Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:11 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335 wrote:
Yea, I don't know all the details and I imagine I never will. But I still don't believe there was any underhandedness in these activities. The PMs were the surest way of getting in touch with old members.


VCS had a stated intent to cause a "brain drain" on a2k. VCS had a stated intent to cause "subversion" here. These are not my choices of words, they are his and if they reflect poorly on his character I happen to think they should.

It's one thing to not like a site, it's another to attack it out of powerlust and claim it's to satisfy a cause (philforum community, that you then throw out the window when you decide you want a2k members too).

This is his power grab and he did it under the table for a reason.

josh0335 wrote:
The picture painted is of these devious, Machiavellian type rule-breakers who were trying to rob a2k of their members and damage the board by clogging up the system with mass spam, (perhaps this was not the intended image, but that's how it comes across) which I don't think is fair.


The very messages sent hundreds of times acknowledged the duplicity, warning the recipient to keep it a secret. Others have said they repeatedly warned the participants that what they were doing was wrong and that on other forums it results in banning to do that.

I portray it as underhanded, duplicitous and yes devious because that is exactly what it was. When I offered to promote the site myself if they'd stop VCS's reply was to smugly rub it in my face and say he supports the efforts to recruit a2k members ("this is where I come in" in his words, offering a better "business model") continuing.

Anyone with half a brain and a day of experience on forums knows that this is wrong, and they did too, which is why they didn't do it above board like all the others who had philosophy forums to recommend and that we had allowed open discussion of.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:27 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

josh0335 wrote:
Yea, I don't know all the details and I imagine I never will. But I still don't believe there was any underhandedness in these activities. The PMs were the surest way of getting in touch with old members.


VCS had a stated intent to cause a "brain drain" on a2k. VCS had a stated intent to cause "subversion" here. These are not my choices of words, they are his and if they reflect poorly on his character I happen to think they should.

It's one thing to not like a site, it's another to attack it out of powerlust and claim it's to satisfy a cause (philforum community, that you then throw out the window when you decide you want a2k members too).

This is his power grab and he did it under the table for a reason.

josh0335 wrote:
The picture painted is of these devious, Machiavellian type rule-breakers who were trying to rob a2k of their members and damage the board by clogging up the system with mass spam, (perhaps this was not the intended image, but that's how it comes across) which I don't think is fair.


The very messages sent hundreds of times acknowledged the duplicity, warning the recipient to keep it a secret. Others have said they repeatedly warned the participants that what they were doing was wrong and that on other forums it results in banning to do that.

I portray it as underhanded, duplicitous and yes devious because that is exactly what it was. When I offered to promote the site myself if they'd stop VCS's reply was to smugly rub it in my face and say he supports the efforts to recruit a2k members ("this is where I come in" in his words, offering a better "business model") continuing.

Anyone with half a brain and a day of experience on forums knows that this is wrong, and they did too, which is why they didn't do it above board like all the others who had philosophy forums to recommend and that we had allowed open discussion of.


I agree completely. But what puzzles me is what their motive is. Is it malice just for the hell of it? I just don't get it?
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:31 pm
@sarek,
sarek wrote:
I presume Wozz has violated some kind of forum guideline to warrant his exclusion from using the PM system in the future?


I just don't trust Wozz with PMs. See, Wozz's actions (this case Wozz might have raped and murdered someone) lead me to consider the possibility that Wozz might be a rapist and a murderer.

Of course I'm not going to block Wozz's PMs, I making the point, perhaps unwisely (as you are pointing out), that Wozz's trust/PMs are unwanted because Wozz isn't interested in establishing trust, Wozz is interested in spreading F.U.D..
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:39 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
I agree completely. But what puzzles me is what their motive is. Is it malice just for the hell of it? I just don't get it?


I think it's powerlust, he sees an opportunity to take control of the community and is willing to be subversive about going about it under the banner of saving the community.

But it isn't to preserve the philforum community, we are releasing a separate forum that will start with all the philforum members and the structure/content while he's trying to pull away from that into a forum he's trying to start from scratch. That and the recruiting on a2k makes it clear they want users wherever they can get and that the cause of philforum community dissatisfaction is just the opportunity they see to get it.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:46 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
I agree completely. But what puzzles me is what their motive is. Is it malice just for the hell of it? I just don't get it?


I think it's powerlust, he sees an opportunity to take control of the community and is willing to be subversive about going about it under the banner of saving the community.

But it isn't to preserve the philforum community, we are releasing a separate forum that will start with all the philforum members and the structure/content while he's trying to pull away from that into a forum he's trying to start from scratch. That and the recruiting on a2k makes it clear they want users wherever they can get and that the cause of philforum community dissatisfaction is just the opportunity they see to get it.


Maybe, but I find that hard to believe. It is a poor creature who believes that leading a forum is something that is powerful. Someone like that needs to get a life. It reminds me of what is often said about battles in academia, particularly departmental fights. They are so vicious because the stakes are so puny.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  10  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 06:26 pm
I know from life experience that when you've poured your energy into building something, it's painful and shocking to find that someone is attempting to steal it out from under you. In my case, it was a business that paid my bills. I learned the hard way: business is business.

