Charlieâs post above seems a good summary of the longer-term situation.
Remember, Manxx, that the same problems have been going on here for years, with successive groups of different members always apparently complaining about the same things in the same ways, disbelieving more or less the same representations from Pipstradamus, and eventually leaving for the same reasons, which they state openly.
Thatâs surely a significant guide to what goes on, here?
Maybe itâs also significant regarding the prospect of getting any change, in which case weâre all wasting our time.
Iâm grateful to you for trying anyway, Manxx, and for your responses and reason. And your good nature. (All of which Pipstradamus should of course have said, but characteristically didnât, so Iâm saying it for him.)
All but the important ones, to which he has no answer at all?
I wonder, reading what he says, whether he himself knows what goes on here at all. Maybe he imagines the moderators are doing their job, and theyâre just not? Thatâs also possible?
He hasnât begun to answer Charlieâs âsubstantive questionâ, which Piperazine and I have also asked.
Itâs a straightforward enough question thatâs apparently been asked here repeatedly in the past by other members who have now left and explained why.
On that point, I almost sympathise with him, in a sense, because the only answer to it that would make sense of obectively observed facts is something like âYes, youâre clearly right: weâve made rather a mess of everything and clearly need totally different policies and a totally different âprocessâ, as every other forum has.â
I donât accept that itâs satisfactory. Neither, in the past, has a very large number of groups of people who have all rejected it for basically the same reasons.
I donât believe a lot of what Pipstradamus says, but thatâs less important. Itâs actually the outcome I care about more than his honesty. I admit that itâs possible that heâs telling the truth as he sees it, but just sees it totally differently from what everyone else concerned would call ârealityâ. Maybe he still just doesnât realise how offensive his behaviour has been to so many people (in spite of so many people having told him that it is, over a long time period, and explaining why theyâre so offended, and all of them saying the same things!).
Looks like thatâs right.
Unfortunately.
I neither believe nor accept it.
Like so many others, and for the same reasons.
Either that or for some reason he just doesnât know what goes on here (also hard to believe, I know). But neither situation is exactly promising, is it?
He says âYes, we have retention issues, but I would gather that every online community goes through thatâ, and to me that suggests either that heâs still trying to avoid answering Charlieâs question above or that he doesnât accept its factual premise.
Again, neither situation is exactly promising, is it?
I refer to it as âCharlieâs questionâ simply because heâs the person who most recently asked it. Obviously itâs been many other peopleâs question, as well. We can see this from reading other threads started by people who have now left in protest or been removed having broken no rules (they say, and I believe them).
You and I, Manxx (and Charlie) have also now seen Lexysâ widely circulated explanation of the reason for her leaving the forum, and been appalled at Pipstradamusâs behaviour over that issue. Slightly different facts, certainly, but exactly the same attitude to the members he most needed. Yet again, he actively and deliberately chose to protect the malicious troll and lose one of his best contributors, knowing that that would be the outcome, didnât he? What do you say to that, Manxx?
Thatâs putting it mildly.
Anyway, we all know why that is.
If he offers all-round apologies that sound sincere and genuine, and a firm, clear, unambiguous, public commitment to a radically different way of moderating the forum, maybe some people will be willing to help him. Theyâve certainly offered enough in the past.[quote=âManxx, post:37, topic:112641â]
Since there are about 6/7 people here who have probably read all the posts, and there are 34 posts so far, does this not mean that these 6/7 people alone account for nearly the entire readings here?
Have I thought about that right?
[/quote]
I donât think so, but Iâm not certain.
I donât think itâs accurate.
I think itâs perhaps confused by the difficulty of logging in with this ghastly software, and by some other factors, too.
But in any case, we all know the forumâs in its death-throes: thereâs no disputing that.
Apart from a handful of us, most of the members this place now attracts are people (of a type and with motivations) that other forums very wisely donât allow to post.
Hence the problems weâre discussing: thatâs basically why weâre having the whole conversation in the first place, isnât it?
