Echo chamber defunct
-
Majerus wrote:
Vigorous debate was it's downfall
Not quite. There was an unfortunate "alleged trolling" post made yesterday. This caused the SB1.0 administrator to give up and request CP to shut the forum. However, there is, of course, the possible chance that Chris Maunder may allow the SB1.0 to be resurrected if enough (former) SB1.0 members request him to do so. So, if you would like the SB1.0 to be once again a functioning forum, the former members need to decide who shall administer that forum and write to Chris Maunder with requests to re-open it. That said, SB1.0 was a private members social forum, and as far as I am aware, private members social forums may be created at CP at any time. So, those interested in resurrecting SB1.0, please indicate so by reply to this message.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
There was an unfortunate "alleged trolling" post made yesterday.
By me, about something Rob didn't like. His criterion for 'trolling'. He needs a dictionary.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This caused the SB1.0 administrator to give up
It didn't cause him to give up: he was sitting there unblinkingly, his finger shakily hovering over the self-destruct button, just itching for a scapegoat to blame for closing the forum down.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So, those interested in resurrecting SB1.0, please indicate so by reply to this message.
Sure.
-
Majerus wrote:
Vigorous debate was it's downfall
Not quite. There was an unfortunate "alleged trolling" post made yesterday. This caused the SB1.0 administrator to give up and request CP to shut the forum. However, there is, of course, the possible chance that Chris Maunder may allow the SB1.0 to be resurrected if enough (former) SB1.0 members request him to do so. So, if you would like the SB1.0 to be once again a functioning forum, the former members need to decide who shall administer that forum and write to Chris Maunder with requests to re-open it. That said, SB1.0 was a private members social forum, and as far as I am aware, private members social forums may be created at CP at any time. So, those interested in resurrecting SB1.0, please indicate so by reply to this message.
I'd think it would be great to have the forum back. But it would have to be moderated by someone who wanted to keep it open. I warned Rob that he was setting himself up for failure. I just didn't realize that was his goal. Might want to pose this question in the soapbox to get more views.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
I'd think it would be great to have the forum back. But it would have to be moderated by someone who wanted to keep it open. I warned Rob that he was setting himself up for failure. I just didn't realize that was his goal. Might want to pose this question in the soapbox to get more views.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
But then, as this forum (The Back Room) is out of sight from the main CP site, just like the SB1.0 was out of sight, should we just use this very forum instead of trying to resurrect SB1.0 ????
Majerus wrote:
Might want to pose this question in the soapbox to get more views.
I don't often visit "next door". But am happy to pose such a question, unless you beat me to it
-
I'd think it would be great to have the forum back. But it would have to be moderated by someone who wanted to keep it open. I warned Rob that he was setting himself up for failure. I just didn't realize that was his goal. Might want to pose this question in the soapbox to get more views.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
That was not my goal.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi "Only buzzards feed on their friends" Patrick Dorinson
-
But then, as this forum (The Back Room) is out of sight from the main CP site, just like the SB1.0 was out of sight, should we just use this very forum instead of trying to resurrect SB1.0 ????
Majerus wrote:
Might want to pose this question in the soapbox to get more views.
I don't often visit "next door". But am happy to pose such a question, unless you beat me to it
It is also "unmoderated", other than by the ownership.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi "Only buzzards feed on their friends" Patrick Dorinson
-
But then, as this forum (The Back Room) is out of sight from the main CP site, just like the SB1.0 was out of sight, should we just use this very forum instead of trying to resurrect SB1.0 ????
Majerus wrote:
Might want to pose this question in the soapbox to get more views.
I don't often visit "next door". But am happy to pose such a question, unless you beat me to it
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
should we just use this very forum instead of trying to resurrect SB1.0
That might not be a bad idea. One problem with SB1 is a lack of membership.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But am happy to pose such a question,
I'll let you. I don't have management's ear, so you might be in a better position to present a case once others give their input.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
That was not my goal.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi "Only buzzards feed on their friends" Patrick Dorinson
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
should we just use this very forum instead of trying to resurrect SB1.0
That might not be a bad idea. One problem with SB1 is a lack of membership.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But am happy to pose such a question,
I'll let you. I don't have management's ear, so you might be in a better position to present a case once others give their input.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
Majerus wrote:
That might not be a bad idea
The original soapbox forum for CP was this very forum and was called "The Soapbox". It got shut down for a while due to some unsavoury behaviour by certain persons (no names mentioned).
