ms_terese said:
I can't begin to speak for anyone but myself, and certainly not for a majority of people on this site. I'll try to give you some of my perceptions, though.
1) This site, and especially the BOI, had a reputation for being in-your-face. It was tough, and if someone got a whiff of BS, the gloves came off. It may have gotten ugly, but it worked. Granted, it sometimes got too ugly, but it still worked.
That is a matter of opinion, some of them to the contrary. From my perceptions, many people felt it was TOO rough and tumble and in many cases were afraid to post their own opinions in fear of being attacked by some of the more antagonistic members participating on the BOI. The attacks and antagonism were becoming indiscriminate and focused on anyone and everyone. People were being attacked simply because they had a differing opinion, or maybe sided with an unpopular opinion. So people were becoming afraid to state their own opinions or do anything OTHER then act in a herd mentality by agreeing with the guy that yelled the loudest and longest. I did not take this lightly, because I saw it myself, and regretfully had to agree with that assessment. Maybe this was a failure from the start on my part by not curtailing such activity when it began. I too saw it "work", but in retrospect, the cost was too high from the collateral damage it caused.
ms_terese said:
2) The people who gave the site its reputation were the members. There was a core group, to be sure, (sometimes called the...what was it? The Dirty Dozen or something?) but everyone had a voice if they chose to use it. The reputation became widespread enough that others who also had a vision for creating a hobby/industry that was not commonly known for its scams decided to come here as well.
Yes, that is true, but some of the members were causing a growing reputation that was not at all flattering. Matter of fact, it was beginning to prove very much damaging to the future usefullness of the BOI because it threatened to choke off ALL participation except from the very few who were beginning to act like the BOI was their very own playground and they had carte blanche to say and act there however they pleased.
Maybe I was hearing the wrong reputations that people were thinking this site has, and if I had not seen it with my own eyes, I might have rejected such opinions as being sour grapes from bad guys who had been outed. But in my opinion, the balance of "the site doing good" over the "site doing harm" was beginning to tip the wrong way. The BOI was leaning far too much into the direction of what a few thought and the rest of the people be damned for their contrary opinions. When I began considering the paid memberships, I felt that the balance was teetering at about even, and regardless of the outcome, I really had nothing to lose. I could either shed the monkey on my back, or begin dragging this site back to something respectful and effective. Trust me when I say that you have NO idea of the repercussions I have had to bear up under because of my involvement with this site. The amount of hate mail from all sides was very discouraging, to say the least.
ms_terese said:
3) It grew. With growth comes consequences. Time, money, riff raff, etc. It needs policing. It needs structure. It needs some cash. Those who wished to be moderators offered. Warning points came into play. Reputation points came into play. Donations came in. Banners sold. Those who really wanted to be part of doing something good for the hobby/industry responded rather favorably to the needs that were communicated.
Depends on your perspective. Voluntary donations, although much appreciated, would not have covered the bills I had to pay to keep this site running and functional. And as anyone will tell you, voluntary donations are a pretty poor way to try to run a business when your bills are not voluntary. Banner ads have helped tremendously, but they are about as unreliable to depend on for income as donations are. They would come and go at the drop of a hat and the turnover was astonishing to behold. No, I could not continue this endeavor with all of the expenses being guaranteed and the finances solely produced from voluntary hand outs from the members. Don't get me wrong, I deeply appreciated the efforts of everyone who tried to help, but I began to resent having to take funds from my SerpenCo business (which included a war chest to hire attorneys when needed if someone were to follow through and sue ME because of what I allowed YOU, in a collective sense, to post on this site).
As for moderators, I was, and still am, very conservative in choosing people to be placed in that position. Having the wrong people as moderators can be every bit as bad, or worse, then not having any or not enough. Maybe I am being naive in thinking that perhaps the proper incentives (or more accurately, disincentives for doing wrong) will be a better path to take rather then having this site knee deep in people looking for something to moderate.
As for the hobby/industry responding favorably, sorry I just disagree. This site has been in the past and still is, completely ignored and shunned by what people consider to be the *big* names in this industry. And I defy anyone to show me one shred of evidence otherwise. It does bother me to some extent, but not enough to lose any sleep over. This site will do just fine without them, and in years to come, when the big names of today are out of sight and out of mind, the big names of tomorrow will have likely gotten their start right here from the exposure the BOI can bring to a Good Guy.
ms_terese said:
4) The cost issues continued to grow, and a "paid" status was initiated. (If that is not the most condensed version of that process that's ever been recounted, I'll be amazed.) Some of the stalwarts of this site got agitated, thinking it had changed the tone of the site and that it would become preferential. Most took a 'wait and see' attitude, assuming there would be pros and cons to the system.
