..just how irrelevant this forum has become.
There was a time when the majority of posts were relatively well informed and intelligent "sounding". Even if the post was poorly informed, at least the author was competent at writing a coherent sentence. With exception of one or two memorable posters, the membership was able to keep on topic, and carry on relevant, smart discussion about the goings-on in our town.
Over the past year or more, it has become a place where self-serving fringe perspectives are spewed by anonymous malcontents; who have no real interest with the advancement of our community. My intelligence is now almost guaranteed to be insulted upon opening a thread.
I would even go so far as to say that this was a place one would go if they wanted to take the proverbial temperature of the public on a given issue. I know that many of our public and private "leaders" read this forum at least on occasion. I'd be willing to bet that this is no longer the case.
It is sad, really. I think what was once a strength of the Tulsa Now organization has become a liability. Perhaps some more stringent, targeted moderation would spruce things up a bit.
Hey...Whether you agree or disagree with me, please respond. This is a conversation worth having...
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
..just how irrelevant this forum has become.
There was a time when the majority of posts were relatively well informed and intelligent "sounding". Even if the post was poorly informed, at least the author was competent at writing a coherent sentence. With exception of one or two memorable posters, the membership was able to keep on topic, and carry on relevant, smart discussion about the goings-on in our town.
Over the past year or more, it has become a place where self-serving fringe perspectives are spewed by anonymous malcontents; who have no real interest with the advancement of our community. My intelligence is now almost guaranteed to be insulted upon opening a thread.
I would even go so far as to say that this was a place one would go if they wanted to take the proverbial temperature of the public on a given issue. I know that many of our public and private "leaders" read this forum at least on occasion. I'd be willing to bet that this is no longer the case.
It is sad, really. I think what was once a strength of the Tulsa Now organization has become a liability. Perhaps some more stringent, targeted moderation would spruce things up a bit.
Any Poster in particular in mind?
These comments are appreciated. We generally just feel the backlash whenever we do moderate someone. We edit post in most cases and only when they get very out of hand or offensive. We only have 3 people on long-term ban and tend to use that as a last resort only. Perhaps, since the number of users and posts has grown a lot more, it is time to be more stringent in rules enforcement.
Constructive criticism and feedback is always appreciated.
Which anonymous malcontents are you speaking of Dr. Pompazoidi?
I think it's a great public forum for exchange of ideas. The River Tax has been one great example of how public opinion can be changed or bolstered within a discussion.
I really don't see it the same way as you, but then again, I'm usually a glass-half-full person.
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
These comments are appreciated. We generally just feel the backlash whenever we do moderate someone. We edit post in most cases and only when they get very out of hand or offensive. We only have 3 people on long-term ban and tend to use that as a last resort only. Perhaps, since the number of users and posts has grown a lot more, it is time to be more stringent in rules enforcement.
Constructive criticism and feedback is always appreciated.
"...time to be more stringent in rules enforcement."Or, at least until after the Oct. 9th Election?
[}:)]
Translating for Kenosha: I don't like the way the discussions are going, so I'm going to act like David Arnett.
While Friendly Bear seems to be the resident malcontent of the week, I don't see that things are exactly running away or anything. Sometimes it seems like the rules are too tight, othertimes it seems like things aren't caught quickly or strongly enough. I think that as long as Ken Busby isn't the moderator on this website, some of us will be happy.
Likely no-one spends as much time here as me, I've seen this forum ebb and flow just depending on the world around it. If the river vote wasn't coming up, the posts count would probably be about half right now.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Translating for Kenosha: I don't like the way the discussions are going, so I'm going to act like David Arnett.
Kenosha has a hat?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
While Friendly Bear seems to be the resident malcontent of the week, I don't see that things are exactly running away or anything. Sometimes it seems like the rules are too tight, othertimes it seems like things aren't caught quickly or strongly enough. I think that as long as Ken Busby isn't the moderator on this website, some of us will be happy.
Likely no-one spends as much time here as me, I've seen this forum ebb and flow just depending on the world around it. If the river vote wasn't coming up, the posts count would probably be about half right now.
