c2q wrote:
Thanks Mark for the information, and thanks to you and your team for getting this issue in hand. I know that you personally must have been a real driver in getting this sorted out; it is much appreciated. I'm glad that Jive is still looking into the case because I still would like to know more about what happened, so thank you again in advance for those updates that are coming.
It's not likely that providing details on what happened would be valuable. Jive will continue to investigate to rectify so it doesn't happen again and hopefully credit the earned points.
c2q wrote:
And thanks, Pops, wherever you may be, for raising this question. It needed to be asked, because something that wasn't working right needed fixing.
And elvan too
c2q wrote:
As far as I am concerned, points are now a detriment to being active on this site, not an encouragement. I'd like to see a show of hands, so to speak, of the people who were negatively affected by whatever technical problem took place. What say you Mark, is that possible?
Perhaps a detriment under the circumstances of an issue popping up related to them but overall a benefit. Hopefully it is a one time thing. I don't see any benefit to expending energy on getting a representative sample of viewpoints on a hopefully isolated event for a feature that cannot be easily turned off.
c2q wrote:
I'll go first: I lost going on 700 or 800 points just for content I created during the "points outage," not counting points that were gifted to me, which I also lost. As far as I can tell, I also lost xxx points when someone else deleted content that I had responded to. Everything I feel about this issue is colored by the fact that, I can't help it. So as one of the people affected, I see this as two issues: 1) equity and 2) author's rights. I don't see it as "a little glitch" or as just another leg in the "badges or no badges" argument.
Relating to issue 1) If there is a point system, it should work the same for everyone across the board. If the point system isn't working properly, it should be suspended until it is fixed. Think about the implications if this isn't true. If it isn't possible to reasonable guarantee an equitable system, I'd like to know.
Definitely not a little glitch. It was never treated as such. The point system can't just be "suspended". That option doesn't exist and if it did it would be inherently built on the idea that the system would fail. Suspending might also prohibit understanding why the issue is occurring, if you remember this same thing happened about 5 weeks ago and self corrected but couldn't be fixed because they weren't able to "catch it in the act". The issue is a bug. Some people lost ability to earn (Issue bug #1) points, and receive points (Issue bug #2). There is some relation but they're also separate. Hopefully the "earned" actions will be credited. It's still to be determined if that is possible.
c2q wrote:
Relating to issue 2) If content has been created and responded to, it should be written in stone and no one should have the right to delete it or alter it except that site administrators may delete it (not edit it). Period. That is a common cyberethics standard. It has to do with the integrity of the author's work. This is one small item being considered in the Study on the Moral Rights of Attribution and Integrity currently being conducted by the United States Copyright Office. Public announcement of the study may be found here.
I agree with you that the option to delete shouldn't exist. Unfortunately this is a feature/permission gap that isn't available for me to restrict. Other community platforms will allow the person to delete but then it moves the comments to be children of the root post. Hopefully this will be changed in the future to be more respectful of other's contributions.
Censorship-wise I do not agree with blanket deleting someone's post when only a portion of the post is prohibited. It is overly heavy-handed. Sometimes people break the rules because they didn't read the terms and conditions when they join or they forget them. Other times they intend what they post. Regardless, deleting their post in its entirety hardly seems fair. I honestly love feedback and can find value in even the most negative posts. Generally I take a light approach to moderation and only remove prohibited content, indicate where content has been removed and then indicate why something has been edited. This ensures transparency on what was removed and also affirms that what remains is allowed. It also hopefully educates for future posting behavior. Simply deleting benefits no one. Thankfully this community requires little moderation in comparison to other communities I've managed. I'm hoping it stays that way because I'd rather be in the mix helping people than playing tranquility cop.
Mark
EX Community Manager
EX Community Admin Team
.png "bonniebee"){kind=avatar}
.png "Sootie"){kind=avatar}
elvan but not by you because you are one of the shining stars in this place, you bring the lustre which is really needed to brighten up someone's day. 
