Forum as a Support venue

[Wazoo]

For those of you that don't know the history, the following a (but a few) links to hw this thing got started. At the time, Julian owned SpamCop.net and the E-Mail accounts, newsgroup hosting, and the hosting of this Forum was based on an agreement between those two folks. Later on, IronPort arrived and basically bought the SpamCop.net thing from Julan ... but the agreement betwen Julian and JT was apparently still just that, which leads to the current "confusion" on the status of the separate sections of things running under the SpamCop.net flag.

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/071447.html

[spamCop-List] Web-based forum test 

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/072855.html

[spamCop-List] The webgizmo is gone!!

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/057041.html

This newsgroup is going away

In an effort to provide better support for all users, the spamcop.help

and spamcop.mail newsgroups and mailing lists will be going away in a

few weeks. The exact date hasn't been decided yet. Instead of these

newsgroups, we will have web-based forums available. These forums

provide pretty much all of the same features as the newsgroup forums and

more, in a format that is familiar to the majority of internet users.

I'd like to encourage you to try the new forums as they are up and

running now. You can login at http://forum.cesmail.net. Please don't

bookmark this location just yet as we will be moving it to the

spamcop.net domain in the next few days.

For those who prefer to use NNTP or email, the spamcop, spamcop.geeks,

spamcop.social, and spamcop.spam groups will be staying where they are.

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/057116.html

[sC-Help] Re: This newsgroup is going away

For security reasons, the databases for the two systems are going to be

kept entirely separate. The forum system is on a separate machine with

no access to the internal workings of the email system.

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/057117.html

[sC-Help] Re: This newsgroup is going away

Enrico C wrote:

> JT | spamcop.help,spamcop.mail

> in <news:buq3v8$2kv$1 at news.spamcop.net>

>

>>newsgroups, we will have web-based forums available. These forums

>>provide pretty much all of the same features as the newsgroup forums and

>>more, in a format that is familiar to the majority of internet users.

>

>

> Mmmmh...

>

> I  usually read Spamcop groups together with Usenet  NNTP newsgroups. 

>

Of course you do. But you don't know about all of the people who have

asked me for what they consider to be the standard, a web-based forum.

Or the people who have cancelled their service because they want

community support but don't know how to use newsgroups.

Yes, I'm sure that the 100 people who already post here would prefer to

just keep posting here. But here, we'll never hear from the 1000 people

who'd rather use a web-based forum like almost everything else has.

How many private newsservers can you think of? Oh, sure, I'm sure we

could come up with a list of a couple dozen. How many web forums?

There's a reason for that and it's not just that the admins are too

stupid to set up INN.

JT

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/057118.html

[sC-Help] Re: This newsgroup is going away

Marjolein Katsma wrote:

>

> I think this is a very regrettable decision that is not actually in the

> interest of people needing help - there will no doubt be fewer people

> coming to help when all it is is a web forum.

>

I think you'll be surprised.

JT

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/058414.html

[sC-Help] Re: This newsgroup is going away

I, myself, do not see the necessity for the ng to mirror the web forum

or vice versa.  They should have two different functions and the

moderator in the web forum can point people to the proper place.  Any

important information should be included in the FAQ for both groups to

access.  I admit that it looks as if email customers will only have

the web forum, but traditional spamcop reporting discussion has not

been changed, just consolidated to the original group.

Miss Betsy

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/057264.html

[sC-Help] announcement only to web forum

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/058180.html

[sC-Help] Still here?

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/058528.html

[sC-Help] Re: This newsgroup is going away

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/058612.html

[sC-Help] Re: This newsgroup is going away

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-...ary/058627.html

[sC-Help] AmI the only one ...

As seen, the primary focus was for E-Mail account holders, but there was the future plan of possibly dropping the newsgroups. This hasn't happened yet, even to the two groups identified as "going to disappear in a couple of weeks" .. just that some pointers to them were removed.

I'll take the major part of the blame in trying to work up and lay the Forum out as a place to get help on any/all of the SpamCop.net tools ... though Julian's post "here" as the initial Beta volunteer request for the MailHosting configuration also set off all kinds of "war of words" ....

