Quality of CIPD online discussions

Mark

I leave it to other readers to assess whether your sweeping suggestions and generalisations that: a) the responses to Communities as a quorum of membership opinion are statistically invalid; b) blank lines as a reply to a reply are a civil or appropriate way of responding to a valid point made; c) all contributors must be “activists or extremists; d) comment from the monitors is inherently biased and thus invalid, whatever the evidence produced (is this not also suggesting they have a “second set of rules, contradicting your point just made?); e) the site monitors have a hidden agenda in pursuit of some fiscal/financial interest (for whom?); f) the efforts by some contributors to find a way of making the site more responsive (not necessarily democratic) are an excuse for scorn and sarcasm, and g) Steve’s remarking on your lack of photograph warranted a scathing response regarding his own profile… are useful contributions to the discussion on this thread and/or appropriate to a professional discussion board (even such an informal one as communities), rather than simply impolite, aggressive and intimidatory, particularly to members who may already be nervous about “dipping their toes” into the “Communities” discussions.

In my opinion they are not appropriate; neither has your self-contradictory response done anything to modify my opinion, so I’m afraid neither coconut nor apology this time :-)

However: On a far more interesting, rewarding and relevant subject:

I agree with Mike that “agree/disagree” or “useful” “buttons” would give useful feedback and enable less articulate members to voice their opinions (and maybe be encouraged to join in more actively?), however I would also agree in principle with Mark’s suggestion that measuring the mere “popularity” of a given opinion through a “like” button might detract from the willingness of some people to express opinions they know are contradictory or controversial, detracting from both the freedom and quality of discussions.

Mark

I leave it to other readers to assess whether your sweeping suggestions and generalisations that: a) the responses to Communities as a quorum of membership opinion are statistically invalid; b) blank lines as a reply to a reply are a civil or appropriate way of responding to a valid point made; c) all contributors must be “activists or extremists; d) comment from the monitors is inherently biased and thus invalid, whatever the evidence produced (is this not also suggesting they have a “second set of rules, contradicting your point just made?); e) the site monitors have a hidden agenda in pursuit of some fiscal/financial interest (for whom?); f) the efforts by some contributors to find a way of making the site more responsive (not necessarily democratic) are an excuse for scorn and sarcasm, and g) Steve’s remarking on your lack of photograph warranted a scathing response regarding his own profile… are useful contributions to the discussion on this thread and/or appropriate to a professional discussion board (even such an informal one as communities), rather than simply impolite, aggressive and intimidatory, particularly to members who may already be nervous about “dipping their toes” into the “Communities” discussions.

In my opinion they are not appropriate; neither has your self-contradictory response done anything to modify my opinion, so I’m afraid neither coconut nor apology this time :-)

However: On a far more interesting, rewarding and relevant subject:

I agree with Mike that “agree/disagree” or “useful” “buttons” would give useful feedback and enable less articulate members to voice their opinions (and maybe be encouraged to join in more actively?), however I would also agree in principle with Mark’s suggestion that measuring the mere “popularity” of a given opinion through a “like” button might detract from the willingness of some people to express opinions they know are contradictory or controversial, detracting from both the freedom and quality of discussions.