So, here you are spamming Walter’s announcement thread, trashing him, and he’s not able to defend himself.
Zero class.
13 Likes
@LisaSelk – please move all messages in this thread other than Walter’s SOI to another thread for debate, and lock this thread.
9 Likes
And again without all the facts.
A pattern is starting to emerge here.
5 Likes
Whoa your ponies @tapper. I didn’t bring this thread to Walter’s statement. @LisaSelk did it. It was clean until her action earlier this afternoon. She moved a discussion here. I was along for the ride.
So you’re saying discussion of a person’s intent to run for the board shouldn’t be in the thread where they asked to announce it? How is this not the most appropriate place to discuss the candidates qualifications? I’m not supporting specific comments in this thread, but if you think the comments aren’t appropriate and don’t meet Talk guidelines, flag them as such. I just don’t agree that discussion of the candidate is off-topic and should be moved.
And also, there’s another thread for another candidate announcing their intent to run. Should we lock that one too and make people discuss the candidate’s qualifications in a separate thread? Trying to ensure some consistency here…
2 Likes
Cindy your original posts more appropriately fit in this thread as they are on the topic of his intent to run for a position on the board. Do you have an argument that that is not true?
Also Tapper responded to a comment you made in this thread directly.
Moderating this forum is necessary to ensure that discussions are happening in the appropriately defined place so they can be easily found and referenced later, if needed. If you have a suggestion on how we could do that better please let us know, but moderating is not going to go away and I don’t think many would agree that it’s heavy handed. If you have questions about categories or topics please ask so we can all keep this Talk place a friendly environment.
2 Likes
But I didn’t enjoy being accused of “spamming Walter’s announcement thread” when I didn’t post a thing here until it was moved by @LisaSelk. I couldn’t comment in the other place because it was locked.
I see your point, but we’re just trying our best to keep everything on task.
The best reminder I can give to everyone is before you click post, ask yourself: is my comment on topic?, does my comment improve this discussion?, would my comment be better suited for a private message with the person I’m responding to?
Granted this comment of mine would be better suited for a private response to you directly, but I want everyone to have these reminders so we can have healthier communication on Talk.
Now let’s get back on topic please if anyone still has discussion to share on this statement of intent.
1 Like
This thread differs in one fundamental aspect: Walter currently cannot refute nor defend his past actions, nor provide reasons as to why we should vote for or against him.
Given that handicap, would you not agree that it is unfair to have his Statement of Intent thread turned into a mud-slinging fest by a career political blogger?
6 Likes
This Talk forum is a place for community discussion. He asked David to post this on a forum he knows to be very active. If he didn’t want discussion on the topic to happen, he should have stipulated that in his request or just not have asked for it to be publicized while he can’t participate in the discussion. Again if you feel the content of the posts don’t meet forum guidelines, flag them as inappropriate.
3 Likes
This may explain a lot:
2 Likes
Yeah I’ve been saying that for a while now.
1 Like
Um, not to knock this church’s effort, but that barely breaks the personal Blogspot level of high-impact reporting.
The fear that Cindy might write something critical of DMS seems misplaced for a lot of reasons.
[[if that’s what this is about? it’s hard to tell at this point]]
2 Likes
It’s not the fear that she will write something. It’s that her behavior here reflects a deliberate attempt to aggravate members to generate a story.
2 Likes
Yes. Plus, I’ve abandoned ever writing about this place for fear I’d die of embarrassment. I even went through all my sign-ins yesterday and removed my name so it won’t Google in connection with DMS.
(P.S. My 1,100 word articles in that publication are gaining traction. I’m pleased with my effort there.)
Your style of “reporting” seems to be instigate instead of investigate.
You just made another judgemental statement that most of our 1400+ members would strongly disagree with.
3 Likes
Personal observation. I get to have those.
You have a great Saturday. I’m headed to the space to make a tiny stamp for @Cairenn_Day. If you are around stop into CA and introduce yourself. I’ll be the one huddled over the Shapeoko 2.
^^^
That was offensive and worthy of flagging?
Walter (@wandrson) is welcome to pass information along in the same manner that this thread was generated. If he would like to send a response to be posted here to my Dallas Makerspace email address (Lisa@…), I will gladly copy/paste the full message on this thread.
Honestly though ~ the vast majority of the posts on this thread, that aren’t from or about another person, have been overwhelmingly positive about Walter. Those positive responses are probably more beneficial to his intent to run than anything he could add as rebuttal to that one person…
He is definitely welcome to send a response; but, it’s probably not really necessary in light of how much positive feedback for him has already been posted.
All that being said… This thread continues to be dragged off topic. There have been at least three moderator requests to keep it on topic (see below). I am going to lock the thread at this time. If Walter does decide to send a statement to me - or anyone else - to have posted as a response, it can be added by me or any other moderator.
Below is Walter’s response:
On Mar 25, 2017 10:46 AM, “Walter Anderson” wrote:
Lisa,
Thank you for your generous offer. Below is my response to Zach’s request. Please include in the same thread.
While I understand the desire to focus conversations, I personally believe the idea that we should limit conversation on electronic mediums to be ‘on topic’ is a fundamentally bad idea. At least as the medium has created tools to do so.
If one looks at traditional conversation between individuals, it is readily apparent, that going off-topic is the normal way human beings interact. It is something to be encouraged, because it is one source of human creativity. Yes, when the conversation is a meeting to discuss/accomplish some specific act; such as a board meeting, there is a need to keep things more focused. I don’t believe this is generally the case with electronic communications, since they don’t have a time constraint. Further, I believe attempts to split conversations into separate threads further reduces the functionality of the medium since it removes much of the context that created those spawned conversations, as well as making it even more difficult to use limited search functions to find and locate past conversations.
This latter ability is one of the most important features a board like Talk has for DMS. It represents a knowledge base for the members and prospective members. I have been amazed at the detail and quality of the information made available to others in a permanent way. A perfect example is Beau Williamson’s recent thread where he provided an amazing amount of information to a gentleman in Europe concerning his method for producing lighted panels. In short, Talk is yet another means we already use to fulfill our primary purpose; education.
Thank you Lisa, for posting this for me.
11 Likes