So much work has gone into trying to answer newboie questions before they get asked ... work gone on trying to build access point to answers, different arrangements and views for a FAQ list, pointers and links placed in every conceivable spot for new visitors ..... and yet, here we set today, though identified in the "Official FAQ" .. listed on IronPort's Privacy Policy web page, complained about in the newsgroups, Google'd to death so that (sometimes too much) data can be found .... the fact that there is little direct activity by paid staff and now even "branded" as a "back-door type of support venue" ....

I'll simply state that the fun of volunteering help has (actually long since) gone. The fact that I don't have a SpamCop.net E-Mail account, haven't used the SpamCop.net Parsing & Reporting tool beyond trying to resolve other user's issues with their spam or the tool, and that trying to get the "Official" FAQ has apparently got me at odds with some of the paid staff ... the recent big broughaha over the "rudeness" of (volunteer) attempts at trying to pry some needed information from a user .... it's apparent that the entire scenario of what this Forum was supposed to be has been lost .. the fact that it was blown out to incorporate all aspects of the SpamCop.net system was apparently a mistake. That it's now been suggested that it shouldn't even be considered a support venue in any way connected to SpamCop.net is about the last straw for me.

Dirty laundry or not, this whole situation seems absurd. One "solution" seems to be to kill off 90%+ of this Forum and leave it as only the support venue for SpamCop.net e-mail account holders. Get rid of all the FAQ lists developed here (years of work by quite a number of people) and let the complaints fly about the "Official" FAQ (as they have for years which led to the creation of the FAQs here) ...

I don't know, business arrangements or not, this current split and some of the words used describing this split have caused some pretty severe reactions by a number of folks involved with this side of the house. Oh well, it was fun for a while ...

[turetzsr]

...IMHO, this is all behind-the-scenes stuff that is pretty much irrelevant to the mission of the forum, which is to provide some needed triage of SpamCop service (Parsing & Reporting Service, e-mail Service and BL Service) users problems, as well as those whose e-mail has been blocked because the IP through which their e-mail was sent is on the SCBL. In the end, whatever the arrangements and relationships of the SpamCop services to each other, the relations between (one of) the SpamCop paid staff and the "senior" volunteers, the relations between those who prefer a web-based forum vs those who prefer NNTP newsgroups, there are people who need help and whom we can help. I, myself, still enjoy that and the other stuff is just background noise. I don't need it but I can live with it.

[Wazoo]

...IMHO, this is all behind-the-scenes stuff that is pretty much irrelevant to the mission of the forum, which is to provide some needed triage of SpamCop service (Parsing & Reporting Service, e-mail Service and BL Service) users problems, as well as those whose e-mail has been blocked because the IP through which their e-mail was sent is on the SCBL.

And therein lies the question ... mission as defined by whom? As described in the (majority) of the above-provided links, that the Forum exists at all was a call by JT ... and here we go again .. this Forum is called a "backdoor" for support, yet newsgroup traffic, although being hosted within the same datacenter as the Forum, are somehow considered "Official" .. (based on the last bit of traffic on the "status of the reporting system" .... [spamCop-List] password issues ).... now if you'd possibly explain the difference between newsgroup support and Forum support (rhetorical) .....

[turetzsr]

...IMHO, this is all behind-the-scenes stuff that is pretty much irrelevant to the mission of the forum, which is to provide some needed triage of SpamCop service (Parsing & Reporting Service, e-mail Service and BL Service) users problems, as well as those whose e-mail has been blocked because the IP through which their e-mail was sent is on the SCBL.

37033[/snapback]

And therein lies the question ... mission as defined by whom?

<snip>

37034[/snapback]

...Based on how it is used and how it has developed. It serves the same function, IMHO, as the newsgroups did before there was a web-based forum (and the newsgroups still continue to serve for those who prefer newsgroups to web-based fora).

[Miss Betsy]

If SpamCop Reporting System and the SpamCop Email Service want to continue using peer to peer support as the primary method of support, then the ball is their court.