Mr. Busby would be an acceptable Moderator, IF he discloses that he is a quoted SUPPORTER of the Kaiser River Tax, with TWO, TWO, TWO
Our River Yes yard signs.
Not one.
TWO.
2
II
Dos
Deux
Zwei
..
[:O][:O]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Translating for Kenosha: I don't like the way the discussions are going, so I'm going to act like David Arnett.
Bingo, we have a winner! If the Tulsa Now Forum becomes Tulsa Today it loses any shred of relevance, credibility, or integrity it has.
Continuing a thread I meant to expand upon ...
Online forums do best when there is *participation.* Kenosha, you need to stop sulking like you have in recent weeks and start engaging.
The free marketplace of ideas can be messy and irritating. But it's one of the pillars on which our country was founded. And it does no good when you're sitting on the sidelines.
Participation also keeps ill-conceived ideas from getting a foothold. One rather persistent poster here keeps yanging about ideas that have already been effectively refuted and thus exposes herself/himself to be a fool.
And those who think TulsaNow is bad obviously haven't checked out the woeful Voice of Tulsa, which is now little more than about two dozen participants, many of them which are misanthropes and thinly veiled bigots. Heck, one of its members even advocated mass murder.
I agree that all the discussion is not constructive nor structured. However, not all important discussions are structured nor do they begin as constructive. Asking the moderator and admin to decide what is important is a tall order.
Who decides what topics are noteworthy or whose opinions are properly expressed to be of worth?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
While Friendly Bear seems to be the resident malcontent of the week, I don't see that things are exactly running away or anything. Sometimes it seems like the rules are too tight, othertimes it seems like things aren't caught quickly or strongly enough. I think that as long as Ken Busby isn't the moderator on this website, some of us will be happy.
Likely no-one spends as much time here as me, I've seen this forum ebb and flow just depending on the world around it. If the river vote wasn't coming up, the posts count would probably be about half right now.
Mr. Busby would be an acceptable Moderator, IF he discloses that he is a quoted SUPPORTER of the Kaiser River Tax, with TWO, TWO, TWO Our River Yes yard signs.
Not one.
TWO.
2
II
Dos
Deux
Zwei
..
[:O][:O]
Ken Busby was the moderator at last night's event at the Central Center, and he did an excellent job -- very evenhanded. I didn't see anyone, either on the panel or in the audience, get stopped from saying something they wanted to get across. Like a good ref, he let the players play ball.
I'm always mindful of being a guest here and I appreciate this electronic community.
Now I would respectfully suggest that TulsaNow has trended towards the Right. I try to tell myself I'm not bantering with the same old Reaganites. I'm communicating with the reader that does not post.
It does seem that excesses on the Left are punished rapidly while some excesses on the Right are tolerated (probably seen as God's unquestioned truth).
And the discussions around Development tend to get clubby with the insiders using a lot of technical city planning jargon that discourages participation from laymen.
But I honestly look to TulsaNow for information. And what's really odd is I've noticed myself ignoring live people around me while I'm eager to communicate with TulsaNow's online community. Wonder where this is all headed?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
While Friendly Bear seems to be the resident malcontent of the week, I don't see that things are exactly running away or anything. Sometimes it seems like the rules are too tight, othertimes it seems like things aren't caught quickly or strongly enough. I think that as long as Ken Busby isn't the moderator on this website, some of us will be happy.
Likely no-one spends as much time here as me, I've seen this forum ebb and flow just depending on the world around it. If the river vote wasn't coming up, the posts count would probably be about half right now.
Mr. Busby would be an acceptable Moderator, IF he discloses that he is a quoted SUPPORTER of the Kaiser River Tax, with TWO, TWO, TWO Our River Yes yard signs.
Not one.
TWO.
2
II
Dos
Deux
Zwei
..
[:O][:O]
Ken Busby was the moderator at last night's event at the Central Center, and he did an excellent job -- very evenhanded. I didn't see anyone, either on the panel or in the audience, get stopped from saying something they wanted to get across. Like a good ref, he let the players play ball.
