> will still be the same, for all intents and purposes.
> Getting pissed off about group deletions, and then trying to go
> after the provider is a sure way to get burned. Cooler heads will
> always prevail in such instances, and this is one such instance in
> which careful consideration should be taken.
> Let's face it, the group is provided free of charge. I am
> thankful for what Yahoo has provided, and I have no complaints about
> it. Demanding that Yahoo continue to provide such groups at a
> potential loss to their revenue doesn't make much sense, although
> the loss is (hopefully) minimal. Stirring up the embers over the
> situation will do nothing more than relight the fire, and I'm sure
> Yahoo would have no problem following the smoke to its source.
> So, in short, I would recommend that folks not get quite so riled
> up over the situation. Hey, I lost several groups that I enjoyed
> visiting, but it's not the end of the world. Granted, many of those
> groups violated the terms set forth for the group structures, in
> which case it was really only a matter of time until they were
> discovered and dealt with in a most unpleasant manner (anyone
> remember Des's original group?). Hopefully, this group will not be
> another casualty. I am fairly certain if we continue to abide by
> the rules, and treat one another with the respect which we,
> ourselves, would want to be treated with, then there should be no
> threat of deletion. But such activity requires an effort from all
> the members; remember to keep cool, and don't go off half-cocked
> about a remark someone made. I can be a completely wicked jerk if I
> allow myself to be (and you have no idea how many times I've had to
> rein myself in over some ridiculous flame war that just wouldn't
> friggin' stop!), but that sort of behavior will not benefit the
> group, it's members, or myself. Just follow the group protocol and
> everything should be cool.
> Sorry for such a long-winded letter, but I thought it important to
> try to put things in perspective, and to, perhaps, point out a few
> things to different folks.
> So now that that's out of the way, anyone interested in seeing two
> pictures of Dinah and Leila (from Caterwaul Inc.) getting it on? :D
>
> --JMH
Amen, Jim (to both your reasoning AND those pics :p )
<><
Received on Sat Oct 02 2004 - 16:09:14 CDT