IMHO, the FAQ, as developed, don't have to be deleted. Unless, of course, some lawyer decides that they need to be. <cyncial grin>

There has never been any 'mission statement' from SpamCop (either side). Volunteers generally have their own agendas.

Let well enough alone.

Miss Betsy

[agsteele]

I'll simply state that the fun of volunteering help has (actually long since) gone.  The fact that I don't have a SpamCop.net E-Mail account, haven't used the SpamCop.net Parsing & Reporting tool beyond trying to resolve other user's issues with their spam or the tool, and that trying to get the "Official" FAQ has apparently got me at odds with some of the paid staff ... the recent big broughaha over the "rudeness" of (volunteer) attempts at trying to pry some needed information from a user .... it's apparent that the entire scenario of what this Forum was supposed to be has been lost .. the fact that it was blown out to incorporate all aspects of the SpamCop.net system was apparently a mistake.  That it's now been suggested that it shouldn't even be considered a support venue in any way connected to SpamCop.net is about the last straw for me.

37031[/snapback]

Hi Wazoo!

I think it goes without saying that the regulars here value the forums. Sure, various ones of us get tetchy at times - especially when asked the same question for the umpteenth time in as many days when the answer is apparent in the FAQ. Then, as volunteers, we get to field most of the 'What right have you to do...' rants as well. But I used to find the newsgroups considerably more tetchy than the forums.

However, I can understand why the SpamCop business might be anxious about volunteers who have no link to it appearing to outsiders to speak on it's behalf. That always has the potential to open cans of worms that are best left well shut.

Perhaps the answer is to more clearly identify the nature of the relationship (or lack of it).

If I hear you saying that you think the time has come to throw in the towel then I think that will be a sad time. Volunteers like you have made the forums what they are because SpamCop admins simply didn't have the time to pitch in on a regular basis. The idea was to get users supporting one another so that folk with problems did at least get some kind of answer. Seems, by and large, to have worked.

Andrew

[Miss Betsy]

because SpamCop admins simply didn't have the time to pitch in on a regular basis. The idea was to get users supporting one another so that folk with problems did at least get some kind of answer. Seems, by and large, to have worked.

It is not the 'time' but the money. They can't afford to hire someone to moderate the forum. In addition, Julian, the founder, thought that user groups were more helpful than 'official' support because there were more viewpoints.

People volunteered to help in the beginning because they believed in what Julian was doing. A lot of smaller ISPs were grateful for the help in protecting their servers. We still get some server admins here who are just learning and appreciate the support on how to find trojans, etc.

The reason that it is not working as well as it used to is because there are more and more people who don't see themselves as users, but customers and are demanding customer service.

Miss Betsy

[dbiel]

Hard to come to terms with the following:

Note: key points I have highlighted in red

Is this the way to try to encourage moderators to change to fit a mold that has never been defined, and never providing any feed back or guidance in how to moderate, and the final point is actually the worst of all, so I made it very big.

This type of "chiding" (and a lot stronger is some cases) has been the culture of this forum for a long time without any prior comment from you or other SpamCop Admin.

That doesn't make it right.

What about this discussion was so different that you felt compelled to criticize the volunteer staff?

Nothing special. As I said in post #47 of this thread, I've kept my mouth shut as long as I can. Ellen, Richard, and I have often discussed the "user abuse" issue, but nobody wanted to say anything for fear of rocking the boat.

That reluctance has passed. I decided to address the issue and let the chips fall where they may.

It's truly unfortunate that a few people succumb to the temptation to chide, chastise, criticize, and castigate the hapless user who makes a misstep. Maybe now they'll find it in their hearts to resist the temptation and put the devil of rebuke behind them.

The people who come here for help don't know what sort of information we need, or what's important to us. Many of them have no idea how to explain their problem. We need to ask them straight out, in plain, simple English, to provide the specific information we need to resolve their problem, and stop being mean to them when they don't understand.

My father told me one time that the responsibility for successful communication rests on the shoulders of the writer, not the reader. If we don't get the answers we want, it's our job to ask again and again, and explain it differently each time, until we get the information we need. We need patience and perseverance, not putdowns and pugnacity.

