Banned Participants Question

[LRK_2]

I keep getting wind of different longtime faithful participants who have been banned. I can't help but think that many of these are a mistake. So many who are gone were among the most helpful when users needed help.

Can someone who is in authority please offer an explanation? And can you please reassess this situation?

Thank you for your time…

Linda

[Peter Spier]

dec9 wrote:

My reply was totally focused on what was said, how it was said and the agenda behind it. 

So, you make a living as mind reader?

How could you possibly know Dorothy's "agenda"? I was a part of the original conversation from which that quote was pulled, and my own recollection is that Dorothy was trying very hard to keep users IN the forums. I read the 12-step program as a metaphor for trying to achieve some behavior modification, just an members of those organizations that actually employ such programs use them to retrain themselves to behave in a way that is more acceptable to the larger community.

Just goes to show, I guess, that we see and hear what we want to.

[Cindy-]

I read the 12-step program as a metaphor for trying to achieve some behavior modification, just an members of those organizations that actually employ such programs use them to retrain themselves to behave in a way that is more acceptable to the larger community.

Just goes to show, I guess, that we see and hear what we want to.

That is the one line I myself got a good chuckle out of. So true.

[Phillip_M_Jones]

what is written or said can have a different meaning to different individuals.

I inherted a trait from my deceased dad that I can some times say something, or write something; and, I mean it one way and the person receiving the comment can take it another way. On written comments I often reread several time and it lloks or sounds right to me.

My dad would often say something as a joke and the other person would have to ask my mother if he was being insulting or joking.  Samething happens to me.

So anyone should choose their words wisely. Many of the xperts here come off as Preachy.

[LRK_2]

Notice Regarding Buko

Buko sent me an email with a message for those of you who have attempted to contact him through Private Messages.

Buko wants you to know that he cannot login since he is banned, therefore he cannot respond to the Private Messages. He asked that you contact him using the email address on his Profile picture.

Thanks,

Linda

[Claudio_González1]

Surely you cannot be talking about the same Buko. who initiated this thread?

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/455064?tstart=120

No, I have just noticed there is period after the name of the one I'm talking about.

[shunithD]

Claudio González wrote:

Surely you cannot be talking about the same Buko. who initiated this thread?

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/455064?tstart=120

No, I have just noticed there is period after the name of the one I'm talking about.

Same Buko...

[LRK_2]

PjonesCET wrote:

what is written or said can have a different meaning to different individuals.

I inherted a trait from my deceased dad that I can some times say something, or write something; and, I mean it one way and the person receiving the comment can take it another way. On written comments I often reread several time and it lloks or sounds right to me.

My dad would often say something as a joke and the other person would have to ask my mother if he was being insulting or joking.  Samething happens to me.

So anyone should choose their words wisely. Many of the xperts here come off as Preachy.

You are so right Philip. And it's not just how things are said but also how they are read that sometimes short circuits healthy communication. I have to admit that there have been more times than I care to recount when I have read something meant one way while my mind twisted it into something else, even with clients to my shame. Then later when I slowed down to read it again I realized how badly I misinterpreted what was written.

Communication is an art as well as a skill. The better we develop our skills of listening and speaking the more harmonious our relationships can be. For me it means slowing down and focusing. If I think someone has just offended me, ideally it would help to walk away, then come back and read it again or reassess what's going on, before responding. Or ask the one speaking if this is what they actually meant to say before responding. Or if you know things were said to inflame, such as happens in these forums, to just walk away and not give the offender the pleasure of a response.

[Captiv8r]

Hi Linda

This conversation points to what (at least at one point) was the cause of some consternation and animosity with some of the others a while back. One poster made a statement that was apparently aimed squarely at Jochem. To them it was perfectly clear. Yet when I simply posted to question what was meant and offered what my own interpretation of it was, folks piled on like crazy insisting I was attempting to twist the meaning and that the meaning was perfectly clear to everyone but a dolt like me and nobody in their right mind would ever interpret it differently.

That't where I lost a lot of my faith that anything could be discussed in this particular forum in anything remotely resembling an open, honest and mature manner.

Okay, off to don layers of my flame retardant undergarments now... Rick

[Claudio_González1]

As I already commented in another thread, the problem is that we have too many mind readers on both sides of the fence.

[LRK_2]

I changed my mind about this post. So sorry but I've deleted it. I think I was out of place speaking my mind. Thanks!

Linda

[Cindy-]

Linda, put it back! I liked it. But I understand

[LRK_2]

Cindy... You are fast!

[Harbs.]

It was well written, but I think Linda displayed some of that wisdom she was speaking about by removing her post!

I think we should all just let these issues die. It's not going to do any of us good debating who was right, and who was wrong in this whole ugly mess that this forum has become...

Harbs

[Donald Reese]

Every time i visit these god forsaken forums, I think back how wonderful they were as a resource of valuable info,how streamlined they were, and how many knowledgeable individuals were here to help, and then i come back to reality to this utterly useless mess of a forum. Everybody but adobe seems to realize what a huge mistake this move was. This whole experience watching adobe treat dedicated users like they are worthless has really left me with a bad impression of the whole company. This brilliant move has decimated the photo forum, and they might as well just eliminate it, as well as half the other forums. 

Speaking of banned participants, I can say that i would take Ramon Castenada over the best 25 contributors you could assemble here and his knowledge and expertise would blow them out of the water. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. You would think adobe could show some appreciation to people that actually helped others for free. And dont bother telling me how difficult he was, because i had one of the biggest conflicts with him when i first came to this site, but after being here a while i came to respect him and his opinions, and actually learned to see things from a different perspective than my own. Banning people because they dont agree with you is ridiculous. I used to be a big adobe fan,but this forum debacle has truly opened my eyes to what they really think of their customers and that is absolutely nothing. oh and i posted this after trying for 3 weeks to log in unsuccessfully, so you know how highly i feel about jive software.

