Quandry

[TX2Wheels]

I have been viewing SC for some time and I know there is some sort of click of which I don't belong nor does it bother me. To each his own. If they argue I sometimes learn a lot from their disagreement. From time to time differences occur and people have feel inclined to vent. If it were friends of mine I would probably intervene. Now Karl speaks volumes. As for me when Karl speaks i read. His accessment of himself is very accurate. The same goes for Nora and others to numerous to mention. This forum is filled with advice and know how and readily given without any need to be compensated or praise. It is my desire to go to Indiana just to meet these people. I guess what I am trying to say is read the positive stuff and try to learn from the negative.
Regards,

Jay Guillot

[polo_pro]

First let me thank the SC readership for giving me input on what's been a very tough choice. I was heartened to find that your opinions mirror my own. I guess I've always been a moderate, so the "read the ToS" and "talk with the moderators and rephrase" choices have always been how I handle sticky matters.

However, as you could tell from my later follow ups in the poll thread, I wanted to hear if folks felt other (more difficult) choices were appropriate. The third most popular answer was to "let the matter drop at the moderator's request", and I've done this many times in the past. Heck, I even did it again this week over what clearly was a trivial matter of wording.

A clear minority of the SC readership took a tougher line. They felt that besides the above choices, "drifting away quietly" and "leaving to create another forum" were an appropriate way to resolve differences between posters and moderators. I'm sure the former has happened countless times, but I only know of one instance of the latter (segwaychatt by Itsi). I've tended to favor these tougher choices, but then I prefer decisive actions that clearly resolve the matter.

So, I bid you all adieu. I'll be logging off SC tonight for the last time. This is my last post. I've enjoyed my time with all you here. I'll see you all at Segfest 2008 (or sooner...perhaps on the polo field!)!

ps - At no point did any of the SC leadership participate in the poll. They didn't discuss the matter informally with me, and I didn't want to put them on the spot by trying to coax an answer out of them. Historically, the SC leadership has never encouraged open discussion about any of these choices, and their lack of participation this time around fits that precident. So my choice of what to do was not influenced by them...well, at least, not directly.

[RAG1247]

first of all, you are entitled and free to make any decisions as to your future participation in SC. I guess I am confused based on your fervent interest, support, promotion and activity relative to segway polo, which of course requires a segway. While I am not a "poloist" (never tried), it was always good to see your ever continuing promotion of the sport.

somehow, I guess you are fighting some inner turmoil as far as SC is concerned and that is a shame. Life goes on for all of us and is ever changing.

Your polo comments will be missed and like any other decision in life, you may change your mind.

stay well and watch out for flying mallets.

[JohnG]

I too find this whole situation a shame, and a shame that you wanted the membership's input, got it, disagreed with it too (except some small minority), and still decided to do what I guess you had wanted to do all along (just wanted some "support" for your decision). You went to a lot of trouble to justify your actions here... and I hope it was all worth it.

I also find it absolutely amazing that on an Internet full of billions of pages, people feel so *limited* to only posting here on SC about Segway topics. If it were me, I would've created a website of my own (there are only a hundred dozen places that let you do so for free) with whatever information-that's-so-important-but-SC-won't-let-me-post-it, and be done with it. We've never stopped anyone from doing so, and in fact, other members have successful Segway-related websites (that often come and go, but still...).

So I'm sorry to see you go and I hope you take care in your Segway travels. We'll be seeing you.

John

PS - At no point did the SC "leadership" believe it was appropriate for them to participate in the poll, since we didn't want to influence the results and our own stance on these kinds of issues is already clear -- read the ToS, follow the ToS, and if you don't like it, sorry.

[David Long]

Originally Posted by jgrohol

I too find this whole situation a shame, and a shame that you wanted the membership's input, got it, disagreed with it too (except some small minority), and still decided to do what I guess you had wanted to do all along (just wanted some "support" for your decision). You went to a lot of trouble to justify your actions here... and I hope it was all worth it.

I find it a shame that with a forum purporting 6,491 members, only 21 were around to participate in polo_pro's poll. That is where the real shame lies, Herr Uber, that the vast majority of members have been voting with their feet. Please count my vote among them.

