SSG: Spy/Spec-Ops Group discussion

Unpleasant discovery this evening.

Backstory: last year, I was a member of a Goodreads group similar to this one. Until, someone-there-picked-a-fight-with-me; hurling both abuse and expletives at me.

Incomprehensibly, the moderator there chose to support the hooligan--giving me the heave-ho. Abruptly and without warning, and without appeal. And to this day--in that group--they label *me* 'the troll'.

I forgot all about the incident until tonight, when I discovered that this same moderator has been quietly lurking here as a member of this group all these months. Yep. At the same time that he badmouths me in his outfit, he sits here eating meat at my table--and even steals some of my ideas.

Well, no more. He is now barred. I'm no drama-queen, but this is unacceptable.

We bear no one ill-will here. We simply draw a 'cordon sanitaire' around dirty-players and move on.

But folks, please consider carefully wherever you are dual-members with our group vs any group on our blacklist. Come to me if there's any question or hassle.

The above experience (paragraph 1) was ultimately a benefit for all groups I moderate. I do not ban anyone out-of-hand as happened to me. It is not a good feeling to be banned. I'm happy to talk to anyone about any issue they have. We support our members, as other groups do not.

It doesn't matter. It is still unfair treatment. Setting aside that you are one of most polite individuals I've ever encountered online, what if they ban someone who can really retaliate? And chooses to do so?

Most moderators have no experience when they take on their duties. No democratic values. A forum is by definition, protected speech. No one should be 'played' like these ...amateurs are doing.

Hi Paul

Thanks for speaking up. After some bad experiences with other groups, I'm never really thrilled to see our members carrying dual-membership in other outfits but ...I realize it would be draconian to try to make this a stipulation of membership here, so I swallow my concerns and let it slide. You and the rest of our members should feel free to explore other environs. It's when veteran members of other groups quietly insinuate themselves here, this earns them my scrutiny. But, I treat it on a case-by-case basis. I look at their posting histories to see how they comport themselves; how partisan they are to other camps.

Next. 'Wall of Shame' is really found in just a couple places in our group. Its a subtle tool, rather than a heavy-handed one. Its more of a defensive policy than an aggressive weapon.

First, here's a longstanding thread where I keep track of our friends and our enemies.

It's called 'Sister groups'
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

It all really stems from what I see in some other groups: 'authors-bullying-readers'. 'Authors being treated-like-privileged-citizens' by other moderators.

Me, I will not countenance this in any group where I co-moderate. Readers have rights in my groups, and if I see an author being obstreperous towards a reader they are in danger not only of being banned but of having all promo removed and their names winding up on the...Wall of Shame.

Here is where the WoS really exists: in our group bookshelf.

There are two shelves which tell the story.
(1) 'Wall of Shame Authors'
http://tinyurl.com/qgrcxy4

and just to be fully clear on their ignominy:

(2) 'books we will not be reading'
https://www.goodreads.com/group/books...

Their books are also the only titles on our 'to read' shelf which in this case, acts as a kind of 'limbo'.

This group alone has 730 members, and so this is no small hit on an author's self-marketing should he lose his good reputation with us. I hope it serves as a reminder to all, that no one is exempt from the duty of courtesy on this website.

Feliks wrote: "I'm never really thrilled to see our members carrying dual-membership in other outfits but ...I realize it would be draconian to try to make this a stipulation of membership here, so I swallow my concerns and let it slide. You and the rest of our members should feel free to explore other environs."

I'd like to add that being a member of a group doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with the clique who treats others worse or better than others.

As an author, it's often recommended to be part of groups in your genre, to stay abreast of developments, et cetera. And I know most group members (of any group, this group included) are lurkers who might read everything but won't enter into the fray.

Definitely true. I was made suspicious by a series of events relating to just one bunch of churls, and so I ought not to 'tar everyone with the same brush' ...

Felix- As you know, I am not an author; but simply, just an avid reader. I lack experience in groups under the auspice Goodreads. I joined GR and this group in search of great novels, as well as having a little fun online with other interested parties - when the mood strikes me. :) I also joined 2 groups yesterday that were outlined, before I saw the words of concern. /////// Hopefully, I am not the only naive person in this group who does not understand the what, or purpose of political bashing, nor the reference to a lurker" in this particular arena. Is this a common behavior that is directed from invisable authors to authors? I do not understand the gain, or damages. Tell me, what ultimate prize could be so important to attract this climate?

You have a charming way of phrasing your sentences.

I'll try to sum up briefly:

This is not 'political bashing', (this thread) rather, just an in-house 'note of caution' for our members.

As far as I know, the circumstance surrounding the 'lurker' are not common. It occurred here, but only as a fluke. That lurker was not an author, just a moderator of another group.

I *identify* 'bad Goodreads authors' because they treat readers shabbily. It spreads. That's the 'damage'.

I *indemnify* them because it sets an example to all, of the way to properly treat Goodreaders. That is the 'gain' of my policy.

Any clearer now?