[Claudio_González1]

Permanent banning only works with honest people like Ramón who respect the banning. We all know of another individual who comes back every couple of days under different names just to laugh at everybody's face.

[_Paz_]

Why, Donald Reese!  You old rabble rouser, you!  GREAT to see you again!  I can't tell you how much I've missed seeing your work, learning from your photographic experiences.

How's the baby?  No doubt, growing up faster than you ever thought possible.

Our door is still open.  I'm more than sure there would be lots of smiles all around if you were to drop by.

Patrice

[Guest]

I do not need to be a mind reader to know that the post, just now revealed as being selected from a whole private conversation between commuinty experts, was bait. If it were true the statement was to be a example of metaphor then the whole converstion should have been posted. Posting the whole story would have left no room for questionable interpretation. I could see the agenda from a mile away and I was right: Proof lies in the response of the posters.

My concern is about banning for life. The practice of banning for life, as a first time offense, is not a healthy practice. I am talking about good people who devoted many years of free service to help others, who displayed a judgement error, that are now cast away for life for voicing their opinion too strongly on what they love most.

I agree that there were some bad apples, that they were warned in the past and were banned. I don't have a problem with that. However, there were a few good apples that got caught up in the mess too and do not deserve to be treated like a diry old shirt.  

[Peter Spier]

Do you have a list of users you think were banned in error for a "first time offense"?

Q Photo has already been brought up for review, as I understand the current situation. If there are others, it would help to know their screen names. Without specific identities there's really not much anyone can do to review a banned status and whether or not it was justified.

[Guest]

Thank you Peter,

LRK 2 posted some. If you can please add ozzwoman to the list for review too. I know she wants back in so this review would make her happy.

[Captiv8r]

Hi there

Can we please clarify something?

Who stated that the bannings were lifetime in duration? I've not seen anything from Adobe on this one way or the other. So I'd like some clarification.

Are we simply making an assumption here?

Cheers... Rick

[LRK_2]

To the forum host (I believe it was Rick) who looked into the matter, I want to thank for pursuing this from the beginning of this thread. I also want to thank those responsible for clearing Q-Photo and reversing his ban.

I have not been privy to most of what has transpired with the complaints and infighting. Regardless of my feelings about the changes in these forums, I don't have the time or the heart to fight. So when I bring up other names who have contacted me, I bring them up with limited understanding.

I realize that Kath Howard has been outspoken about her feelings, and she admitted as much to me. However, in light of Kath's many years of faithful assistance in the Adobe Forums, I don't think it is a regular pattern for Kath to express a lot of negativity. I think if you were to look over any records of involvement you will see Kath as a valuable contributor. In light of this I would like to see the Adobe team reconsider Kath and remove her ban as well.

Another member contacted me is Buko. I don't know that much about what has transpired with Buko in recent years, but I know in the past when I was more involved he was always very polite and helpful.

Thank you for your consideration.

Linda

[Kami_Bambiraptor]

Captiv8r wrote:

Hi there

Can we please clarify something?

Who stated that the bannings were lifetime in duration? I've not seen anything from Adobe on this one way or the other. So I'd like some clarification.

Are we simply making an assumption here?

Cheers... Rick

The inimitable Mr. Van Dieten, in post 38, said this:

Why was discussed. I would guess the best way to figure out the how long

question is for her to email Adobe. But I would not be surprised that

unless said email contains some serious assurances as to a change in

behavior the answer is "permanently".

[Captiv8r]

Hi Kami

From what I'm seeing, the "permanently" part was conditional.

Why was discussed. I would guess the best way to figure out the how long

question is for her to email Adobe. But I would not be surprised that

unless said email contains some serious assurances as to a change in

behavior the answer is "permanently".

I read that as saying that if the banned person has no intention of changing the behavior that got them banned to begin with, they may as well consider the ban to be permanent.

But his answer also implies that if the banned person contacts Adobe and makes a sincere attempt to change the situation that got them banned, things could change, no?

Sure, everyone makes mistakes. We are, after all, members of the human race and we share the same planet. (Well, most of us do - LOL)

Cheers... Rick

[Guest]

I am still looking the threads over. It does not look like I can find it now. May have been removed when some people were lobbing bombs. Was not a adobe response but a community expert. 

[Guest]

Sorry, while I have a right to share my words, I don't have a right to share other people's.

My replies were in response to Adobe employees asking about banning people, and, in fact, there was very little discussion about it, and the only direct reply to my comments was an employee saying thanks.

Regardless of what you seem to think, I was supporting the long term members here.

dec9 wrote:

I do not need to be a mind reader to know that the post, just now revealed as being selected from a whole private conversation between commuinty experts, was bait. If it were true the statement was to be a example of metaphor then the whole converstion should have been posted. Posting the whole story would have left no room for questionable interpretation. I could see the agenda from a mile away and I was right: Proof lies in the response of the posters.

My concern is about banning for life. The practice of banning for life, as a first time offense, is not a healthy practice. I am talking about good people who devoted many years of free service to help others, who displayed a judgement error, that are now cast away for life for voicing their opinion too strongly on what they love most.

I agree that there were some bad apples, that they were warned in the past and were banned. I don't have a problem with that. However, there were a few good apples that got caught up in the mess too and do not deserve to be treated like a diry old shirt.