- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,495
- Reaction score
- 0
Well, strongvis, I hear ya, man. I think you've run into one of those funny situations where those who aren't addressing your points (but sound as if they are addressing the "issue" with the same responses) aren't able to squint their way through to your logic. They've probably got a billion other things on their mind. I get that way too, and I recieve that type of response from time to time as well.
Also, they may simply be overlooking the statement: "I don't feel like addressing your individual points, as I think they are effectively irrelevant, and here's why--"
There is a strong over-arcing, and more relevant point in this discussion... WHO'S FORUM IS THIS? Our forum? Greg's forum? Who?
Someone has actually *paid* money to *own* this forum. After a transaction like this, the very nature of the forum was irreversibly changed. No longer was it just "a forum someone put up and let people post to", it truly became "a property". Bear with me.
Once upon a time, a nice guy named Dan began building a house, and invited everyone to come and share information, do business, converse, and ultimately help in building this house. The community thrived. One day Dan decided to sell his house. The final buyer was a man named Greg. Greg saw the house as a valuable resource, and felt he could be a very good steward of such a property.
Once Greg purchased the house, like it or no, it was his decision what to make of it. His vision may not match Dan's vision. In fact, I believe his vision is more than a bit different --more business-minded, and with an eye towards where he's sees the evolution moving.
Right or wrong, it's his perogative. He may be a little terse and sardonic in his reponses, but again... his perogative.
I've been watching some of the subtext between the lines, and I think I noticed something that is probably at the root of many of the disagreements.
Even on FREE message forums, people can foster a sense of *entitlement* when it comes to the contribution of their points of view and resources. To his credit, Greg has made it very clear that anyone who wants their messages OFF the forum can have that request honored. Outside of that I'm sure his purchase of the forum, regardless of what history anyone may think they have, gives him an entitlement that supersedes everyone else's. Dan's did as well, but Greg is far less beholden to those who've contributed under Dan's auspices. Many times I've heard statements like: "I've been here longer than Greg" or "I've made lots of valuable contributions..." The relevance of these assertions are all up to Greg, and not whether anyone else agrees with the speaker.
Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with a PAY or FREE forum, I definitely think taking any sense of *entitlement* out of the equation would probably put you, Greg, and the moderators into the same conversation.
A lot of this actually occured to me when NamePopper said:
I will also add that these few guys who claim it's the 'principle' are hypocrites. Where are their 'principles' when thousands of names are sold here - without us charging any commission or transaction fees. It's not just a forum.
I thought to myself... "Whoa, I completely disagree!" As I continued to look at it, I realized a complete philosophical difference of opinion. I generaly thought of this forum as "An open virtual community whose foundation is its membership, but is nurtured and guided by its leaders for the betterment of the community." I'm not sure what NamePopper thinks, but I'm guessing it is: this forum is "A virtual environment whose foundation is its leadership, whose assets are its membership & content, and whose direction is dictated by its leadership towards opportunities for greater growth and value."
In my distinction, I think your opinion has weight and any amount of agreement has some importance. In the second distinction, yours is just feedback or perhaps "whining" that may or may not affect anything regarding key strategic imperitives. It is up to the leadership to make that decision as they see fit. If they conduct a poll, it is because they elected to conduct a poll to clarify the needs of the environment, not because they were "forced" to, or "needed" to because the community *said so*. I think the act addressed problems in the environment (technical and statistical) and not necessarily disatisfaction in the community (emotional). I think presidents are often put into that kind of position.
NamePopper's statement above then rings very true, even though I disagree with it. Why? Because Greg says so. Who's Greg? He owns this forum and dictates its direction towards opportunities for growth and value. You may be a valuable asset, but your entitlements are just what has been decided that they are and nothing more.
Other forums have been started due to disagreement with this basic philosophy, but that's the long and short of it I think.
Do you think you are an asset or part of a foundation? Neither is particularly negative, its just how it is.
~ Nexus
Also, they may simply be overlooking the statement: "I don't feel like addressing your individual points, as I think they are effectively irrelevant, and here's why--"
There is a strong over-arcing, and more relevant point in this discussion... WHO'S FORUM IS THIS? Our forum? Greg's forum? Who?
Someone has actually *paid* money to *own* this forum. After a transaction like this, the very nature of the forum was irreversibly changed. No longer was it just "a forum someone put up and let people post to", it truly became "a property". Bear with me.
Once upon a time, a nice guy named Dan began building a house, and invited everyone to come and share information, do business, converse, and ultimately help in building this house. The community thrived. One day Dan decided to sell his house. The final buyer was a man named Greg. Greg saw the house as a valuable resource, and felt he could be a very good steward of such a property.
Once Greg purchased the house, like it or no, it was his decision what to make of it. His vision may not match Dan's vision. In fact, I believe his vision is more than a bit different --more business-minded, and with an eye towards where he's sees the evolution moving.
Right or wrong, it's his perogative. He may be a little terse and sardonic in his reponses, but again... his perogative.
I've been watching some of the subtext between the lines, and I think I noticed something that is probably at the root of many of the disagreements.
Even on FREE message forums, people can foster a sense of *entitlement* when it comes to the contribution of their points of view and resources. To his credit, Greg has made it very clear that anyone who wants their messages OFF the forum can have that request honored. Outside of that I'm sure his purchase of the forum, regardless of what history anyone may think they have, gives him an entitlement that supersedes everyone else's. Dan's did as well, but Greg is far less beholden to those who've contributed under Dan's auspices. Many times I've heard statements like: "I've been here longer than Greg" or "I've made lots of valuable contributions..." The relevance of these assertions are all up to Greg, and not whether anyone else agrees with the speaker.
Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with a PAY or FREE forum, I definitely think taking any sense of *entitlement* out of the equation would probably put you, Greg, and the moderators into the same conversation.
A lot of this actually occured to me when NamePopper said:
I will also add that these few guys who claim it's the 'principle' are hypocrites. Where are their 'principles' when thousands of names are sold here - without us charging any commission or transaction fees. It's not just a forum.
I thought to myself... "Whoa, I completely disagree!" As I continued to look at it, I realized a complete philosophical difference of opinion. I generaly thought of this forum as "An open virtual community whose foundation is its membership, but is nurtured and guided by its leaders for the betterment of the community." I'm not sure what NamePopper thinks, but I'm guessing it is: this forum is "A virtual environment whose foundation is its leadership, whose assets are its membership & content, and whose direction is dictated by its leadership towards opportunities for greater growth and value."
In my distinction, I think your opinion has weight and any amount of agreement has some importance. In the second distinction, yours is just feedback or perhaps "whining" that may or may not affect anything regarding key strategic imperitives. It is up to the leadership to make that decision as they see fit. If they conduct a poll, it is because they elected to conduct a poll to clarify the needs of the environment, not because they were "forced" to, or "needed" to because the community *said so*. I think the act addressed problems in the environment (technical and statistical) and not necessarily disatisfaction in the community (emotional). I think presidents are often put into that kind of position.
NamePopper's statement above then rings very true, even though I disagree with it. Why? Because Greg says so. Who's Greg? He owns this forum and dictates its direction towards opportunities for growth and value. You may be a valuable asset, but your entitlements are just what has been decided that they are and nothing more.
Other forums have been started due to disagreement with this basic philosophy, but that's the long and short of it I think.
Do you think you are an asset or part of a foundation? Neither is particularly negative, its just how it is.
~ Nexus