Majerus wrote:
One problem with SB1 is a lack of membership
That was "by design". To restrict membership based on certain criteria.
Majerus wrote:
I don't have management's ear
Ditto
-
It is also "unmoderated", other than by the ownership.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi "Only buzzards feed on their friends" Patrick Dorinson
-
Majerus wrote:
That might not be a bad idea
The original soapbox forum for CP was this very forum and was called "The Soapbox". It got shut down for a while due to some unsavoury behaviour by certain persons (no names mentioned).
Majerus wrote:
One problem with SB1 is a lack of membership
That was "by design". To restrict membership based on certain criteria.
Majerus wrote:
I don't have management's ear
Ditto
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
That was "by design".
Right. I recognize the benefits, but the downside is that no new members were recruited, while many naturally drifted away - or in some cases driven away or banned. Not making a judgement on that, but it left the forum with a small number of regular posters.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
That was not my goal.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi "Only buzzards feed on their friends" Patrick Dorinson
Rob Graham wrote:
That was not my goal.
You could have left without shutting it down if you didn't like it any more, yet you didn't.
-
Apparently SB1 has gone the way of the Dodo. Vigorous debate was it's downfall.
The Left - Taking shit for being right since before you were born. - driftglass
I don't see a reason for closing it, but perhaps a different admin should be selected. On the other hand, as someone else suggested, the BackRoom seems a fine place. Why not have all the SB1.0 congregants congregate here?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I don't see a reason for closing it, but perhaps a different admin should be selected. On the other hand, as someone else suggested, the BackRoom seems a fine place. Why not have all the SB1.0 congregants congregate here?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
ahmed zahmed wrote:
a different admin should be selected
Hell, I'll be admin. Does it really take any work?
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
I think not. Only admitting those who want in. Setting some sensible ground rules, or none at all.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
ahmed zahmed wrote:
a different admin should be selected
Hell, I'll be admin. Does it really take any work?
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
I think not. Only admitting those who want in. Setting some sensible ground rules, or none at all.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
Only admitting those who want in.
That's the only problem I have with SB1. Not enough diversity in the membership - and I would bet - very little in the way of new membership since it first started.
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn. - Jim Morrison
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
There was an unfortunate "alleged trolling" post made yesterday.
By me, about something Rob didn't like. His criterion for 'trolling'. He needs a dictionary.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This caused the SB1.0 administrator to give up
It didn't cause him to give up: he was sitting there unblinkingly, his finger shakily hovering over the self-destruct button, just itching for a scapegoat to blame for closing the forum down.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So, those interested in resurrecting SB1.0, please indicate so by reply to this message.
Sure.
-
That was not my goal.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi "Only buzzards feed on their friends" Patrick Dorinson
Let Ravel moderate the forum. Who cares who moderates it, it isnt so important just so long as there is a place where anything can be discussed without beingv censored like the rest of the very boring CP web site.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Let Ravel moderate the forum. Who cares who moderates it, it isnt so important just so long as there is a place where anything can be discussed without beingv censored like the rest of the very boring CP web site.
============================== Nothing to say.
Nothing I can do about it. I threw my keys on the seat and closed the locked car door, so to speak. Any changes that need to be made to SB1 would have to be by either Oakman (he remains admin, and is still enabled) or by Chris.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi "Only buzzards feed on their friends" Patrick Dorinson
-
Rob Graham wrote:
That was not my goal.
You could have left without shutting it down if you didn't like it any more, yet you didn't.
You miss the point. Jon and I agreed to maintain a reasonable level of acceptability as a condition for creating the forum for us. Chris went a step further and made social forums a feature, but that did not relieve either of us from insuring no posts would bring discredit to CP. It was never an issue of what I liked or didn't like. I'm actually pretty tolerant of a wide range of opinion, for an Oakman Lite.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi "Only buzzards feed on their friends" Patrick Dorinson