So I understand if a2k members were spammed in an attempt to persuade them to go elsewhere, that's wrong.

Videcorspoon is an intelligent and dynamic person. He was also a central character in philforum, encouraging, teaching, and generally having fun with the exploration of topics that can be pretty thick. He'll do fine with whatever he attempts. No spamming was really necessary.

Folks who invest their time and money to create forums of this kind are awesome. I think it's valuable to us globally. Those who create them are in the same boat, aren't they? They have the same goals and the same problems.

Little philosophy: necessity always wins. Little religion: in the end, no one is diminished. We get exactly what we asked for.

I'm not a religious person, but I still know what these words mean: bless a2K. You guys are great!

msolga
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 07:05 pm
@Arjuna,
Now that is what I'd describe a graceful & wise post, Arjuna. Smile
KaseiJin
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 08:15 pm
The human drama plays out in many arenas across the sphere of time and place; and here, in this very thread, on this very forum, we see such as that, once again. While having read it all carefully, having gone back and even read most of the thread from the beginning--carefully--I realize there is nothing really more that can be added. (and am a bit surprised and unsurprised [at the same time] that so much has been said) However, simply to take my turn upon the soapbox, so as to leave no room in the mind of those following for any neuro-based fill-in of emotion (when facts are not there to supress pure emotion).

I am saddened a bit, I will admit . . . and it's not because I didn't get any PMs of such a nature as 'advertising/invitation' may go . . . but because of a somewhat evidently larger attitude brought forward by my (and I feel I can use this, though some would certainly object) fellow PhiliForumers. We can see, from looking at Pangloss's posts (especially that on page 10), and others, and at some other threads too (please forgive me for not linking here, I'm pressed for time...apologies) that even on the very first day of the cross-over, it had been emotional fill-in leading the seat of reason, rather than the much more preferable way around. Even then, I did feel some heaviness of heart at the 'up-front' discontent.

It is most clear--I have no doubt whatsoever--that the circumstances which have led to the judicial decision taken by the adminstration of A2K, were such that the action taken is fully fair and resonable a course to take. It is most obvious and evident that no unequality of response to cause for response is before us--no one unarmed innocently coming into the house through the windos (even) was pelted with a 30 'off' double barreled shotgun.

The methodology of investigation was perfectly reasonable for the circumstances, nature of the acts of some, and the very attitude evidenced--I must at least honestly report factually on. You should see how they do it in Japan. A group of people (be it a company, or an organization, or what-have-you) is suspected, then suddenly all these plainclothes officials come with all these folded cardboard boxes, entering the establisment and taking out as many files, folders, registers, bookeeping journals, and so on, as possible. There will always be those times for quick, 'make-sure' action--tempered by better judgement.

In being an honest person--though a little capable of rhetoric, and discretion--I can only conclude at the moment, that if any reproach were in line at all here, regarding the events related in this thread, it would without any doubt, fall on those who have been charged with wrong doing--as, most of us will know, is exactly the understood case for internet forums--as charged.

Then (and I do speak from the standpoint of having had moderating experience under the belt), I am surprise also that this thread has not be closed yet...but such, I take it may not be the way of A2K (which is fair enough). I now step down and give the soap box to someone else.
Pangloss
 
  4  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 08:42 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin wrote:

I am saddened a bit, I will admit . . . and it's not because I didn't get any PMs of such a nature as 'advertising/invitation' may go . . . but because of a somewhat evidently larger attitude brought forward by my (and I feel I can use this, though some would certainly object) fellow PhiliForumers. We can see, from looking at Pangloss's posts (especially that on page 10), and others, and at some other threads too (please forgive me for not linking here, I'm pressed for time...apologies) that even on the very first day of the cross-over, it had been emotional fill-in leading the seat of reason, rather than the much more preferable way around. Even then, I did feel some heaviness of heart at the 'up-front' discontent.


Yes, my attitude was somewhat reluctant and less than cheery, as it was with many others. And I don't believe that this was without just cause, at the time.

As can be seen, my attitude has changed; I'm still here, and I'm not going to dwell on the past. You're referencing posts from one month ago that are no longer relevant...
Wozz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 09:07 pm
I realize I've caused hostility between Robert and I but my intentions were not to cause problems here. Take my PM abilities away if you want...
0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 09:52 pm
@Pangloss,
Pangloss wrote:

Yes, my attitude was somewhat reluctant and less than cheery, as it was with many others. And I don't believe that this was without just cause, at the time.

As can be seen, my attitude has changed; I'm still here, and I'm not going to dwell on the past. You're referencing posts from one month ago that are no longer relevant...


Yes, Pangloss, it cannot then be denied that the emotional attitude you may well have now, will be different from that, at that time; no problem there from here, and rather, in fact, I'm glad to know of it. It also cannot be denied, upon careful reading, that I had been talking of the attitude brought forward on that first day...and not trying to insinuate anything else, really, by that particular content. I think you'll understand that, right? It is kind of a 'reporting of the state of the moment.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  4  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 09:54 pm
@Pangloss,
Glad to read this and hope it is sincere. I was beginning to feel a fool for caring so much about trying to make the transition easier for you folks.