In some ways, the "preferential treatment" claim is somewhat accurate. Just as it is true that the voting public chooses the direction (in an academic sense) of public policy, so too do the paying members who have a vested enough interest to pay to state their opinions, choose the direction of the BOI. The hope is that many more good guys would be willing to pay for this privilege then bad guys would be willing to do. Just as you would hope that a majority of the voters are voting for who is the best person to be elected rather then the worst one on election day. In my opinion, the paid memberships went a long way to just allowing the wheat into the BOI through no other reason then the false logons and subsequent bogus posting got stopped dead in its tracks.
As for the "wait and see" comment, how do you determine this to be the case? What data are you using to make this claim? How do you recognize the "most" and where are they right now?
ms_terese said:
5) The paid status seemed to do nothing to help in the separation of the wheat from the chaff, as it's stated on the front page, so new systems were put in place to clean up the neighborhood.
I disagree with this one. The BOI got cleaned up considerably because of the paid membership requirement. It stopped the false registrations to post bogus information and opinions on the BOI virtually overnight. There were uncountable occasions of someone being suspended from the site and being back on under a false registration within 10 minutes. Sometimes MANY times under multiple registrations, and it was driving myself and the moderators up a wall trying to ferret them out. That has ceased to be an issue. Yes, it is still possible for someone willing to pony up $10 per registration, but this is highly unlikely and even if done, definitely short lived and inconsequential.
The *new* system was put into place because of the general nastiness and antagonism that members here were inflicting against new members and anyone else who became the "scapegoat of the day". I witnessed this myself taking place in some of the discussion forums, so it was NOT something unique to the BOI at all. There were instances of someone just taking a dislike to someone because of an offhand comment and basically hounding them at every turn for no other reason then because they just didn't like them personally.
ms_terese said:
6) There were some pretty regular appearances of impropriety of how the rules were applied. While I don't want to rehash the many posts and threads about it, I think if you did a search on "inconsistent" you'll find several. (I have not tried this, by the way, so it's just a guess. If you feel like that was never brought up as an issue, then just skip the rest of this post, because it will be irrelevant.)
And no, I have no interest in explaining this "inconsistency" claim. My only comment is that anyone who expects such a thing is living in a dream world that is entirely inconsistent with how nearly any realistic and effective system on earth enforces rules and regulations. NO one who enforces the rules of any type can be everywhere all of the time. To expect this site to be more perfect than the legal system, the IRS, internal security procedures, etc., etc, with a much smaller budget, is being just a tad bit unrealistic. But as mentioned this has been addressed many times before, and I believe my response has stayed pretty much consistent concerning inconsistency.
ms_terese said:
7) There was a severe lack of balance. For the sake of argument, let's define a bad guy as someone who lies and/or scams, cheats, etc. and does nothing positive for the site in the way of good information or help for newbies. Let's define a good guy as someone who helps out and/or puts the heat on the bad guys, advertises, and tries to be a positive for the site. The good guys got no recognition or consideration for the positive things they did, but as much punishment for any negatives as the bad guys.
That does not describe how the BOI is supposed to work at all. There never was any claim, nor expectation that there would ever be a balance between good guys and bad guys. Nor could there be. A "bad" guy is someone who has taken advantage of someone else in a commercial transaction of some sort. As far as I am aware, no one here has been officially labeled as a BOI "bad guy" (except perhaps in some people's minds for their own personal reasons) because of the information they have posted on this site outside of details within the BOI. That is, good or bad information posted for new members in the discussion forums. That is what the
Karma system is supposed to be used for, but like most other things, it has been abused and twisted from it's original intent. Yes, people HAVE used the karma system as their attempt at punishment for someone determined (in their minds) to be a bad guy via information posted within the BOI. This is NOT what it was designed for.
