Direct voting???????

Karla Wollin Boyer:

who intervene and redirect heated yet relevant discussion (or move parts of a thread to another thread)

Karla,

I'm the only one on staff who has ever split a thread up, and I did that so the thread would be easier to find later on and so that we didn't have three or four different topics going on in one thread.  (I also have split threads at the request of forum members made either publicly or privately.)  I know I (and others) don't want to have to dig through a thread about, say, speedbuilding to find the thread drift about contracting (or whatever).  That's part of the charge of a forum staff member:  to help make this (IMHO awful) platform as easily navigable as possible.  I have only split up threads on a very few occasions b/c the whole process is a major pain in the rump.  And quite frankly, your insinuation that I am doing this out of malice or to derail discussion is flat-out insulting.

There is absolutely no malice intended when these threads are split nor am I attempting to "shut up" the membership.

Don't give it another thought. I caught that insinuation too but dismissed it immediately in my own mind as just another hand-grenade thrown into the fray for the sake of it. Anyone who's spent any time here and on old VRF knows your professional motivation and dedication to the forum running smoothly and understands the reason for some thread-splitting. The motivation of some of the other posters clearly speaks for itself too, IMO. Your contributions are appreciated by far, far more people here than the handful of people who leap out of the woodwork mostly when there's something to complain about, even when the complaint has merit. I believe some people enjoy complaining and casting aspersions just for the sake of it. Once again, just my own opinion.

My thanks to you and the rest of the forum staff for all your time and contributions.

 Dittos to Deborah.

Thanks, Deborah, for saying what I wish I'd said.

You're always a class act, Candis.  Don't let anyone else make you feel otherwise, ya hear?

Mitz 

 Thanks, everyone, for your kudos.  I just hate generic references to "the forum staff" when it's a personal vendetta against one particular member of the staff.

And, Karla, please do not feel compelled to respond to my post with more vitriol about Lillian.  Your feelings were made perfectly clear in an earlier post.  What I said in that post is fact (and I think I am the only one on forum staff, except Serge, who knows how to split threads and merge them into a new one).

I agree with all the positive comments about Candis. In addition, as far as I can see, Candis and Lillian are the only "staff members" who care and pay attention to this forum, in spite of all its problems.

Candis Bradshaw:

And, Karla, please do not feel compelled to respond to my post with more vitriol about Lillian.  Your feelings were made perfectly clear in an earlier post.  What I said in that post is fact (and I think I am the only one on forum staff, except Serge, who knows how to split threads and merge them into a new one).

Just to be "clear," Candis (if that is at all possible), once again you've impulsively (instinctively?) jumped to a conclusion and assumed I was talking about you.  Never even thought of you when I mentioned moving around pieces of threads.  I think of this forum and the old forum simply as NCRA's forum, and I was referring to the inordinate amount of splitting which took place in the old forum.  Too often somebody (more than one person, but certainly not you and not Serge and certainly not Lillian (but this time I'll avoid naming names)) would split off a thread and move it to a new subject heading, apparently hoping or assuming that all of the ongoing discussion on the split subject would continue in the new thread; but instead most of the discussion continued in the original thread, with big chunks missing as new arrivals would read through the original thread from beginning to end and with new arrivals perhaps not even seeing the second (or even third!) split thread.  Sometimes a new thread was created beginning with the second half of a single post, with the first half appearing at the old thread and the second half of the post at the new thread.  That whole procedure was disruptive and caused confusion for people trying to figure out what comment applied to what previous comment.  I've always thought that procedure was illogical.  I can't say I've seen anything such as that happen at this new forum.

I did not mention Lillian in my last post and felt no reason to do so.  You are the one mentioning her now.  On your "suggestion" that I please not respond such and such, it happens that I don't feel that particular compulsion at this time.  But you wouldn't be telling me how to think or feel, would you?  That right there is exactly what some of us are talking about.  I'm a free thinker, and I decide for myself which subjects are worthwhile for me to pursue.  I can also decide for myself when I believe that my feelings have been made clear.  Although I could ask you to stop indirectly putting words into my mouth, I won't because I respect your right to continue to say whatever you want to say--and for whatever purpose.

Thanks for all the good that you do, Candis.

Karla Wollin Boyer:

........ Too often somebody (more than one person........... would split off a thread and move it to a new subject heading, apparently hoping or assuming that all of the ongoing discussion on the split subject would continue in the new thread; but instead most of the discussion continued in the original thread, with big chunks missing as new arrivals would read through the original thread from beginning to end and with new arrivals perhaps not even seeing the second (or even third!) split thread.  Sometimes a new thread was created beginning with the second half of a single post, with the first half appearing at the old thread and the second half of the post at the new thread.  That whole procedure was disruptive and caused confusion for people trying to figure out what comment applied to what previous comment.  I've always thought that procedure was illogical.  I can't say I've seen anything such as that happen at this new forum...........