Was that the Two-versus-One debate that you handled vs. INCOG's Mr. Lasker and Mr. Kaiser's Levitation?
SOUNDS fair............2 against 1.
While there are a few annoying people on here, I realize that not everyone can be as resoundly loved as I am. I have been challenged a lot by discussions on here, have learned a lot, and realize I still have a lot to learn. I appreciate the debate, do not appreciate name calling and demonizing which I think hinders debate and turns people off from engaging in it.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Translating for Kenosha: I don't like the way the discussions are going, so I'm going to act like David Arnett.
It's really not the political leanings of the posts that bother me, it's lack of continuity between position and evidence. Combine this lack of logic with a remarkable amount of disinformation and rumor mongering, and I find myself, more often than not, finding better ways to spend my time. I just don't see the point in responding to posts that stage themselves as factual but in fact are anything but. It really has nothing to do with the River, though that seems to be the topic of the day. I commend those of you who are willing to engage in these brain addling discussions, and who are trying to get some sort of truth injected in this repartee.
I equate it to being stuck in the mud in your car. We are spinning our wheels, holding our collective foot on the pedal hoping the tires will grab and eventually pull us out. Instead of working together trying to figure out how to get un-stuck, we spend our time trying to figure out why we got stuck and whose fault it was. All that ever happens is that you end up spraying mud on everybody. It accomplishes nothing.
Maybe it's me, but I prefer spending my time thinking about what could be, rather than why it can't be.
quote:
Continuing a thread I meant to expand upon ...
Online forums do best when there is *participation.* Kenosha, you need to stop sulking like you have in recent weeks and start engaging.
The free marketplace of ideas can be messy and irritating. But it's one of the pillars on which our country was founded. And it does no good when you're sitting on the sidelines.
Participation also keeps ill-conceived ideas from getting a foothold. One rather persistent poster here keeps yanging about ideas that have already been effectively refuted and thus exposes herself/himself to be a fool.
And those who think TulsaNow is bad obviously haven't checked out the woeful Voice of Tulsa, which is now little more than about two dozen participants, many of them which are misanthropes and thinly veiled bigots. Heck, one of its members even advocated mass murder.
I reiterate, I really don't care on what side of the fence your opinion lands you. I do care that you are able to support your argument with logical, factual information. Preferably, they should be presented in a readable fashion.
And I am not targeting anyone person or group...I have seen this problem across the spectrum of opinions.
As far as moderation, I would just say this; much of the problem, IMO, stems from unverified rumors. Using our best judgment, if we can limit the number of these, I believe the scope of the discussions will be far more relevant.
I absolutely believe that democracy was designed to be messy, and that these forums provide a place for that to take place. That being said, and at risk of being a hypocrite, the anonymity factor changes the playing field a bit. Kudos to Michael Bates and Michael Patton, and all of the rest of you who do use your real names. It is easy to be brave when there is no fear of backlash.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but I don't know that the problem is all that new, or even confined to forums such as these. I like your analogy of the tire wheels, but to me it's more akin to five year olds arguing, i.e., sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling at eachother louder and louder. No different from much of the "news" these days, where real discussion has been replaced by pundits yelling at eachother. Doing nothing more than reinforcing preconceived notions. There are a lot of people on this board like that, who are yelling about lots, but listening to no one. IMO, to have a serious, thoughtful conversation (as opposed to a yelling competition), you have to be willing to admit that someone else might be right, and you might be wrong. Still, there are also many on the board that can engage in thoughtful discussion. And I for one have learned a lot about the river vote from different posters.
Well, I just don't put stock in what any of the blowhards with more than 3500 posts to their credit...
uh, I digress...
I promise to do better, Kenosha.
The reason that talk is cheap is that supply exceeds demand.
I think that there was a time when people worked a lot harder. I'd say that many of the regular posters have gotten lazy...just a bunch of people spewing forth the first thing that comes to mind, no citations, no carefully constructed arguments, just unmitigated opinion...which, I think, leads to a lot more bickering.
