So do we even have any form of moderation here?

So after the amazing shit show that was Gabe and Michelle crapping all over the message board here I think it is a good time to ask this question.

What happened here is ridiculous, two people were allowed to run wild like a couple of monkeys flinging shit everywhere. Regardless of who you want to see as wrong or right there the fact remains that they were allowed to carry on completely unchecked.

Why? Light moderation is one thing but why should two defective people be allowed to run wild like that? Especially when others have been kicked off for doing the same?

Didn’t we kick off Beezodog for hijacking threads and not letting an argument die?

Of course that leads to another thing; we have some loose rules but they never seem to be enforced, why?

So what is it, do we have an enforce rules or can people just do whatever they like? Because it mostly looks like people can just act however they want…

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Vilda on September 4, 2014 at 8:43pm

Here Here

Lisa Curcio 6.6mi said:

Yes, as h' says, it is her site. Doug, your opinion has been repeated more than several times. You are entitled to your opinion. But Julie is not under any obligation to respond, although I am sure your opinion has been duly noted.

Sometimes I think what is lost in these discussions is the notion that we CHOOSE to be here and to participate. No one has compelled us. Nothing ties us here. We don't "have any skin in the game". We always have the ability to tune out or tune off.

h' 1.0 said:

Hard to know without having access to the same information and input that the site leadership does. Which the site leadership has no obligation to share with you.

But, for the sake of argument-- let's say Julie wakes up one morning and decides she's going to make unfair and partial decisions all day...

It's her site.

notoriousDUG said:

I don't disagree with this but I think that the judgement used here is not always fair and impartial.

As I have said before there were two people acting out, but only one of them was sanctioned for it, I think the difference in how they were dealt with to have been favoritism on a large scale.

h' 1.0 said:

Julie and Lee have been more than clear that the current approach involves using adult judgment and reasoning to look at and weigh each case individually. Ultimately I think doing so is a much better approach than applying hard and fast rules in a one-size-fits-every-situation way.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on September 5, 2014 at 12:52am

Go buy a share of Apple stock, and then crap all over their discussion forums because Tim Cook won't copy you on his internal memos or respond personally to your e-mails.

Let us know how that works out.

notoriousDUG said:

Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on September 5, 2014 at 7:12am

Coffee everywhere!

h' 1.0 said:

Go buy a share of Apple stock, and then crap all over their discussion forums because Tim Cook won't copy you on his internal memos or respond personally to your e-mails.

Let us know how that works out.

notoriousDUG said:

Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on September 5, 2014 at 7:56am

It looks to me like you took my analogy and did a very good job of illustrating that it does apply here-- even better than I thought. All of the things you mentioned are analogous to the way things are handled here.

And again, crap all over Apple's user forums because Tim Cook won't respond personally to you over and over again, and see how you're dealt with.

Nikul Shah said:

What an incredibly asinine response and irrelevant analogy. Should you buy a share of Apple stock, you would be entitled to attend shareholder meetings where you may be able to seek answers to your questions, vote for board members, and maintain standing in shareholder lawsuits. Furthermore, you receive legally mandated disclosures for the explicit purpose of transparency for the benefit of investors.

It seems that notoriousDUG, as a member of this community, seeks transparency and fairness as to the operation of this community. While he (or us) may not ever be entitled to that level of transparency, it seems like a valid question regarding the nature of CL and its relationship with its members.

NotoriousDUG made a poignant statement earlier:

"We may have 10,000 members, but how many of them actually participate?

Why do so many remain silent?

How many active members do we have?"

I feel like this is an important question to those who maintain or care about the community. I've wondered myself why only a small handful of members ever participate on CL. While some of this is a function of the internet (a significant number of members will never actually contribute), it feels like 1% (100 members) actually contribute to CL on any sort of regular/semi-regular basis. Is this on-par with other comparable communities? Do we want this "sandbox" to be dominated by such a small number of members (more of a question for Julie, Lee, etc.)? It would be nice to get input from those who monitor/follow CL, but never post to CL as to why they are reticent?

h' 1.0: why do you respond to criticisms of the status quo with derision and dismissal? You may not agree, but it seems a substantive responses to those critiques would be more productive to this conversation.

h' 1.0 said:

Go buy a share of Apple stock, and then crap all over their discussion forums because Tim Cook won't copy you on his internal memos or respond personally to your e-mails.

Let us know how that works out.

notoriousDUG said:

Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on September 5, 2014 at 7:57am

Coffee everywhere.... is that a new kickstarter project? I want in!

Self-sealing Stembolt said:

Coffee everywhere!

h' 1.0 said:

Go buy a share of Apple stock, and then crap all over their discussion forums because Tim Cook won't copy you on his internal memos or respond personally to your e-mails.

Let us know how that works out.

notoriousDUG said:

Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on September 5, 2014 at 8:26am

This was slightly-used coffee. You might want to rethink your enthusiasm for this project.

h' 1.0 said:

Coffee everywhere.... is that a new kickstarter project? I want in!

Self-sealing Stembolt said:

Coffee everywhere!

h' 1.0 said:

Go buy a share of Apple stock, and then crap all over their discussion forums because Tim Cook won't copy you on his internal memos or respond personally to your e-mails.

Let us know how that works out.

notoriousDUG said:

Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on September 5, 2014 at 8:35am

Unused coffee can be a "stretch goal."

Self-sealing Stembolt said:

This was slightly-used coffee. You might want to rethink your enthusiasm for this project.

h' 1.0 said:

Coffee everywhere.... is that a new kickstarter project? I want in!

Self-sealing Stembolt said:

Coffee everywhere!

h' 1.0 said:

Go buy a share of Apple stock, and then crap all over their discussion forums because Tim Cook won't copy you on his internal memos or respond personally to your e-mails.

