Look. People can freely join and leave, just like many of us freely joined and left Chowhound.
No one is stopping them if some of them (or many of them) want to spend time here. We should welcome anyone want to come over here and have a conversation or even just to read. There are great people and jerkasses everywhere. That being said, some of the people over there are more than just loudmouths. They are borderline “toxic”. What I mean by “toxic” is that they directly or indirectly push other people out. Gaining one of those people means losing 10 other posters. We don’t need people like that.
I use both sites: I’m located in the Los Angeles area, so FTC is where I go for L.A.-related stuff. I also read the San Diego posts to keep tabs on what’s happening there.
Most of my time is spent on HO, though. It embodies a lot of what I liked about Chowhound - depth and breadth and the ability to live (and learn) through the experiences of others.
There’s a part of me that would like to see the boards join, because I think we’d end up with a more dynamic environment and be more appealing to someone stumbling across us through a web search or link.
BUT, I don’t know how the personalities of the two sites would mesh. I can imagine a lot of conflict.
I will also say it was good to see so many familiar names from Chow and it would be a pleasure to have them over here contributing to their local and our general boards.
It was also interesting to see one who “was” actively posting here, posting in that thread, warning others about coming here.
It’s truly fascinating how people can have “issues” at multiple forums, yet it’s always the forum and never them.
Anyway I’m surprised that thread was left open for discussion as it seems to indicate this conversation has been taking place over there awhile. Conversely I haven’t heard any rumblings about our members desires to join them, or any other site for that matter, so yeah for us!!!
As usual, you’re right on target. It’s not good enough that someone is going out of their way to organize, maintain and grow a site for them to freely participate in (or not)…
I’ve been trying like hell to stay out of this discussion, but - and please accept this observation in the neutral-ish spirit in which it is offered - If you say this:
you can’t also say this:
That’s involvement. You’re casting aspersions on the behavior of others, albeit in a very cover-your-ass kind of way. I’m not judging. All my walls are glass, and I walk around barefoot all the time, so I’ve got a lot invested in no one throwing stones in my direction. But those little “not sayin’, just sayin’” comments are the antithesis of non-involvement.
I am not getting your objection. First, those two quotes you have listed for NotJrvedivici are not even from the same thread. Second, just because he wasn’t personally in the middle of a debate, it doesn’t mean he cannot have an opinion of the said situation. If we are talking the same debate, there were only two people in the heat of the debate, but apparently numerous people have already stated their opinions already.
I don’t think it is about covering your ass kind of way. I think it is just being transparent about what we know and not know, and how we reach our conclusion/theory with the available information.
I’m 63 & no one has ever accused me of being overly rose colored in my observations. I’m jaded, I’m somewhat cynical and I live in Brooklyn… a trifecta of potential distrust of others’ motives. However, I don’t think that a small group of self important entitled brats represent “human nature”, here or elsewhere. Sometimes it takes major effort to ignore them but mostly its worth it to do so. I’ve met (& continue to meet) some pretty good people on the boards (& even in person).
I too agree small h, I really don’t understand your point. You are selectively quoting from two completely different threads and conversations I was having. The two incidents quoted are not directly involved with each other, so I’m not sure how you are trying to fairly compare them when they are not remotely in the same context of conversation.
I understand you are just stating your “observation” and trying to maintain a neutral-ish spirit so as a courtesy to same I will try to respond or explain to the best of my ability.
With regard to the first line you quoted, I’m referring to a disagreement which took place between two other posters, I was not involved in the disagreement in any way. Now I suppose since I’ve offered a blanket apology in an attempt to sooth the wounds created by these two individuals, and hopefully get them to reconsider their participation on the board, sure now I’m involved.
Regarding the second quote, which again is from a completely different thread and conversation, I’m talking about a completely different person than those involved in the first quote. In the second quote I’m stating my observation(s) about someone who no longer posts on this board. (I don’t know if it was voluntary withdrawal or involuntary - either way it’s none of my business) Again, if you feel me stating my observation(s) of a persons behavior(s) on multiple forums, ok I’m involved, again I’m not making any claim of involvement or non involvement in this particular discussion.
Now to quote you!! (lol) [quote=“small_h, post:15, topic:5259”]
But those little “not sayin’, just sayin’” comments are the antithesis of non-involvement.
[/quote]
I didn’t say either of those statements, so again I’m sorry, I don’t know what you are referring to.