Was the difference that it involved a high volume customer with whom you had significant support contact previously

I don't know him. A search of my outgoing traffic reveals several exchanges with him going back to February of 2004, so I know we've successfully corresponded in the past.

and only came to this forum because he had lost contact with you?

That's exactly what happened.

Do you now see this forum as the equivalent of SpamCop (IronPort) technical support?

Nothing has changed. This forum is a user support forum. LOTS of people get the help they need here.

- Don -

37047[/snapback]

"That reluctance has passed" "Nothing has changed"

Interesting concept

Maybe I am off base and SpamCop admin has communicated with the "official"

Moderators (Wazoo, Jeff G. and Steven Underwood) providing some guidance in how to operate this forum, but from what I have seen in my unoffical role, that has not been the case.

Don's comments seem to prefer "user" support and seems to what nothing to do with moderators. (note: I am not so much speaking of myself as I am trying to speak of the lack of any sign of support in either the protected Admin forum or the public forums for any of the work done by Wazoo, Jeff G. and Steven Underwood. And no one other than Don even cares enought to attempt to address the issue. Their silence speaks louder that Dons words (since "Ellen, Richard, and I have often discussed the "user abuse" issue", .

[Jeff G.]

Maybe I am off base and SpamCop admin has communicated with the "official" Moderators (Wazoo, Jeff G. and Steven Underwood) providing some guidance in how to operate this forum, but from what I have seen in my unoffical role, that has not been the case.

37056[/snapback]

IIRC the gist of the guidance from JT two years ago when I started as the first Moderator was to use the available tools to moderate, plus explicit approval of my original Rules Announcement and the Pinned Welcome Topics. I try to be nice and helpful, and to use facts and rules (including Internet Standards and RFCs) to bolster my statements, but sometimes people who break the rules get on my nerves and I have to point out what rules they've been breaking and/or report them.

All Moderators (including Steve T. and Miss Betsy, both not mentioned above) have the same powers (JT, Wazoo, and SpamCop Staff have more); some may choose to limit their roles, as dbiel did at first. IMHO, the first responder: should document its actions in this Forum to keep us in the loop; and shouldn't do anything that it can't easily undo (like deleting a Topic or Post), except issue a warning. The next responders can then discuss the issue in this Forum and take more appropriate action, if necessary. In the case of direct forum spam, only Wazoo or JT should report it to the offender's ISP, because only they have access to the webserver logs showing the exact (sub-minute) time of the HTTP Post and the poster's validated email address.

[Miss Betsy]

IMHO, the first responder: should document its actions in this Forum to keep us in the loop; and shouldn't do anything that it can't easily undo (like deleting a Topic or Post), except issue a warning.

Methinks you got your forums mixed up. This is the Lounge, I think.

Wazoo made me a moderator so that I could participate in the discussions about how to deal with the 'difficult' posters and with the indifference of the SpamCop Admin to us volunteers. I don't intend to use any of the other moderator privileges.

Miss Betsy

[Jeff G.]

Methinks you got your forums mixed up.  This is the Lounge, I think.

37060[/snapback]

You are correct. I meant another Forum. Sorry about the mixup.

Members, yes we have a warning system and other powers, and yes we use them. Thank you for your attention to the rules.

... and now back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress ...

[Wazoo]

From: "Wazoo"

To: "SpamCop, Argyle"

Cc: "SpamCop Support - JT"

Subject: Traffic Totals

Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:08:43 -0600

Just tossing out some numbers after having noticed the size of the Archive files ...

(Newsgroup Archive totals missing some posts due to the

honoring of the "No-Archive" flag setting, but ... )

spamcop.help newsgroup

Starting: Sat Nov 1 00:43:51 EST 2003

Ending: Sun Nov 30 22:59:30 EST 2003

Messages: 2578

Starting: Mon Nov 1 18:24:07 EST 2004

Ending: Tue Nov 30 20:00:41 EST 2004

Messages: 177

Starting: Tue Nov 1 00:51:24 EST 2005

Ending: Mon Nov 28 19:37:41 EST 2005

Messages: 83

spamcop newsgroup

Starting: Sat Nov 1 00:23:27 EST 2003

Ending: Sun Nov 30 23:56:54 EST 2003

Messages: 3260

Starting: Mon Nov 1 00:07:23 EST 2004

Ending: Tue Nov 30 23:36:24 EST 2004

Messages: 964

Starting: Tue Nov 1 00:11:48 EST 2005

Ending: Wed Nov 30 22:58:05 EST 2005

Messages: 881

Forum

Monthly Post & New Topic stats

1 November 2004 to 30 November 2004

1246 + 132 = 1378 total posts

1 November 2005 to 30 November 2005

1611 + 171 = 1782 total posts

Topic Views (1 November 2004 to 30 November 2004)

