When We started this forum

[jbeckva]

Yah.. got it. Lee you should be fixed

 

[Elite-ist]

I like the fact decision-making is by group consensus on this forum. I've seen how disruptive unilateral decisions can snuff out any goodwill towards individuals who take that approach. And I'm talking in a general sense, not specifically about forums. But in speaking about internet social forum etiquette, when your posted question is left unanswered it takes the wind out of your sails to understand the other party is deliberate in their inaction. I don't get that feeling here.

Nando.

 

[laatsch55]

Nando, I'm thinking size has alot to do with it. (yep, he said it) I've seen it happen at AK and to a lesser degree at TH. The reasons for going to a certain site are soon overwhelmed by those seeking that. Is there a way for that to NOT HAPPEN? If there is I'm all ears.

 

[Elite-ist]

Lee: When you described your situation at AK, whereby it took such a long time to reinstate you because of the time needed by an administrator and moderators to check on your history, I immediately thought: "There's no personal connection on AK between the members and its leaders." That's a disconnect we all know so well from our political leaders, and that's not what I want to hear from a forum administrator or moderator. Checking out whether "this sort of thing isn't any kind of pattern with you" is more of a slap in the face than the suspension, because it seems those who exercised their authority hadn't a clue of your background. That's quite impersonal, and if it was due to the size of that particular forum, then more members need to come to their senses and do what others have already done: join Phoenix AC.

This forum is already on the right track, and it will succeed, because the members here aren't constrained or left out of decision making, and can freely formulate opinions or ideas which will ensure the vision of this site is not lost.

Nando.

 

[laatsch55]

They hide behind the " right of banned members to privacy" so they dont have to explain their treatment of someone who was obviously a great resource, until that resource was sucked dry. Like so many " can't talk about it , it's a personnel matter" BS , I thought it was just a smokescreen for a personal agenda. Perhaps it was when Dr. Strangelove found out he no longer had any control over content he provided? Can't say as i would have taken it lightly. All this is conjecture on my part, and maybe, someday we can hear the full story from the affected himself.
The still somewhat sideways remark about "being put up to it by.......well someone" really pissed me off. Hiding behind their privacy bullshit and still didn't have the balls to straight up ask me if the good Dr. had "put me up to it"
BTW it was a week before I could post even after "full reinstatemet, and another ten days before I could edit my posts, that one I don't understand.