Believe it or not, there really is room on the internet for both forums to thrive if the members are interested in them doing so.
0 Replies
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 11:42 pm
@msolga,
I agree...
Quote:
GRACE
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 07:06 am
Well I suppose I outta chime in. Without pointing any fingers let me first say that this drama has gotten much larger and inflamed than any 'skinned knee' should. That being said, I know some of the motivations and actions of those folks, the now-banned folks. What I know of Robert's actions are only what he's written here. All told:

Powerlust?: These folks didn't mean any harm. Having no other association than the now defunct Philosophy Forum that now only exists here, they had no means to communicate except on this forum. This is a bit of a constraint, and some leeway in "getting settled" (whether here or elsewhere) is certainly in order. That open calls to go to other forums was even allowed, is rare, and to the A2K admin's credit.

The question of PM or Open Message: An open "Y'all come over to our New Home!" message would seem awfully subversive - they likely wanted to let all the like minds know there what was stirrin' in the weeds and a PM strikes me as a discrete way to do it. We'd talked about gathering emails - and did some of that - but with so many PF folks already in "retreat"-mode, a PM seemed the lesser of two evils; all could be reached without the unseemly and overt "Hey Leave A2K"-stigma everyone wanted to avoid.

That's a Lot: As far as the "600" - I have no clue. As an previous administrator myself, my eyes would have popped out as well; and would likely have felt like a personal affront. Why so many and how they were chosen (and for that matter, who sent 'em out), I don't know and can't speak to. The large number was likely due to someone sifting through the user base to reach those who were brought here to offer them a like-alternative. Again, this is sensitive territory and I'd like to think everyone realized that.

Expectation of Privacy?: One could hash this one out from a number of angles. But as an admin on a board that's vulnerable to DDoS and other attacks, seeing such a large number as having popped up all at once strikes me as a reasonable justification for opening them to see what those were; that amount justifies the need to determine what they contained (imho).

The Armchair Psychologist: My guess is that given the bit of friction we've been experiencing with this integration, Robert's patience was already stretched; while simultaneously working long hours to accommodate the new folks he got dissed and insulted repeatedly in public by some ungrateful and bitter folks. If this was me, and I then saw 600 PMs of this nature - after everything that took place - it likely would have sent me over the edge just a bit. Again, I don't know if this is what happened and am not trying to speak for everyone - I'm just empathizing on the situation here.

I'd suggest/request that those folks be un-banned: 1) By this point in time they've gotten the message -and- 2) There are folks in that group who - regardless of philosophy-specific interests, could provide a lot of good chatter.

Anyway, regardless of what happens, I think all ought to be toned down and unpuckered a bit. Let's take this for what it is; a free service and a place to shoot the bull. The amount we get whipped up about things that happened here is currently disproportionate to how much we're paying. While I'm an enthusiastic volunteer to take part in the new forum going up, as someone already mentioned, that's no reason to not contribute here too (unless and until I too am banned). Frequenting different forums is a good thing - they all have slightly different feels; different tools for different jobs, its all good.

Thanks

Ticomaya
 
  4  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 07:16 am
@Khethil,
That was a well-reasoned post, Khethil. Although I'm not sure you addressed the issue of the "brain drain" tactic that Robert has mentioned, and how that squares with your assertion that these folks didn't mean any harm.
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 08:03 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:
That was a well-reasoned post, Khethil. Although I'm not sure you addressed the issue of the "brain drain" tactic that Robert has mentioned, and how that squares with your assertion that these folks didn't mean any harm.

I don't know - I see references to that language in the last 11 pages of this thread, but I didn't get (or didn't receive) the initial message that had this verbiage, so I can't speak to it in context.

Thanks
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 08:25 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
I don't know - I see references to that language in the last 11 pages of this thread, but I didn't get (or didn't receive) the initial message that had this verbiage, so I can't speak to it in context.

Most of the posters on A2K wouldn't let a little thing like a lack of information get in the way of expressing an authoritative opinion on a particular subject. You'll need to learn that if you want to fit in around here.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 09:49 am
joefromchicago wrote:
sarek wrote:
My background is in law and I am pretty sure that what you did does constitute a breach of privacy regulations as they are commonly understood.
Lighten up, Francis.

With the hindsight, we can see what the old assertions can become.

Looks like this peculiar passage keeps engraved on the minds of some A2Kers.

I'm lighten up now and don't care the least but it's a reminder for those who pretend to follow personal ethics.

Isn't it funny, joe?
Region Philbis
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 09:51 am
@Francis,

uh, different Francis...

Francis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 09:52 am
@Region Philbis,
I've seen the double entendre, but nonetheless...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Philforum Focus Group - Discussion by jgweed
Top o' the Mornin' to Ya! - Question by Transcend
The new amalgamated philosophy forum. - Discussion by Soul Brother
Richard Grant - Question by Spock1111
Lily says goodbye - Question by Lily
 
  1. Forums
  2. » PhilForum check in
  3. » Page 33
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 01:45:27