Forum Result Views

SpamCop Email System & Accounts ........... 31539

SpamCop Reporting Help ........................... 27730

SpamCop Lounge ...................................... 17078

Mailhost System Configuration ..................... 8571

SpamCop Flat-Rate Email Account Setup .... 2921

Testing ......................................................... 2501

Announcements ............................................ 2271

SpamCop Blocklist Help .............................. 2244

New Feature Request .................................. 1072

......................................................... Total 95927

Data for the same timeframe in 2005 appears to have been "touched" by the

hard drive failure ... possibly even only showing the data "since the drive

re-build .. i.e., only data developed between 20 and 30 November? It's the

only way I can figure some of the strange numbers here)

Topic Views (1 November 2005 to 30 November 2005 [possibly not valid, only

showing the last 10 days of November traffic])

SpamCop Reporting Help .................... 12262

SpamCop Lounge ............................... 10874

SpamCop Email System & Accounts ..... 9075

SpamCop Blocklist Help ....................... 8021

Announcements ..................................... 3621

New Feature Request ........................... 3310

FAQ Under Construction ..................... 3248

Geek/Tech Things ................................ 1124

Admin stuff .......................................... 1004

Mailhost System Configuration ............... 844

Example Data ........................................ 561

Suggested Tools and Applications ......... 539

SpamCop Filtered E-Mail Account ....... 478

MemberP ............................................. 355

Software Issues .................................... 354

SpamCop Reporting ............................ 324

Reported & spam ............................... 265

Trash .................................................... 21

Moderator Functions ............................ 12

E-Mail Submittal .................................... 1

.............................................. Total 56293

Analysis done by a Forum user (PGTips91) as seen in Linear

post #9 in http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5329

(I had done similar work for another issue and find no fault with

this user's accounting ....)

e.g. Members with number of posts: --

Nil posts since joining - nearly one third

Less than 8 posts since joining, 90%

Less than 13 posts since joining, 95%

99% of members have contributed 31.5% of posts, leaving

1% of members to contribute 68.5% of posts

That top 1% of posters [41] have averaged 564 posts each, with even this

group being skewed towards the top 9 with an average of over 2000 posts with

a third of these posts being by one member.

(and to look those numbers up more directly, please see

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...sort_order=desc

[Farelf]

Agonized over adding my tuppence worth. What good can it do? Nothing novel, a mere synthesis providing catharsis, if nothing else I guess.

As Don acknowledges (and never disputed), these pages help a lot of people. We don't want a reversion to the "bad old days"

Finally, I'd like to thank those of my readers who sent emails to Spamcop and especially to those who braved the trolls and flamers of Spamcop's support newsgroups. I read through the threads in that newsgroup and was appalled at the ignorance and belligerence of these small-minded people. I was a spammer because Spamcop said I was, and no amount of actual evidence was going to sway them. Even when an administrator manually delisted the server, they continued to label me a spammer and continued to flame those trying to speak up for me.

(June 14, 2002 - http://www.spywareinfo.com/newsletter/arch...2/06142002.html ). But IMO the issue(s) of SpamCop's several arms not addressing the relevance and authority of attempts "here" to create structured, comprehensive and readily navigable FAQ is clearly overdue for for resolution. As is the matter of the Forum Admin and Moderators not being appraised of policy issues (public sensitivity is one thing but these [non gender specific] guys at least should have access if they are to be effective members of what is currenly a lot less than a "team"). Downplaying these forums within the official support mechanism is certainly an option - also it would be a cop-out when a little effort by SpamCop could at last integrate an effective upgrade to SpamCop services.

