Member's Only?

[Aurora40]

Originally Posted by Mystic ZR-1

Maybe it's time we change to members only being able to post?
This subject is getting old...
Apologies to anyone who thinks I'm not PC...

I thought this was an interesting point, and one worth discussion apart from the bitch-fest that one person's inquiry about his newsletter turned into.

Though I am not a member, I can identify with the sentiment. Hearing the same people criticize the Exec Committee and Registry in general over and over gets pretty old.

But at the same time, one of the great things about the Registry is how open it is. And *many* of the great and helpful posters here on the forum are not actual members. But they obviously contribute a lot, both digitally and in real life.

So anyway, I was reminded of an interesting philosophy applied to some "tech" workplaces: No ********.

In regards to work, the idea is this. It doesn't matter if you are really smart or your "fu" is the best. If you are an *******, as a group the company is better off without you. ******** stifle other peoples' productivity.

Basically, you avoid having to determine whether or not someone made some contributions to offset their jerkyness. If they are an *******, it doesn't matter what positive things they bring to the table.

The forum doesn't seem that different. ******** reduce the "fun" that participating in the forum delivers. And they drive some people away from participating at all. It doesn't matter if they offer some positives, if they are an *******, the place is better off without them.

If 80% of the drama comes from a small group of people, the ********, imagine how much better the forum would be with just the small change of removing them? Maybe you don't agree that the large majority of forum drama comes from a very small set of people, but it sure seems that way to me.

Anyway, just offering the idea up. And I'd say that if 2/3 of the moderators and exec committee think someone is an *******, then they are an *******.

The "********" replace a word that sounds like "glass bowls", in case that isn't clear.

http://bit.ly/cJ4rn2

[xlr8nflorida]

Yeah Bob makes total sense.

If 2/3 of the exec committee thinks you are an *** because you call them out on their lack of performance then you get banned.

Sounds more like a dictatorship to me.

[Aurora40]

Originally Posted by xlr8nflorida

Sounds more like a dictatorship to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's because you are a pinhead.

Roughly 12 people voting on something = Dictatorship? I would have suggested we could just have you determine who they are, but that would require a contribution from you. I'd think you'd be on board with this suggestion, because it allows you to complain about the job others would have to do. Well, unless anyone thinks you're an *******, I guess...

[xlr8nflorida]

Originally Posted by Aurora40

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's because you are a pinhead.

Roughly 12 people voting on something = Dictatorship? I would have suggested we could just have you determine who they are, but that would require a contribution from you. I'd think you'd be on board with this suggestion, because it allows you to complain about the job others would have to do. Well, unless anyone thinks you're an *******, I guess...

Bob, actually, I know several members on this board and they are not in agreement with you. However, several of the members that know you personally, well I won't say what they say about you.

Honestly, how you defend someone who can't put out more then 1 or 2 newsletters in 2 years and can't keep a homepage up to date is beyond me. I'm all about accountability and getting the job done.

Why don't you pay your dues up, buy a ZR-1 and become a Member.

[Aurora40]

Originally Posted by xlr8nflorida

Bob, actually, I know several members on this board and they are not in agreement with you. However, several of the members that know you personally, well I won't say what they say about you.

Wow! So you not only run "several" large businesses, put out "several" large newsletters, but you speak for "several" important people!

^-- If anyone is working on this guys' NCM nomination package, I want in! This is one special guy!

On topic to anyone else, I'd be interested in any opinions you might have. Don't let this pettiness derail the original point.

[scottfab]

hmmm name calling.
Never a good idea IMHO.
No possible excuse.

[Kevin]

pissing match aside, no this shouldn't be members only. there's a members only section now and what gets posted there? nothing. the registry and the net are two separate things, always have been, always should be

[ZZZZZR1]

Originally Posted by Kevin

pissing match aside, no this shouldn't be members only. there's a members only section now and what gets posted there? nothing. the registry and the net are two separate things, always have been, always should be

I could be wrong, but I think Bob meant these types of discussions.

Not this section.

David

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ZZZZZR1

I could be wrong, but I think Bob meant these types of discussions.

Not this section.

David

well...i've been wrong before. Ask my wife

[Aurora40]

Originally Posted by Kevin

pissing match aside, no this shouldn't be members only. there's a members only section now and what gets posted there? nothing. the registry and the net are two separate things, always have been, always should be

Yeah, I don't think Members Only would be a good way to go either. There are lots of great contributors who are not paying members. Hence the basic point of my post. It was in response to someone suggesting (not necessarily seriously) that the forum be members-only.

What do you do about people who don't add value, and just complain about everything? Nothing? Something? Do they negatively impact the general forum?