The BOI and the labels expected to be applied to people mentioned there are external events, in that what they have done is external to THIS site completely. Even if they advertised on this site, the actual transaction is an external and independent event. Their business transactions and the perceptions of the people reading the details presented from all sides determines in the minds of the readers, whether one side or the other (or possibly both) are good guys or bad guys. This site does not make that determination at all. YOU do. It is YOU who will read those reviews and judge accordingly. It is YOU who can vote on the Good Guy Certification polls or the Traders Ratings. We (the moderators and I), outside of our own personal opinions, do not make those determinations at all. It is not our position to close a thread with a closing statement that states "Yep, this guy is definitely a bad guy. Case closed."
Internally, things like the warning system and the karma system are used to make determinations of how people act on THIS site and nothing else external to it. It makes no difference here at all what you say or do on some other site. You cannot get a warning point for threatening me or anyone else on some other site. You cannot get a bad karma rating because you used large amounts of profanity somewhere else in describing anything here. Those external issues are irrelevant to the internal ratings systems
ms_terese said:
8) Rich asked often about others opinions. When they were offered, he would typically respond by explaining why their opinions were wrong, and then classify the opinion giver as not a value to the site anyway. Invitations to leave were offered on a very regular basis. It seemed that while some good guys were getting kicked pretty hard for their tactics with the bad guys, it was perfectly acceptable for Rich to be antagonistic and hostile to the very people who had been cheering him for a long time if he didn't like their opinions.
My interpretation of the chronological order of this issue is quite different from yours, it appears. Yes, I have often asked for opinions, often on things I have been thinking long and hard on and had exhausted everything I could think of with no clear path to what was *best*. In many instances, what I was hoping for was a fresh idea or an approach that I had just not considered, or perhaps a unique perspective of something I had considered. When opinions were offered that I had already addressed and rejected as being unsuitable, unworkable, or unfeasible, I told those people exactly that and why. "Wrong" is not entirely accurate, as in my opinion, "inappropriate" was a more accurate term to apply. As a for instance, I was approached about hosting options for my servers. Someone offered a company for me to take a look at, and although I mentioned that I had already investigated this option, that company was not suitable for my needs because (1) the servers were underpowered and (2) they did not offer managed services for those servers. Yet this was interpretted by that person that I had just rejected his opinion out of hand with no real consideration. In another case, one member adamantly felt that my charging a fee to post on the BOI was dead wrong. He felt that I should charge for the classifieds only, and allow the BOI to be free. I thought I explained it fully that the BOI needed this in place to help weed out the bogus information being posted by false member IDs. And secondly, the classifieds was struggling enough as it was being for free, so charging even a minimal fee would most likely be the death knell of the classifieds section here. Even though I expressed my opinions about why I felt that contrary opinion was inappropriate, I was blasted soundly by that member every which way from Sunday. I could go on and on with this one........
As for the claim of "good guys" being blasted because of their treatment of the "bad guy", I am not disputing that at all. That is because I wanted the site, overall, to be raised to a higher level. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the manner in which people were acting, regardless of which side they were playing, just presented a bad image of this site in general. New people were absolutely appalled by it, regardless of the fact that they only jumped into the middle of an argument and could not tell the bad guys from the good guys. All they saw was the bashing going on back and forth. Yes, giving someone enough rope to make themselves into a bad guy may have seemed appropriate in some instances, but the overall IMAGE of this sort of behavior was generally more negative then positive for this site as a whole, when BOTH sides were wrapping ropes around their necks. THAT is what I needed to curtail. If someone is wrapping a noose around their neck, no one really needs to make a party out of it by doing the same thing to their own neck. All it does is to obscure the real issues to an outside viewer and in some respects completely invalidate any valuable information that thread could have provided when someone just shakes their head in disgust at ALL participants.
Concerning the offers to leave this site, look at this logically, please. If I decide to make a change in the overall management of this site, any member has only three likely avenues to any change I may make:
- Stay, accept it and comply with the change
- Stay, reject it and deal with the resulting consequences
- Leave and go on to another site more in keeping with how they want to post their messages.
MY reactions to the arguments that would ensue from people choosing #2 can only be the following:
- Stay the course and dole out penalties as appropriate, hoping that the long term results make the short term aggravation worthwhile
- Modify or drop the changes instituted, likely prematurely and based solely on a minority opinion presented
In most cases I will likely choose option #1, and in so doing, some people will adamantly disagree with this decision. In such a case, I really have no other choice but to wish them well when they go off to that other more perfect site they seek. I really have NO other choice if I decide to stay the course and this is unacceptable to them. If I dropped every change simply because a single person adamantly disagreed, where would I be then? Generally speaking, it is THEM that make that ultimatum about leaving by their own actions.
