A really perplexing Argument on some things

[Shaza]

Dear Senior Staffers,

I would like to address this issue once more, because I think it might have a place here at TAFL. Sometimes I wish things were put into perspective instead of perhaps so black and white.

I'm not arguing here, I mean you are the boss, but perhaps some things I've noticed over some rules, and I wish there were more conditions applied to them since these rules have such meaningful consequences.

The Three Strike Rule
This rule is probably one of the best rules that the TAFL has, but I would like to point out something. I think it may overlook some things. Let's say for an example a person has run a fanlisting for over 5 years. Was put on troubles the first year, then probably on the 3rd year, and then now on the 5th. Automatically, they would be removed via the three strike rule. I think the three strike rule was first put in place because of the fact that over time people just stop updating. Now, this is great for that. But when it's something like this- I just don't see the point. Anything can go wrong, and having three mistakes over a period of 5 years is just really not that great in determining removal. I would say perhaps put a rule such as "three strike rule" within a period of 1 or 2 years. This would make things fairer and put things a little more lenient. I mean at this rate, all old fanlisting owners WILL be removed eventually!

The Three Strike Rule Reapplication
I've brought this up already once, but I really want to bring it up once more. I can understand that the previous owner cannot reapply for the old fanlisting that they were previously approved for. But, in my case- my fanlisting that I was removed for, I took over after it was open/closed FOUR different times from TAFL after which I applied because I was simply TIRED of rejoining. I tried to adopt this fanlisting to no avail, and then was removed via three strikes. I tried to reapply- because at the time I had a lot of family issues going on and the FL was on fanbase and overlooked. Now, I wish there was a period of time in which I could wait and then reapply. I mean maybe 3 months after removal? 4 months? So would we rather not have the fanlisting at all, than have one that is there. There are some fanlisting which people like to JOIN but not own, and we know this well from our "please build this fanlisting" thread.

Either which way, I've been owning fanlistings since around 2003 and I think these rules scare me the most since I know one day that I will just simply be removed because I've had a fanlisting for a certain length of time simply because of maybe 3 mistakes within a large span of YEARS. That's all I have to say.

Thanks Staffers for all your time and support. I barely even talk anymore, but I'm here.

[Shalott]

[quote name='Shaza' post='247512' date='Sep 26 2008, 11:29 PM']The Three Strike Rule
This rule is probably one of the best rules that the TAFL has, but I would like to point out something. I think it may overlook some things. Let's say for an example a person has run a fanlisting for over 5 years. Was put on troubles the first year, then probably on the 3rd year, and then now on the 5th. Automatically, they would be removed via the three strike rule. I think the three strike rule was first put in place because of the fact that over time people just stop updating. Now, this is great for that. But when it's something like this- I just don't see the point. Anything can go wrong, and having three mistakes over a period of 5 years is just really not that great in determining removal. I would say perhaps put a rule such as "three strike rule" within a period of 1 or 2 years. This would make things fairer and put things a little more lenient. I mean at this rate, all old fanlisting owners WILL be removed eventually![/quote]

Normally in the case of 3rd Strike removals all three strikes have to fall within the course of a year (as in, a twelve month period, not necessarily a calendar year.) In my time staffing, I have never seen a fanlisting removed for three strikes in any longer than twelve months.

[Haley]

I'm not a senior staffer, but maybe I can give you some insight on why we have parts of the Three Strikes Rule. Hopefully you don't mind.  ^_^

[quote name='Shaza' post='247512' date='Sep 26 2008, 11:29 PM']The Three Strike Rule Reapplication
I've brought this up already once, but I really want to bring it up once more. I can understand that the previous owner cannot reapply for the old fanlisting that they were previously approved for. But, in my case- my fanlisting that I was removed for, I took over after it was open/closed FOUR different times from TAFL after which I applied because I was simply TIRED of rejoining. I tried to adopt this fanlisting to no avail, and then was removed via three strikes. I tried to reapply- because at the time I had a lot of family issues going on and the FL was on fanbase and overlooked. Now, I wish there was a period of time in which I could wait and then reapply. I mean maybe 3 months after removal? 4 months? So would we rather not have the fanlisting at all, than have one that is there. There are some fanlisting which people like to JOIN but not own, and we know this well from our "please build this fanlisting" thread.[/quote]
I can see how this would be frustrating for someone, but it's simply about keeping the fanlisting taken care of. When there are three strikes removals in any category, we look at how often the fanlisting was neglected for inactivity in a period of 12 months (as Shalott has explained). We do not let someone reapply because most of the time (keyword: most) there are other people who would want to run the fanlisting that was previously closed by staff. I understand that you would rather see a fanlisting built versus not in existence. That's a fair argument. People can change, times change. However, when someone has a history of neglecting a particular fanlisting, there isn't really any way they can guarantee the particular fanlisting will be taken care of in the future. I think the rule is needed because with some owners, if we gave them the chance to run the fanlisting again after being removed for three strikes, they would neglect the fanlisting still. I'm not saying you would, Shaza, but we simply can't differentiate case-by-case. So say we did allow owners to reapply and get approved for their removed fanlistings. If they continued to neglect the fanlisting(s) in question, it would be rather tedious and a hassle to have to trouble/remove the fanlisting(s) all over again. It's a continuous cycle we don't want happening. That's why the Three Strikes Rule is in place, and why we have the reapplication part of it.

So yeah. I hope that kind of explains it.

[Shaza]

Thanks guys,

That really helps. I just need to clear that up.

[Rosemary]

I'll just reiterate our policy before I close this (since the question will then be fully answered).

We only remove fanlistings because of three strikes when the fanlisting has a pattern of repeated neglect.  The fanlisting has to have been troubled for inactivity three times within a year.  We do this so fanlistings that are repeatedly neglected do not remain at the network (I know we all cringe when we see a subject we care about neglected over and over again).  The reason we do not allow the owner of any fanlisting removed for Three Strikes to reapply for that subject is because we do not want to see the same subject neglected yet again.  

I hope this answers any questions anyone may have had.  If anyone has additional questions, they are welcome as always to contact the Senior Staff.