WHAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEMISE OF ABUZZ?

Too much venomous dialogue much of which was unnecessarily vulgar. Also, reasoned questioning of positions often received no response.

One of the great things about this site is that the way that it is designed, eliminates many of the problems inherent in Abuzz.

Phoenix...can you give examples?

Are there watchdogs on this site? Gosh, I hope so. Before the 2000 election, Abuzz was great. Questions of all kinds, great responses, an interesting bunch of members, I could hardly stay focused at work, so hot to get onto the site to see the responses since I'd last signed off. Then the crazoids appeared and it just got worse and worse as time went on. It was as if someone had flung open the doors to the nuthouse and they all fell onto Abuzz. A debate is one thing but it got to a point where you didn't even want to respond for fear of getting cursed out just for having an opinion. I have a fear that A2K will eventually fall the way of Abuzz. A couple of days ago I saw a new member on A2K which was one of the biggest culprits on Abuzz and my blood ran cold. Is it just a matter of time?

Mapleleaf- First off, you have to provide a E Mail address that must be validated. If you register with a phony, it will not "take", and you cannot post. Also, only one member can have a particular screen name, which stops the imposter nonsense dead in its tracks, before it can start.

Also, there are Moderators and Forum Guides constantly monitoring the posts. If a member doesn't honor the Member Agreement, there are consequences. A thread or post can be deleted, and in very severe cases, a person can have their A2K membership revoked.

These features allow people to enjoy the site without being concerned about the nastiness, mean spiritedness, and cruel tricks that has been rampant on Abuzz.

eoe,

Check the titles under some of our users -

Lead Moderator under my name
Moderator under Phoenix and fishin''s names
Forum Guide under 17 members' names, including roger, blatham, Lola and Diane, among others

We are the watchdogs on this site. Rest assured, we aren't going to let this site deteriorate.

eoe- Not to worry. A long as the person behaves himself, fine. If not:





Also, if you see something that you believe is out of line, please let me, or one of the other Moderators or Forum Guides know about it. You can send the offending link by PM. to any of us!

First, I'd like to say that "demise" seems to me to be an awful strong word to use in reference to Abuz. It's still there. It has simply changed from what is used to be. Like eoe, I fell in love with it as it was back in the summer of 2000 and wasn't to pleased as the rhetoric levels shot up. To some extent I saw it as a tearing apart of my home away from home.

To your point though, IMO, the failure of the NY Times to maintain some semblence of management of the site let things progress to where they are now over there. As people posted rude comments and others complained nothing happened and after a while the "crazies" saw that they could get away with more and more so they did. Those who had been regular participants as well as many new members either got offended or just plain frustrated and withdrew their participation so the posts of the crazies became even more apparent.

I had the same experience, eoe, possibly with the same member name. I did not like the feeling, but agree we have the best policy. The site is open to all, and we'll see how they do in this environment. There are people watching, especially in politics and international news, and this isn't going to become like Abuzz.

I don't think Abuzz is dead or dying. It may have things going on that a lot of people who are here don't care for, but there are plenty of new political questions each day, and new posters.

I had a thought the other day (only one, don't get too excited). Is Abuzz now more in line with something the NYT wants? I looked at their Forums (which seemed to replace Abuzz) and they are quite similar in tone to what Abuzz has drifted toward. (or was it pushed?)

It will be interesting to see which direction this site goes, as new members join. I hope it becomes as dynamic as Abuzz was in its earlier days. I wonder if, in a year or two, we are like the first members of Abuzz, complaining that the site has gone in a direction different from what was envisioned. Unless this site becomes a closed, overly inbred forum, the potential is there for it to grow into something amazing.

It will hopefully be interesting to watch and participate in.

"inbred"??? There will be no on-line breeding here! lol

Thanks guys. It's a relief to know that it won't happen here because, as fishin' said, I think I 'fell in love" with Abuzz and it's been heartbreaking to see it go down the tubes like it has. To see that happen here would be devastating.
Phoenix- No bs'ing around with you, huh? LOVE IT!!

or pinkies held in the air at tea parties.

eoe- I know exactly what you are talking about. I too was completely taken up with Abuzz for a long, long time. I was horrified when it went sour, and now I have a hard time even looking at it. I post there once in awhile, but usually respond to a factual Q by a newbie that has been ignored.

As for me, I will NEVER allow A2K to deteriorate to the barroom brawl that is now the major part of Abuzz.

And you have my word as well. I don't suffer that kind of nonsense gladly.

One more thing -- several people mentioned that the NYT stopped monitoring Abuzz, but the thing is, the staff was all laid off. There was a big staff, then there was a little staff, then there was nothin'. I don't think there is any full-time Abuzz staff now, just people who do what they can on their downtime from their "real" jobs (like Dan Bunker, bless his heart.)

Whether the NYT should have been able to get the money to pay a decent staff is one thing; for whatever reason, they didn't. No money, no staff, Abuzz amok.

In terms of A2K, things are different from the beginning. A little tiny bit of revenue trickles Jes' way from Amazon orders, but basically, everyone's a volunteer. So money, or lack thereof, can't be a deciding factor.

Phoenix, I hope that's a promise we can hold you to. I finally ventured into the Internet and Abuzz at about the same time. I believe I simply stumbled into Abuzz due to the daily headlines email received from NYT.

I always had experts I could call on at the office whenever I encountered a computer problem. I had a lot to learn being on 'my own' for the first time and Abuzz helped me on many occasions. (You had a lot to do with it, too, Phoenix! ) At that time, Abuzz was educational, informational, and entertaining. Can't remember how many parties we attended on that forum, e.g., Yule Log Inn, etc.

I admit I click on New Questions whenever I have the time. Now, even though the title may be enticing, I check the author's name. If it's one of the many nasties who have infiltrated the forum, I simply skip and go on. It's been ages since I posted either a question or a response to one already there.

My one concern is that A2K may become elitist. But that's info I picked up from Abuzz--and what do they know?

Mustang-

We have people here from all walks of life, ages, educational levels, and social statuses. We do not discriminate. All we expect is that people behave like mature, civilized, human beings.

If being friendly, behaving civilly and politely, and acting maturely is what you call "elitist" I hope that we become the most elitist site on the net!

I joined Abuzz in late 2001 and it was still pretty decent. After a while, it just became nasty. I think the rating system was a mistake, because it prevented dialogue: If someone didn't like a response they just had to "negative" it instead of responding. it reminded me of being in grade school when you tried to get the gold star for your efforts...