I hope this helps clarify things for you, I know you said this was a neutral spirited comment(s) and it’s taken as such.
I accidentally included my response to you with my response to CK below (or above perhaps, not sure where this is going to land in the thread) . You can read it there.
Ah, I may have overspoken a little, but what I meant is that many people do not know that free things are not free. There are a lot of efforts and money behind the scene. For example, the site owners for both FTC and HO have invested money and more importantly time and efforts in creating and maintaining the sites.
My first impression of requests for Robert to merge with HO was “why would he want to just give away what he’s done here? It’s costing him money. He has a right to the product of his funds and labor even if he doesn’t intend it to be a for-profit business.” It’s been interesting to see how many people just skirt around that set of facts as if this site belonged to the general public. I haven’t understood that thinking at all.
Few people don’t understand that they are the guests of the websites, and owners like Roberts are the hosts. At the end of the day, even if you think the person is a shitty host, the house is still his, not yours. Some people don’t get that part.
That’s what I couldn’t understand about the vitriol outrage at “the other place” when they made all those changes. I’ll be the last person to defend the reformatted site, but at the end of the day, it’s their site to do with as they please. No matter how much time or information I shared, the site was never mine, so what right do I have to be as pissed off as some people were.
I would think though, after a poster endlessly and selflessly entertainings so many people, day in and day out. A poster who is as equally handsome as he is charismatic, you would think they would give him his own board. You know what I mean?
Posting and reading on both boards I don’t think the level of people being very annoying and not really into interesting discussions is very similar on both boards. Both boards have their advantages and disadvantages and the discussion about potentially be interested in merging both boards is ongoing for a long time already (and not only in this one thread on FTC. The main reason is that both boards are very small with similar amounts of activities (but in very different cities) but it is questionable if in the long term any of those two boards will survive with this little activity and a merged one would have much better chances.
Yes, that is/was the thought too. In order to survive, a certain level of activities must happen. It is a demon which feeds itself. The fewer the responses prompt fewer initial posts, and the fewer the initial posts cause even fewer responses… I think we can all agree on this concern.
The advantage of the merging two boards is that the activities will increase. Yes, if things work out, then the activities and memberships will go up proportionally and if we are lucky MORE than proportional due to synergic effect.
However, things can go wrong as well due to many factors, including crash of personality and direction…etc. Sometime 1+1 is not equal to 2. Sometime 1+1 can be even less than 1 itself. (not talking about real math of course)
Let me put it this way. Have we not seen two corporate companies merged and then crash and burn? Merging two groups can be challenging if it is not handle correctly – and it can be very tricky. I believe both Sampson and Robert have discussed the merge more than a few times and came to the conclusion that it was too difficult to implement.
Yes, someone might be the host; they pay the rent and fix all the leaks. But the rest of the members do all the cleaning and cooking, if you will, so I don’t agree 100% with your characterization. I felt this was why folks were upset with Chowhound. Maybe legally CH didn’t do anything wrong, but I don’t think it was foolish to complain about it. We abide by social contracts all the time (tipping, e.g.).
And I never understood who owned the information. Can anyone make copies of threads on Chowhound and post them on another website for archival purposes? Even here on HO, I wish there was a way to download all the threads and save them.
Sure. A site like Chowhound or this one is build upon by many people’s contributions. That can be said even for a wedding party. A success of a wedding party is also greatly determined by the guests. This can also be said for a corporation/company. Every employee contributes to the success as well as failure to the said company.
I don’t mean that you or I cannot complain about how a website is being run or how a party is being hosted. We have the right to complain. However, my final point was “At the end of the day, you are the guest, not the host”, A guest has the right to complain, but he/she can only do so as a guest, not as a host.
The wedding party guests do not own the wedding, and the company employees do not own the company (unless they have stocks).
In term of your analogy of tipping, I don’t see it. Social contract yes.
Tipping is expected. I don’t think anyone thinks “not tipping” is a normal behavior. Flip this back to the FTC website situation, there shouldn’t be an expectation that the owner of FTC (Robert) should follow the instructions of others. I believe the social expectation is that people can freely make suggestions, but he as the owner of FTC can make decision based on his discretion – that is the social contract.
Again, I didn’t mean to say that people cannot complain. Let me repeat that people can and should complain. There is nothing foolish about complaining. What I am saying is that there is a host-guest relationship here.