Some people still work hard and they make reading worthwhile. But others just like to hear themselves talk. I've been caught in both corners; I'm no angel.
It'd be interesting to experiment with a little quality control. I'd like to see some +/-, recommend/troll, ratings. Does Snitz do that? If somebody works hard to put together a good post, others should be allowed to "bump" them up. Likewise, lazy, snarky, crazy stuff could be troll rated...possibly out of existence. I know you can "game" these kinds of systems, but I think we ought to try it anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
I think that there was a time when people worked a lot harder. I'd say that many of the regular posters have gotten lazy...just a bunch of people spewing forth the first thing that comes to mind, no citations, no carefully constructed arguments, just unmitigated opinion...which, I think, leads to a lot more bickering.
Some people still work hard and they make reading worthwhile. But others just like to hear themselves talk. I've been caught in both corners; I'm no angel.
It'd be interesting to experiment with a little quality control. I'd like to see some +/-, recommend/troll, ratings. Does Snitz do that? If somebody works hard to put together a good post, others should be allowed to "bump" them up. Likewise, lazy, snarky, crazy stuff could be troll rated...possibly out of existence. I know you can "game" these kinds of systems, but I think we ought to try it anyway.
Snitz does not. New forum code (in development) does allow that and more. If anyone is good with mysql, PM or email me.
Well... you realize that if all were pressed for every source....
facts regarding an event that they were witness to..
even though the information was disclosed without any expectation of privacy......
Secrets might get out.... who knew what when etc...
Insider knowledge comes with a price..$
You have to be willing to separate the wheat from the chaff(?)
There is a line, as in all other things, and most can tell a duck before they see it walk or talk.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
[br My intelligence is now almost guaranteed to be insulted upon opening a thread.
you mean it CAN be insulted? now that is something to sit and ponder.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Translating for Kenosha: I don't like the way the discussions are going, so I'm going to act like David Arnett.
[}:)]
I'm glad someone was folly to start a thread like this...I needed a few good laughs.
Oh, and I second the suggestion for the snitz forum crap, nothing is more fun than launching a snitz script to minus someone down to -100 over the course of a few days and watching them go crying to their mommy over stupid ratings on a petty board that simply serves as good entertainment.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
While there are a few annoying people on here, I realize that not everyone can be as resoundly loved as I am.
you need to stay off the MDMA.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
While there are a few annoying people on here, I realize that not everyone can be as resoundly loved as I am.
you need to stay off the MDMA.
Hey! I resent that. I even resented it before I googled it to find out what it was.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
While there are a few annoying people on here, I realize that not everyone can be as resoundly loved as I am.
you need to stay off the MDMA.
They make it so easy, and all along I thought it was just the kool-aid talking. Raver (//%22http://www.i-mockery.com/antirave/idiots.php%22).
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/River_Tax_Kool-Aid.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by jscottelwood
According to Miranda, "You have the right to remain silent", more people should heed this advice...
I have the right. I just don't always have the ability.
I would guess the name of the game in the Forum business is "Content."
If you've got it, you are going to have readers and participants.
Seeing as how most of this is voluntary, TulsaNow's fortunes could probably change very rapidly with the departure or arrival of several key posters.
I don't think a one size fits all guideline for how to post reflects the dynamic of a discussion involving various personalities.
I resent it if a creator of a thread lays out rules. Some folks feel compelled to present their ideas as facts. Other folks are all about opinion. Some posts read like cynical party propaganda? Some people are really looking for direction. You stand to loose people if you draw too many guidelines. I have been particularly offended by the criticism of Shadows' posts, people mocking his speech, et cetera. My understanding is that Shadows is a Native American and I have to believe participation from Natives is something a Forum in Tulsa, Oklahoma would want.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I have been particularly offended by the criticism of Shadows' posts, people mocking his speech, et cetera. My understanding is that Shadows is a Native American and I have to believe participation from Natives is something a Forum in Tulsa, Oklahoma would want.
Lucid participation.
My complaint with Shadows has been his writing style. His attempts to make his posts sound intellectual. I have a difficult time reading while I'm thinking "pancakes?".
