DrewDad wrote:Not the mistaking our names, but sounding like a whiny, petulant child.
I acknowledge that Craven's a smart guy. (I really like the new spell-check feature, for example.) But IMO he's taking the complaints too personally.
I really don't take it personally, and what I'm trying to explain is the why.
I used to, and every member who told me that the site sucked would make me personally upset. Then I figured out that I couldn't ride that emotional roller coaster and just try to do my best because the criticism will always be there.
That's what I'm explaining. I don't want to seem callous but I get the doom card played on me a lot and I just can't make everyone happy.
I think the move to less censorship is best, and while I know some people will leave or threaten to leave over it that's a condition that is a constant and I just have to come to terms with not being able to please everybody.
kickycan wrote:
The only difference between these questions and mine is that mine was legitimate.
To you Kicky, and my point was that someone else would feel those questions I asked were legitimate bones with the community management.
I don't actually want to censor any of the things I asked about.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Hi, Craven. Great to "see" ya. Hope all is well in the world of professional poker. My game sucks right now.
I gave it all up to bet my livelihood on a2k. I started a company in December and am doing it all
You framed it as frustration with the same old arguments, but yeah I know that you support less censorship. Thing is, this thread is a complaint about less censorship and you seemed to indicate that because of it you may not be back.
My point was that you actually agree with me, but were still talking about leaving again. I can't even please the people who agree with me all the time.
Quote:
I think it is inappropriate to use my departure as part of your argument on this issue.
My point was that cool people are going to leave. And that using that as the argument against what I'm doing is inappropriate because that's a part of an online community.
I think you are a great example, there's nothing I could have done (short of banning all theists and atheists) that would have made you stay last time. That's why I'm not going to say "how high" when the "jump or we leave" card is played.
DrewDad wrote:dadpad wrote: I didnt see that (whining) and don't agree with you. Seems to me Craven was telling it like it is. Ya cant please all of the people all of the time.
IMO it's definitely a change of tone from his prior posts on the subject.
He used to say things like "it's difficult to moderate with limited resources" and "we try to strike a balance between civility and free expression."
Now he's making fun of Kicky for asking a damn question?
I'm not trying to make fun of Kicky for asking a question. I'm using parody to try to make a difficult point to make. That almost everyone on the forum has something they think sucks and that we can't censor it all.
The solution is thicker skin and better personalization tools for me. I don't think getting all pissed off at you calling me whiny and petulant makes sense. I don't think trying to make the case that you are violating the TOS (hell "it's not courteous!") is the way to deal with it.
I think that you should be able to say that I'm a petulant child if you want to and if I don't like it it's
my problem and not that of the site. I don't want to censor people in personal disputes anymore. If the community wants to censor people they will have the ability to do so soon. But this censorship, for better or for worse, is going to come bottom up and not top down and I want to let people experience different degrees of censorship as they might wish.
An example of the new philosophy is this:
Right now we have a word censor for all. We have to strike the right balance between censorship and freedom. The next word censor won't be like that. Each member will be able to turn it on and off.
The post censorship will work like that for the most part as well. You will be able to remove each and every post on the site from your view without requiring us to censor it for others.
And as a community, the aggregate use of those tools will be the new way things are censored. So if you don't like the things we are no longer censoring, wait a few weeks and you'll have a way to directly participate in the decision.
And the more conservative folk here, who have less of a qualm with censorship than civility might not like that. I recognize it and a lot of my future work is aimed at tailoring features to allow for their different expression.
For example, after we launch the new site we'll work on the ability to create your own forums on the site and run them how you want.
Want the same censorship of the past? We'll make a corner for you to run how you want and the others who like it can join.
As this forum grows larger and larger it's increasingly difficult to support the different experiences people want to have here and the way I want to deal with it is by empowering the individual more to determine their own experience. The change isn't going to be welcome by all, but I will do my best to make the tools that will allow them to try to shape their experience the way they want. What I won't do is try to get a top-down authority to enforce a certain site experience both because we don't have the resources to grow and keep mediating in personal disputes and because that only ensures we keep small userbase happy while the userbase on either side of the censorship spectrum is not.
I'm not upset with this community dynamics, I have come to terms with it and am trying to get out of the way and give the members the best tools online to take responsibility for their own experience here.