As for this statement:
it was perfectly acceptable for Rich to be antagonistic and hostile to the very people who had been cheering him for a long time if he didn't like their opinions.
Sorry, but you lost me completely on what that is supposed to mean.
ms_terese said:
9) People left, either quietly or in flames. Many, many others stayed, but just shut up.
Perhaps, but overall, who were the people who left, either "quietly or in flames"? Why did they do so? One person got banned permanently. After around 150+ warning points under his belt, how many more should I have allowed to accumulate before either (1) the idea of his actions here not being acceptable would finally sink in, or (2) everyone else would get the message that the rules really meant nothing at all. There was no teeth in the penalties so just ignore them and do as you please.
Some others got fined and suspended and probably felt that an eventual permanent ban was in their future anyway, so why come back? And I have to agree. When I instituted the crack down on the rules, I felt that there were going to be at least a half dozen people who would get booted or leave voluntarily. They were not targeted, but I felt pretty confidently that they would not be able nor willing to accept the new limits on how they choose to express themselves. I would have greatly preferred that they accept the changes and comply, but I had to do what I perceived was necessary to be done. I have no desire to ban people at all. I just want things to run here in a method that MUST be better then it has in the past. I have to do what I have to do in order to try to accomplish this. And the sooner the better, in my opinion.
ms_terese said:
In summary, it's really not that anyone didn't want the site to be cleaned up. They just wanted to fight fire with fire, and to be given some degree of consideration for all of the really outstanding things they did as a member of this site. They wanted consistency in the application of the rules. The folks that left when the "paid" status was implemented sneered and reminded those that were being discarded that now that their money was paid, they were disposable. Some people took that very personally.
In short, that is no longer acceptable on this site. ANYONE using "fire" will not need to be fought with "fire" because they will get fined and suspended and will then be a non issue. There is nothing anyone can do outstanding enough to be above the rules and have to comply with them. Can you imagine the outcry I would get if such a policy existed here? "Hell, just pay Rich $250 and you can do whatever you want on that site!" Yeah, that sure would help the credibility here, now wouldn't it?
Ah, the "consistency" bugaboo again. Please use the keyword search for that one.
And who was discarded? Who is "disposable"? Sorry, but this statement is not clear to me.
ms_terese said:
Those are my Cliff Notes.
My confusion over your last post is due to the fact that you are again asking why people are leaving, virtually on the heels of your posts in another thread claiming that your crackdown has had the desired effect. If the board is becoming what you want it to be, then don't worry about it. Any of it.
The crackdown is having the desired effect of weeding out the antagonistic posting that has taken over this site in the past. It has also eliminated some of the people (mostly voluntarily on their part) who I felt were often contributing to this problem. What my question is asking is why would some people leave BECAUSE of the cleanup? Why would people get offended that offensive mannerisms and postings are being curtailed? Why would anyone NOT want the site cleaned up and made more hospitable for those people just trying to post facts and opinions without being subjected to antagonism for their efforts?
To be honest, if that is what those people expected and wanted from this site, and no other, then I am not sorry at all to see them go. Just as I had hoped that the cleanup would clean out the people who were engaging in this sort of activity, I have no qualms in admitting that I am not disappointed at all to see the people who want to READ such crap, and that being the ONLY reason they come here, go along with them. Yeah, I fully realized that there would be a certain percentage of members and viewers here that were here solely for the drama and spectacle. And yes, I COULD have catered to them and given them just that, if that is what I wanted to do. And quite likely people would have been quite willing to PAY much more for the entertainment that would ensue rather then what I want this site to offer. But I did not want that here, so if that is all they wanted, then yes, I guess this site had nothing more to offer them. And to them, I say, good luck when you go off to that website that better suits and meets your needs.
So when I asked "why are people leaving" I did hope you would tell me something other then what I already suspected. So let me rephrase the question: "Are people with something valuable to contribute who want this site to succeed and able to help it do so leaving, and if so why?
I do not consider people who have been acting in a destructive manner here deciding to leave as being a negative issue at all.