Regards,
David_Long

[jryan]

Originally Posted by jgrohol

PS - At no point did the SC "leadership" believe it was appropriate for them to participate in the poll, since we didn't want to influence the results and our own stance on these kinds of issues is already clear -- read the ToS, follow the ToS, and if you don't like it, sorry.

First off, I too will miss you Polo. Although I still plan to stay on SC I have toggled with the idea of creating my own forum just to keep in touch with those like yourself and to offer, like John said, a place for people to go with stuff they cannot discuss here (not personal attacks). So I did. If one wants to find it they can find a way, to post the url here would be a violation of the tos so I will not do so.

I was not here through the Itsi ordeal and I also don't see from looking at his posts what all happened. I have heard that his forum was created as a new SC to try to draw members to switch over. That is not what mine is if you can find it. Mine will simply be so that members who are mad can still communicate with others. Personal attacks on the SC moderators will not be allowed either.

But I want to touch up on the quote above John! You somehow seem to imply that you only act when someone violates the tos. This simply is not true and you yourself have said in the past that there are times you act on that which does not fall in the tos. It is pretty easy to say now that you only moderate based on the tos because the tos includes pretty muche everything now in one way or another so a mere "Hello from a Segway Enthusiast" body of a post could potentially violate. But in the past you have acted on things outside the tos and I am not saying this is right or wrong. What I am saying is that you have done it and regardless of whether it is right or wrong you can do it because you are a moderator. I'm sorry, you may think I have overstepped my bounds but I could not allow it to be noted that you only moderate based on the tos!


Jeremy Ryan

[wwhopper]

Not one of the founding members, though I joined in March of 2003. And have seen a number of disgruntled members of Segway Chat though out the years.

Some like Itsi went off and started their own forum.

A yahoo groups segway-open was started early on as a place for those displeased with Segway Chat to go, and that was hot for awhile, but it has been pretty quiet in the last few months.

SegwayChat is a place that has been around since the beginning, and knowing John, Pam, Sal and myself, who also have been around, and plan on staying around, I don't see SC going away any time soon.

SC has rules as you can see in the terms of service. And like anywhere else, the rules are there to be followed, and we have moderators who enforce them. If you break the rules, the moderators let you know, if you continue to break the rules then you go on moderation.

Only in very rare cases has anyone been removed from the membership for being out of control on Segwaychat. Some like to say they have been removed, but when I look at their membership, they may be on moderation, but they are still members and able to communicate, it is just that their posts must be approved by the moderators before they get posted.

Just like in society, if you can not live by the laws of society, then you get removed from society.

In general, this is a great place to find out information, share information, communicate with friends, and have lively discussions with others in the community. And Segway chat has always been a leader in the community, and will be in the future as well.

[JohnG]

Actually David, I did check the activity stats from the past 2 years, and the past 2 months have been 2 of the strongest on record (except in Aug 2006 when the i2/x2 were released). Insofar that "people are voting with their feet," the data don't support that hypothesis (but it sounds good, doesn't it?!). As for how many people who vote in a poll, c'est la vie. We're not here to promote individual agendas, only the Segway!

Yes, Jeremy, we are often proactive in keeping this community from becoming a cesspool, but it does have to violate the ToS (even the old ToS). You have to remember, this community was started so as to offer a more intelligent and dare I say it, polite and respectful, alternative to the other Segway community of the day (back in 2002). That has never changed and we will continue to work in a way to ensure there is a degree of civility here sorely lacking in other online communities.

John

[David Long]

Originally Posted by wwhopper

SC has rules as you can see in the terms of service. And like anywhere else, the rules are there to be followed, and we have moderators who enforce them. If you break the rules, the moderators let you know, if you continue to break the rules then you go on moderation.

. . .

Just like in society, if you can not live by the laws of society, then you get removed from society.

. . .

And when the administrator himself ignores the TOS with impunity, then you turn a 6,491 member forum into one with 21 active members.

[nora k]

Originally Posted by David Long

I find it a shame that with a forum purporting 6,491 members, only 21 were around to participate in polo_pro's poll. That is where the real shame lies, Herr Uber, that the vast majority of members have been voting with their feet. Please count my vote among them.

Regards,
David_Long

i'm not sure there's logic in this argument, since there are active posters who stated they didn't vote and other posters who didn't vote but are active. and since i have started posting i have not noticed a drop off from 6,491 members to 21. why are you considering poll participants the only active posters on the site?