History is important (sorry Henry Ford) but it should not be a burden on the ordinary members/users and those who would help them. The initial "attitude" of the more "difficult" people posting here is not anything that can be under SpamCop's control or anyone else's (anger, attribution, projection/transference, bewilderment, "technophobia" before we even get to the occasional troll and the realms of "abnormal" psychology). Easy to see how an expanded and updated FAQ is seen as relevant to moderating the need for information - and other suggestions for dispasionate first contact have been made (forms based/wizard based troubleshooting being part of a recent submission from the thoughtful PGTips91 - http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=35674 ).

Many of us were initially appalled at the treatment "here" on occasion of first-time posters. As others have observed, a consequece of the "culture" "here". The thing is, this is corrosive to some newbies, and none of them should be required to be encultured to receive full benefit. It is hard not to lay much of this at the feet of "SpamCop" through over-reliance on undersupported volunteers. The term "exploitative" was used by one member in connection with the expectation of such volunteers dealing with the overburden (in either sense) of support. Strictly speaking the concept of reluctant volunteers seems an oxymoron but that underestimates the complexity of the human spirit - I tend to agree with that one-word assessment by mshalperin.

Don was obviously the bravest of the SpamCop staff, in being prepared at last to "rock the boat" (and a person who has, himself, helped many - and upset a small number too). SpamCop is never going to change the culture "here". SpamCop needs to put this caboose back on the rails. Acknowledge or scrap the FAQ developments, work with or disband Wazoo's fiefdom. Sorry Wazoo, I don't see a "fiefdom" at all (patently it's not), but reactions elsewhere seem to indicate that's the way some see it (see projection).

[Miss Betsy]

I am not sure, but I think that the quote is NOT about the forum, but about the newsgroups. There were several volunteers there who spent a lot of time trying to get people not to post rants, accusations, and anything other than a polite answer in spamcop.help leaving anyone new who posted to spamcop main group to the mercy of the 'blunt' regulars.

The problem of 'customer' vs 'user' in the attitude of new people started to surface and IMHO was a direct factor in establishing the forum.

As Don acknowledges (and never disputed), these pages help a lot of people.

But the forum is not a 'users' group - the way that the newsgroups were, and still are.

It could have that 'culture' - but it would take Spamcop administration's active support and involvement.

IMHO, Spamcop has missed the boat in using the forum for educating end users about the spam problem and 'raising consciousness' among consumers for the use of blocklists.

And if it were not for the people who contribute the majority of posts, they would not help much - just the way the Original FAQ don't.

Don was obviously the bravest of the SpamCop staff, in being prepared at last to "rock the boat"

The problem of 'alienating' newcomers unintentionally was being discussed by the moderators (the ones who contribute the majority of the posts) in a behind the scenes forum. One which Don could have joined. He has zero understanding of the problems and zero understanding of the proposed solutions. The only point that he has contributed are that none of the contributors are 'needed' - which is an absurd statement. He has sidestepped the issue of whether SpamCop has 'official' help other than the forum - the 'official' help apparently being his address which is 'in the wild'

I have taken two portions of your post to reply to, but on the whole, it is a good 'synthesis' of the entire debate. Do you want to take bets on what is going to happen? I bet on nothing particular happening on the part of Spamcop administration. Don will get busy doing something else and disappear. Wazoo will probably stop banging his head against the wall and as links go awry, etc., the information accumulated will become less and less useful. Then people will post, as they do about the original FAQ, that things need to be updated. A few people will try to answer questions - perhaps new contributors full of energy will appear and the cycle will start all over again.

Miss Betsy

PS For several weeks in the fall, I hardly ever posted. The same situation is now happening and I probably will not be able to continue this discussion or to post often. Particularly because Don said in the 'closed' topic that my contributions were not needed, I want to say publically that the reason I am not posting has nothing to do with his comment. If anyone wants to communicate with me, my public email address is liza25jane[at] hotmail.com

[Lking]

 

PS  For several weeks in the fall, I hardly ever posted.  The same situation is now happening and I probably will not be able to continue this discussion or to post often.   