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
I have a difficult time reading while I'm thinking "pancakes?".
well, maybe you are simply incapable of grasping his intellect.[}:)]
I'm just glad to see the person running this beer joint has started posting somewhat. Who knows....before long this person may even have a name and an avatar? [^]
Maybe it's just me but it seems gutless to run a forum and not let people know who you are. It's almost like everyone is getting played by someone that only a chosen few know who it is or who they are.
Oh well, it doesn't matter to me. I just like reading the post of those that are who in the know around Tulsa.
I thought the ider of this forum was to talk about downtown/urban issues and what could be done to revitalize Tulsans' urban core. I think outside of topic creep, posters here are pretty well-informed and want to advance T-Town. This is Tulsans' most active forum, and if at times it gets wild and wooly too bad; crybabies who get upset at the tone of some of the threads need to get a clue and learn how to punch back.
For the most part the participants of this forum really care about their good old T'Town (the ones that are actually from Tulsa anyway).
Sometimes I think I need to check my obsession with this city because I spend so much time posting my opinions here and then talking about what I've learned from the forum out in the real world.
Thanks TulsaNow for taking up so much of my time and catering to my obsessive nature.
I realize in some peoples opinion, this would be a much more productive forum if we would blindly be agreeable to giving our hard earned money to the wealthy people in town so they can spend it willy nilly without any questions asked.
That might work for some - it does not work for me and probably never will.
I can't even say I am sorry if that rains on your parade.
Get over yourself.
Wow.
It's 4/10's of a penny. It ain't gonna kill you and it ain't a sign of the oncoming apocalypse.
And it's NOT lining the pockets of the wealthy ... not any more than my money used to build a new deck on my back porch is "lining the pockets" of the person who builds it...
EVERY SINGLE TIME I read one of your posts or Friendly Bear's posts it makes me MORE LIKELY to vote for the river tax... and believe it or not, I'm still undecided (after the BA mayor came out against it)...
I get so sick of reading all the river consipiracy theories and venom spewed towards George Kaiser in this forum.
Geez. It's like having a family member offer a downpayment on a new car for ya... if you don't want to buy the car, then don't vote for it. Simple, eh?
And Kaiser can then donate $$$ to his alma mater, friends, politicians, noble national causes and IGNORE Tulsa altogether... other causes that would be far less likely to involve people questioning your motives and insisting your donations are only happening to make you richer...
Once again. You likee, vote foree. You no-likee. Vote no.
So get over yourself... please.
Back on topic, this IS a public forum.
If people want a more genteel discussion of issues by the like-minded... just start an internet group with only Tulsa Now members and "invited guests."
I wandered onto this site a few years back (pre-Vision2025 vote) when I was trying to find an online posting of Convention, Sports & Leisure's 2003 feasability study... Batesline had selected quotes posted from the study but the site in general seemed one-sided to me (which is fine for a blog, btw)... the other Tulsa blogs I read sounded shrill and... well... wacko... and somebody from Averill's Tulsa Today forum actually impersonated me and posted a silly message using my screen-name.....
So I ran across TulsaNow's forum which seemed reasonable in comparison. I lurked online for weeks/months/years?. Problem was, there were times I couldn't figure out where some of the forum's particpants were coming from... SOME seemed like they were members of TulsaNow agreeing with each other, coming to consensus, writing letters, and posting things like this....
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2680&SearchTerms=soccer,stadium
Since this topic was originally posted as a "sticky" and was also featured on the TulsaNow.org site under the author "TulsaNow," I assumed the lengthy post represented the views of Tulsa Now, the organization.
Months later, in time for the plan to include a ballpark, I was told the above post/thread did NOT represent the views of Tulsa Now the organization... I was told by RecycleMichael that the organization didn't have an official opinion one way or the other when the above thread was posted...
IMO, with few exceptions, overwhelming consensus on a public internet forum = Groupthink.
It is only 4/10th's of a percent - in tulsa it will raise the tax to 9% - in other communities it will raise it to 10%.