 Hmmmm curious.  I believe that you experience the adjustments to threads exactly as you describe.  I'm constantly surprised at how different people can experience the same situation in not just different ways, but diametrically opposed ways and with vastly varying degrees of vehemence.  The variation of the species is truly amazing LOL : )
 

 Karla,

I'm not trying to restrict what you say nor how to think or feel or anything.  You're more than welcome to say, feel, and do whatever you want.  I am not attempting to control you.  I was attempting to keep at bay the horrible vitriol you made the decision to post earlier, and I didn't want you to feel that you had to respond b/c I "personalized" the attack and you felt compelled to name a particular person.

I can't believe that post actually stood, as we do have a forum rule against such personal attacks:

5.  Dissenting opinions, disagreement, and debate are welcome, but participants are expected to express their views in ways that avoid giving offense to others. Messages whose apparent purpose is to offend, insult, or incite may be removed or modified. Discussions should focus on issues, not personalities.

Karla Wollin Boyer:

I can't say I've seen anything such as that happen at this new forum.

It's been happening, Karla.  But I have made every attempt to make it happen as quick as possible so that people don't make much notice of it and that conversation can continue as undisturbed as possible.

I hope you have a good day, Karla.   I will be taking leave from this thread.  I have nothing more to add.

Karla Wollin Boyer:

Sometimes a new thread was created beginning with the second half of a single post, with the first half appearing at the old thread and the second half of the post at the new thread.  That whole procedure was disruptive and caused confusion for people trying to figure out what comment applied to what previous comment.  I've always thought that procedure was illogical.  I can't say I've seen anything such as that happen at this new forum.

Hi, Karla -

I was on "staff" in the old forum, and also for the first year in this one.  From my memory, threads were broken when they became (1)cumbersome in size and (2)full of thread drift and were reapportioned with new names...  That said, breaking them could be difficult because of how responses were made within the threads - remember the "tree" look in the previous server?  Fun - NOT!

 Thread breaking was not done indiscriminately nor was it done without the "forum committee" (aka "staff") discussing the break privately first.

 
But, I do remember sometimes how one could be looking for a "response" and it would be, um, missing.  But for the most part we tried to redirect appropriately.
 

Laura Van Nostrand:

Against my better judgment I feel compelled to say that, as a student, the membership on this board has convinced me I never want to run for NCRA office.  They are maligned, insulted, had their character publicly attacked in ways that look specious to me, all for the  privilege of volunteering their time and money (and sometimes family) to serve the CR community.  And to make it worse, from all the evidence I have, those attacking the forum and board do the very acts they complain about far more often and to a much greater degree than anything I've seen from board or staffers. 
 

 

FOLKS, TAKE HEED!

This is a very, very important statement that Laura has made.  I applaud her for verbalizing this thought - and I'll admit it's been something at the forefront of my mind.  I've always wanted to give back to the profession that has given me so much.  But, with negative attributions being made toward our professional colleagues who, to my understanding, have given freely and unstintingly of themselves, how can we expect others to step up and give their precious time, effort, and YES, frankly, money (marriages, businesses, etc...)???

 This is a member-driven organization.  That means we all have a duty to help steer the ship - DMV, of course; but state and local leadership, national volunteerism, and, yes, Board Service.  This organization is NOT run by our incredibly talented staff alone (yes, they do the grunt work and research and assist our leaders in guiding our organization), but by the selfless volunteers both on the BOD and in committee.

If we continue to malign those folks who have a true passion for the profession, there will be nobody left willing to BE NCRA, and then we'll be lost.
 

Tori Pittman:

I was on "staff" in the old forum, and also for the first year in this one.  From my memory, threads were broken when they became (1)cumbersome in size and (2)full of thread drift and were reapportioned with new names...  That said, breaking them could be difficult because of how responses were made within the threads - remember the "tree" look in the previous server?  Fun - NOT!

 Thread breaking was not done indiscriminately nor was it done without the "forum committee" (aka "staff") discussing the break privately first.

But, I do remember sometimes how one could be looking for a "response" and it would be, um, missing.  But for the most part we tried to redirect appropriately.

   And when it is done, there is a prompt announcement in the thread - so it's not like something was hidden, never to be found.  In fact, if it ever was hidden,  I imagine there would be a new thread started with hue and cry, making such efforts counterproductive.

  I can't argue that someone else didn't find the thread splits illogical, but they always made sense to me.  And I appreciated the efforts to keep thread drift from drifting too far.  Just proves you can't please everyone
 

Dan and Richard,

I've been out of pocket so this response is a little late to your posts.  But, yes, yes.  And please stay, stay.