Andy and Jim
I think the point being made was about moderator aggression.
Would you agree that aggression in management responses would deter people from posting?
(Yes, management and moderators are the same here - shouldn't this be changed?)
Here is Andy encouraging open debate:
" I promised myself I would not get embroiled in this but after reading the most recent post, I don't think I have ever seen so much bovine excrement hashed together to form coherent sentences.
So lets deal with some facts instead of some fiction. "
No fiction was of course demonstrated, just some attempts to wrongfoot a casual reader.
Andy and Jim, do you think ordinary members posting want to be accused of causing presidential "nausea and disgust", of writing "ABSOLUT DRIVEL", or of scaring away other posters?
There have been no aggressive posts from ordinary members. (Even though Andy implied there were).
I agree with the point Willie made.
Given how unwelcome this forum discussion seems to be, it is at least odd to read presidential musings about how few people post anyway.
That "highly vocal few" "...Hardly a truly representation of CS membership and participation on the Forum."
Really? According to your calculation Jim, there were 77 posts outwith that "highly vocal few". Even with none of that vocal few, that should be considered as not a bad level of interest out of 200 members.
Of course some have come in saying they'd been reading the discussions; posting is not the only indication of interest .
All part of a negative menu of tropes. Members are being scared off by other members...there's so few people posting anyway...
=Never mind the discussions, folks!
The fewer people discuss these motions (actually Motion 1 is more an announcement than a motion) the more likely the management proposals (including the departure from the constitution highlighted by David) will get an easy ride.
I think the point being made was about moderator aggression.
Would you agree that aggression in management responses would deter people from posting?
(Yes, management and moderators are the same here - shouldn't this be changed?)
Here is Andy encouraging open debate:
" I promised myself I would not get embroiled in this but after reading the most recent post, I don't think I have ever seen so much bovine excrement hashed together to form coherent sentences.
So lets deal with some facts instead of some fiction. "
No fiction was of course demonstrated, just some attempts to wrongfoot a casual reader.
Andy and Jim, do you think ordinary members posting want to be accused of causing presidential "nausea and disgust", of writing "ABSOLUT DRIVEL", or of scaring away other posters?
There have been no aggressive posts from ordinary members. (Even though Andy implied there were).
I agree with the point Willie made.
Given how unwelcome this forum discussion seems to be, it is at least odd to read presidential musings about how few people post anyway.
That "highly vocal few" "...Hardly a truly representation of CS membership and participation on the Forum."
Really? According to your calculation Jim, there were 77 posts outwith that "highly vocal few". Even with none of that vocal few, that should be considered as not a bad level of interest out of 200 members.
Of course some have come in saying they'd been reading the discussions; posting is not the only indication of interest .
All part of a negative menu of tropes. Members are being scared off by other members...there's so few people posting anyway...
=Never mind the discussions, folks!
The fewer people discuss these motions (actually Motion 1 is more an announcement than a motion) the more likely the management proposals (including the departure from the constitution highlighted by David) will get an easy ride.