37117[/snapback]

 

That I am sorry to hear. Hope things are well. You provide a valued contervailing force in a forum that is frequently clouded with emotion. User's questions are sometimes obscured by frustration because they lack understanding of their enviroment (the web) or are not willing to accept the consequences of their actions. Responder's answers are sometimes similarly hidden having read the same lament for the umpteenth time. When others fail to search and read previous responses or the laboriously prepared FAQ the responder's frustration can be exacerbated.

The analogy of someone reading a mystery novel for the first time occurs to me. In our instantaneous world a new reader enters this forum and is confronted with, as in the novel, a preface, forward, acknowledgment, dedication, index and Chapter I; not who done it. In frustration they post their question. Others, knowing the structure of mystery novels ask questions to eliminate the maid, poison, the kitchen. Frustrations rise. The reader may have missed a clue in Chapter II. Miss Betsy, you calms us down and suggest why we should read the next chapter. Finely we get to the last chapter and the answer.

The newbie may not like the read. More frustration. So the next time some one just blurts out 'it was the butler, in the hall, with a knife! Read the damn book!' Of course this time it was the Colonel with the poker in the library. Miss Betsy you suggest the preface so all will understand the story.

Hope the forum is still here when you get back.

[dra007]

I think frustration and the occasional flame are no strangers to such forums. In fact, I would argue we do quite well here, keeping and bringing discussion back on track rather than let it degenerate into a permanent squabble.

We have to thank the moderators for their patience, their stubborn determination and generosity which has resulted in a forum that should make anyone proud, including the folks higher up at SpamCop...

[agsteele]

There are a bunch of issues that have raised their heads in this discussion.

Without doubt there is an expectation amongst many (but not all) newcomers to these forums that they should be treated as customers even though they have no formal customer relationship with SpamCop's various guises.

My perception is that even those who do have a relationship, for many it is as users of the free reporting system. A system that isn't readily understood.

Many who ask questions do so without making any attempt to check whether others have asked a similar question or whether an answer is already available in an FAQ. More than once in the past ten days I've seen enquirers state that they are too busy to read or research - they just want someone else to do this form them. This simply brings frustration for everyone. Without the current peer support structures, those enquiries would not get answers. With peer support those who volunteer to assist often get to bear the brunt of frustrations.

All in all, not a helpful situation for the volunteers or for SpamCop as a business.

The use of volunteers to triage enquiries has worked in the past.

The active nature of the support forums does give potential users some confidence that someone will assist if there is a problem. Without activity in the forums, the services could become moribund.

Andrew

[Farelf]

I am not sure, but I think that the quote is NOT about the forum, but about the newsgroups.  ... Particularly because Don said in the 'closed' topic that my contributions were not needed, I want to say publically that the reason I am not posting has nothing to do with his comment.

37117[/snapback]

Yes, definitely the newsgroups - sorry I didn't make that clear. Those were "the bad old days", nowithstanding the ernest endeavors of the more mature posters.

What Don needs and what "the forum" needs are two seperate things, as is evident, and even at that he was (surely) talking about that particular issue only. "We" look forward to your return.

[Miss Betsy]

Thanks for the nice words!

I am drinking a cup of hot chocolate between Christmas parades - I am a marcher, not a spectator! Offline I have two major volunteer jobs and several minor ones plus my kids are coming home for Christmas (with toddlers which means safeproofing house) and I still work part time and need to crochet a baby blanket for a baby born yesterday.

Other people are just as good or better than I am at answering questions and keeping topics on track. Last time when I got super busy, I did check every so often, but always somebody else had said everything I would have said.

Good Luck!

Miss Betsy

[Wazoo]

As is the matter of the Forum Admin and Moderators not being appraised of policy issues (public sensitivity is one thing but these [non gender specific] guys at least should have access if they are to be effective members of what is currenly a lot less than a "team").

My "guidance" and support ....