Not to mention they plan to try to pass another tax inititive in the spring to fix the streets.
I have to ask - At what point is taxation going to be too much?
why would people want to move to an area with high tax rates when they can go to other places and live cheaper? They are not going to move here to work minimum wage jobs created by the river.
And if I want to discuss my misgivings on this public forum - I will. That's what it's here for.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
IMO, with few exceptions, overwhelming consensus on a public internet forum = Groupthink.
I overwhelmingly "consensify" with that statement. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
Not to mention they plan to try to pass another tax inititive in the spring to fix the streets.
You have some inside info?
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
It is only 4/10th's of a percent - in tulsa it will raise the tax to 9% - in other communities it will raise it to 10%.
Not to mention they plan to try to pass another tax inititive in the spring to fix the streets.
I have to ask - At what point is taxation going to be too much?
why would people want to move to an area with high tax rates when they can go to other places and live cheaper? They are not going to move here to work minimum wage jobs created by the river.
And if I want to discuss my misgivings on this public forum - I will. That's what it's here for.
"misgivings"-- what an understatement from you.
I've heard some absolutely stupifying conspiracy theories from the naysayers on this site...... care to tell me where Jimmy Hoffa is buried??? [xx(]
Your ilk RUINED TULSA in the 90s... while OKC passed the MAPS projects and developed a vibrant downtown...
I moved here from Chicago and was paying around 15% in sales taxes... using your logic, NOBODY lives there..... I beg to differ... I understand the idea that "nobody ever taxed themselves into prosperity"... but, sometimes you simply get what you PAY for... or DON'T pay for, in Tulsa's case...
I've met enough ex-Tulsans over the years to understand that the bitter anti-any-tax naysayers have stayed in this town for far too long while other reasonable folks who LOVE THIS CITY have left over the years... I'd pay 3 cents extra tax on the dollar to get rid of you people... that's right, I said it... high time to get rid of the gripers, moaners, naysayers, Tulsa-haters, etc, etc...
People DON'T move to Tulsa (or back to Tulsa) from other parts of the country because the sales taxes are too high or too low... people move to Tulsa because housing prices are very affordable here, the cost of living is low, many of the people here are laid back and friendly, and the job market is good...
I may not end up voting for the river tax next Tuesday because I'm not so sure it's appropriate to have people from Broken Arrow and Owasso pay for something they themselves may not use very often... I don't think people who live along Riverside Drive would appreciate paying 4/10s of a penny on every dollar they spend to beautify Lake Oologah... and this river project may subsidize other communities and give unfair advantage to Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby... and I still believe the powers-that-be think the "Boeing money" from Vision2025 is somehow still theirs to spend...
I could still vote for it, especially if I keep reading creepy posts from tax-hating nutjobs...
I am tired of folks treating the city of Tulsa, it's politicians and it's philanthropists, with the utter contempt that Friendly Bear and the "tax-vampire-hating" freak-a-zoids on this site have over the course of the past few weeks and months of debate over the river tax...
I don't hate all taxes.
What I have a problem with is that taxes seem to be the solution to everything.
Apparently some of you missed the news program where they already said there could be a vote in the spring for a tax to repair roads.
The City of Tulsa has no money - yet they can afford to spend 70 million to move into a new building.
No money to fix the streets but plenty to spend fixing the ones to the new arena.
I just don't see the things they are claiming as being true.
While in architectural school one of our instructor brought up a case of predetermination or the lack thereof. Seems a university constructing a new campus decided to delay putting in sidewalks until the students by their pathing habits showed the administration where the sidewalks should be. The did that and they report the location of the sidewalks has been very successful.
Same thing, I've observed, appears to apply to Internet forums. Someone starts on with a stated goal statement. Over a little bit of time the forum takes on it own life and proceeds in whatever direction the majority decides.
The forum administrators attempts to guide this process by editing, but on the whole the forum takes a direction that satisfies the needs of that posting populous. The same has and is happening to this forum. It appears it is a natural process just like the sidewalk phenomena.
Personally, I find it very informative and entertaining. It helps me know and be a part of the current events in our great town.