Let us know how that works out.

notoriousDUG said:

Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on September 5, 2014 at 8:44am

You could buy a single share of stock at my IPO and have unlimited input with company policy.

h' 1.0 said:

Unused coffee can be a "stretch goal."

Self-sealing Stembolt said:

This was slightly-used coffee. You might want to rethink your enthusiasm for this project.

h' 1.0 said:

Coffee everywhere.... is that a new kickstarter project? I want in!

Self-sealing Stembolt said:

Coffee everywhere!

h' 1.0 said:

Go buy a share of Apple stock, and then crap all over their discussion forums because Tim Cook won't copy you on his internal memos or respond personally to your e-mails.

Let us know how that works out.

notoriousDUG said:

Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vilda on September 5, 2014 at 8:46am

I would just explain that donating is very different then buying. Kind of a difference. Though Howard's analogy works for me. "I'm Significant!!!"

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on September 5, 2014 at 9:27am

Comparing Apple, a publicly traded large multinational corporation with a huge management apparatus, to The Chainlink, a privately owned local community, is like, well, comparing apples to oranges...

Of course Apple does publish an annual report to it's shareholders and any time something goes wrong or they are involved in some kind of public relations issue (say having near slave labor who build their products kill themselves) the release statements about it and stay on top fo it.

h' 1.0 said:

It looks to me like you took my analogy and did a very good job of illustrating that it does apply here-- even better than I thought. All of the things you mentioned are analogous to the way things are handled here.

And again, crap all over Apple's user forums because Tim Cook won't respond personally to you over and over again, and see how you're dealt with.

Nikul Shah said:

What an incredibly asinine response and irrelevant analogy. Should you buy a share of Apple stock, you would be entitled to attend shareholder meetings where you may be able to seek answers to your questions, vote for board members, and maintain standing in shareholder lawsuits. Furthermore, you receive legally mandated disclosures for the explicit purpose of transparency for the benefit of investors.

It seems that notoriousDUG, as a member of this community, seeks transparency and fairness as to the operation of this community. While he (or us) may not ever be entitled to that level of transparency, it seems like a valid question regarding the nature of CL and its relationship with its members.

NotoriousDUG made a poignant statement earlier:

"We may have 10,000 members, but how many of them actually participate?

Why do so many remain silent?

How many active members do we have?"

I feel like this is an important question to those who maintain or care about the community. I've wondered myself why only a small handful of members ever participate on CL. While some of this is a function of the internet (a significant number of members will never actually contribute), it feels like 1% (100 members) actually contribute to CL on any sort of regular/semi-regular basis. Is this on-par with other comparable communities? Do we want this "sandbox" to be dominated by such a small number of members (more of a question for Julie, Lee, etc.)? It would be nice to get input from those who monitor/follow CL, but never post to CL as to why they are reticent?

h' 1.0: why do you respond to criticisms of the status quo with derision and dismissal? You may not agree, but it seems a substantive responses to those critiques would be more productive to this conversation.

h' 1.0 said:

Go buy a share of Apple stock, and then crap all over their discussion forums because Tim Cook won't copy you on his internal memos or respond personally to your e-mails.

Let us know how that works out.

notoriousDUG said:

Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tristan Jackson on September 5, 2014 at 10:02am

notoriousDUG said:

Comparing Apple, a publicly traded large multinational corporation with a huge management apparatus, to The Chainlink, a privately owned local community, is like, well, comparing apples to oranges...

Of course Apple does publish an annual report to it's shareholders and any time something goes wrong or they are involved in some kind of public relations issue (say having near slave labor who build their products kill themselves) the release statements about it and stay on top fo it.

h' 1.0 said:

It looks to me like you took my analogy and did a very good job of illustrating that it does apply here-- even better than I thought. All of the things you mentioned are analogous to the way things are handled here.

And again, crap all over Apple's user forums because Tim Cook won't respond personally to you over and over again, and see how you're dealt with.

Nikul Shah said:

What an incredibly asinine response and irrelevant analogy. Should you buy a share of Apple stock, you would be entitled to attend shareholder meetings where you may be able to seek answers to your questions, vote for board members, and maintain standing in shareholder lawsuits. Furthermore, you receive legally mandated disclosures for the explicit purpose of transparency for the benefit of investors.

It seems that notoriousDUG, as a member of this community, seeks transparency and fairness as to the operation of this community. While he (or us) may not ever be entitled to that level of transparency, it seems like a valid question regarding the nature of CL and its relationship with its members.

NotoriousDUG made a poignant statement earlier:

"We may have 10,000 members, but how many of them actually participate?

Why do so many remain silent?

How many active members do we have?"

I feel like this is an important question to those who maintain or care about the community. I've wondered myself why only a small handful of members ever participate on CL. While some of this is a function of the internet (a significant number of members will never actually contribute), it feels like 1% (100 members) actually contribute to CL on any sort of regular/semi-regular basis. Is this on-par with other comparable communities? Do we want this "sandbox" to be dominated by such a small number of members (more of a question for Julie, Lee, etc.)? It would be nice to get input from those who monitor/follow CL, but never post to CL as to why they are reticent?

h' 1.0: why do you respond to criticisms of the status quo with derision and dismissal? You may not agree, but it seems a substantive responses to those critiques would be more productive to this conversation.

h' 1.0 said:

Go buy a share of Apple stock, and then crap all over their discussion forums because Tim Cook won't copy you on his internal memos or respond personally to your e-mails.

Let us know how that works out.

notoriousDUG said:

Everybody who has donated money or time to The Chianlink has 'skin in the game.'