Received: from sam.julianhaight.com ([216.127.43.94]) by mc1-f4.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211);

  Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:18:30 -0800

Message-ID: <41C708FA.7080003[at]spamcop.net>

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:16:42 -0800

From: Julian Haight <x>

User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041103)

To: SpamCop Support <support[at]spamcop.net>

CC: Wazoo, deputies[at]spamcop.net

Subject: Re: web-based Forum changes

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2004 17:18:31.0333 (UTC) FILETIME=[EDA05D50:01C4E6B7]

Hear hear!  Thanks Wazoo!

-=Julian=-

SpamCop Support wrote:

> --On Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:43:32 -0600 Wazoo wrote:

>>

>> Thanks for the time.

>

> No, thank YOU for the time. You're the main reason the web forums work

> as well as they do.

>

> In a move that I should have done a long time ago, I just made you an

> admin for the forums. That means you can add/remove forums, add/remove

> users, do everything I can, I think. Within reason, feel free to make

> whatever changes you want. Please just drop me a note telling me what

> you've done, but you don't need to clear stuff with me first unless it's

> really monumental. Just keep doing what you've been doing and I'll

> support you.

>

<snip>

> Jeff

Easy to see how an expanded and updated FAQ is seen as relevant to moderating the need for information - and other suggestions for dispasionate first contact have been made (forms based/wizard based troubleshooting being part of a recent submission from the thoughtful PGTips91 - http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...indpost&p=35674 ).

Same link was sent in an e-mail or two, though also stressed the lack of participation in a number of areas by "staff"

The term "exploitative" was used by one member in connection with the expectation of such volunteers dealing with the overburden (in either sense) of support.  Strictly speaking the concept of reluctant volunteers seems an oxymoron but that underestimates the complexity of the human spirit - I tend to agree with that one-word assessment by mshalperin.

My "payoff" thus far has been learning a bit of PHP, MySQL .... sure, I could have fired up a system and played around a bit, but that's never been my way ... live applications/system with problems, that's always seemed to be the way I learned how things worked and how to fix them. Start with what I know from elsewhere, figure out what I need to know, go research that and add that to my 'arsenal' .... and admittedly, that also leads into my displayed frustration at times ... sitting here with a couple of dozen windows opened up, having spent the last four hours trying to resolve some issue, then walk into a post that includes things like "don't have time" "you surely don't expect me to read anything" etc. ... knowing full well that the answer to the question posed had already occupied an hour of time to get the data, format the contents, add the links to the FAQ, double-check that it all worked and looked OK ....

Don was obviously the bravest of the SpamCop staff, in being prepared at last to "rock the boat" (and a person who has, himself, helped many - and upset a small number too).  SpamCop is never going to change the culture "here".  SpamCop needs to put this caboose back on the rails.  Acknowledge or scrap the FAQ developments, work with or disband Wazoo's fiefdom.  Sorry Wazoo, I don't see a "fiefdom" at all (patently it's not), but reactions elsewhere seem to indicate that's the way some see it (see projection).

37114[/snapback]

Not sure of another word that could address it as well. As pointed out repeatedly, the Forum has been treated like flotsam by the majority of the paid staff, JT has pretty much left the operation of this thing in my hands, and as stated many times elsewhere, I've gone far beyond the original premise of simply Moderating, even going further than possibly ever intended. For instance, JT didn't want to install the spell-checker, rather wanting to keep this thing as "standard" as possible (not a bad idea in that every time IPB upgrades this thing, all Modification are lost, and not always replaceable) also noting that once upon a time, IPB had advertised their own built-in spell-checker as coming (since dropped) .... After he made some more "powers" avalable to me, I installed it. Although documented in a special forum section for any future Admin type and notification to the other Moderators, I don't think I even lived up to the request to notify JT of this addition. (partially driven by the complaint that my e-mails to him are simply too large, so they get pushed to a back-burner and usually forgotten about) Though there are a number of things requested that have been ignored/not responded to, the only thing he's actually said NO to is putting in the Portal page as "the" entry point to the Forum.

There's also the obvious remark that e-mail addresses are known amongst the staff, there are sections of this Forum set up for Admin functions ... many chances for bringing up issues without disrupting the Forum itself. I'd say it's a bit obvious that none of this was addressed via those channels.

[dbiel]

Thank you Wazoo for the update.