The "graveyard" subforums

Status
Not open for further replies.

hsosdrum

Very well Known Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
2,204
better late than..
there's New Post which are New Posts
And there's What's New which are New Topics.

Just like FaucheBook!
My point is that I think your 90/10 estimate is way off.
 

Old PIT Guy

Very well Known Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
746
Reaction score
720
New Posts works well if you're going to spend a lot of time reading whatever simply because it weeds out what you've already read, mostly. But when I walk into a bookstore I may not be interested in all the new whatever on all the available topics. I'm likely only interested in certain things. Maybe I like browsing and window shopping my way through the topics to click on rather than seeing a list of what was most recently posted. Also, I'm not always logged-in. In short, I'd say New Topics is tailored to members who logon and tend to stay logged-on, and who spend a lot of time viewing a lot of content. I view maybe half a dozen topics a visit, and oftentimes less.
 

lossforgain

Team DFO
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
14,654
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Lancaster, PA
Perhaps LossForGain can explain how the DFO membership benefits from this small bit of organization.
You can ask Ben if you like, I didn’t set up the forum categories. We (volunteer staff) just work within the system we have been given. But I would say that on the other hand, having sub categories set up this way doesn’t hurt the members either. Just go interact with the content. Or don’t. It’s up to you.
 

dcrigger

DFO Star
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
6,022
Reaction score
3,574
Location
California
You can ask Ben if you like, I didn’t set up the forum categories. We (volunteer staff) just work within the system we have been given. But I would say that on the other hand, having sub categories set up this way doesn’t hurt the members either.
And yet members have expressed exactly.... And the topic isn't about having "sub-categories or not", it is about two uniquely different subcategories - that aren't defined the nature of their content, but the origin of that content.

While it seems obvious from multiple posts that you personally see no value to this line of discussion - what I don't understand is why. in your role as a moderator, you feel the need to be so dismissive of it. In this case, deflection from the specific issue (segregating video/audio based creator, not content) and diminution (dismissing harm expressed by members as being inconsequential or invalid)
Just go interact with the content. Or don’t. It’s up to you.
In other words, "I don't care what you have to say, this is the way it is, take or leave it.

How did this request "Perhaps LossForGain can explain how the DFO membership benefits from this small bit of organization." merit this type of "take it or leave it" response?

But I guess in a around about, off-putting way, it very much answers the question if "LossForGain can explain how the DFO membership benefits from this small bit of organization".....

Obviously not.

Sorry to be that blunt - but this thread has been nothing but civil and respectful - and your response have been little more than dismissive throughout. Not once, prior to now saying that you have no say in it, did you offer even a token "Hmm, you know, that's interesting, I'll make sure Ben gets a look at this". Even if you were lying and never did anything, that would be at least giving the appearance of mutual respect.

But instead we've gotten "Just go interact with the content. Or don’t. It’s up to you."

In other words, "Just shut up and deal with it. Or don't. The management doesn't care one way or the other."

How am I wrong in this assessment?
 

lossforgain

Team DFO
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
14,654
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Lancaster, PA
How am I wrong in this assessment?
Well David, actually you are. I am not intending to sound dismissive, so I am sorry that it seemed that way. As I mentioned before in my first response to you, I had no idea that this was of such great importance to you. I was trying to show empathy there. What I actually did at that time (although I didn’t advertise it) was start a conversation with Ben and the team to re-evaluate the forum structure. But you don’t know or see that behind the scenes. Now I’m sorry for how it appears to you, but just because you have strong feelings doesn’t mean that everyone needs to agree. It may be that something changes out of this discussion, and it may not. But at this moment, it’s a simple unemotional matter of, as I said, go there and interact with the content. Or choose not to. I’m not being dismissive about it, I’m not emotionally invested in whether that category exists or not, honestly. Hopefully you can accept that.
 
Last edited:

hsosdrum

Very well Known Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
2,204
Well David, actually you are. I am not intending to sound dismissive, so I am sorry that it seemed that way. As I mentioned before in my first response to you, I had no idea that this was of such great importance to you. I was trying to show empathy there. What I actually did at that time (although I didn’t advertise it) was start a conversation with Ben and the team to re-evaluate the forum structure. But you don’t know or see that behind the scenes. Now I’m sorry for how it appears to you, but just because you have strong feelings doesn’t mean that everyone needs to agree. It may be that something changes out of this discussion, and it may not. But at this moment, it’s a simple unemotional matter of, as I said, go there and interact with the content. Or choose not to. I’m not being dismissive about it, I’m not emotionally invested in whether that category exists or not, honestly. Hopefully you can accept that.
Actually LossForGain, your assessment of the current situation is wrong. According to what you say in this post it's not "a simple unemotional matter of, as I said, go there and interact with the content. Or choose not to", it's a matter of "I brought the matter of forum structure up to Ben and the team in the hopes of starting a conversation with them about re-evaluating it."

Can't you see how your direct "take it or leave it" statement to Dave is dismissive? Especially when in the previous sentence you say that you have indeed taken actions to bring his concerns up to Ben and the team. Surely you can see that it would have been more respectful to have limited your response to Dave to "I brought the matter of forum structure up to Ben and the team in the hopes of starting a conversation with them about re-evaluating it", and to have left it at that?
 

fun2drum

Team DFO
Staff member
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
6,764
Reaction score
862
Location
Western North Carolina
I think everybody has said their piece, and for crying out loud, lossforgain isn't responsible for the structure of the forum. lossforgain did indeed bring it up for discussion with Ben and the mods because of feedback from some forum members. So far it still is what it is. Some find that to be okay while others obviously not so much. That's where we are, but lossforgain has told you, without beating around the bush and without any malarkey, what the situation is. Just because you don't agree with that doesn't make his response disrespectful or inappropriate, so just stop. This thread is locked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Top