What is the Company? http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2567242&postcount=16 The Company. Its intentions. Useless? What is the use? What gives one a distinct impression of the detriment of a reduction in traffic? Certainly people tend to like hits on their website, although some may not like paying for bandwidth. So there is a use, or moreover, a need, in increasing visits and more importantly, participation, if I understand the part about "culling" and the harm that would be done. Undermining the intentions of the Company. Poor Company. They must be lonelier than I. :scratchin:
Company prerogatives, and other notes The Company is a software development firm, as near as anyone can tell, that owns Sciforums. Gustav and I discussed this recently ... somewhere. Um ... see "Mods that care ...", posts #158-164. The functional challenge is that moderators aren't in on the secret of what The Company wants. This is its prerogative. But I get the distinct impression that Sciforums serves in some capacity as a proving ground for software and network solutions before implementation in other parts of The Company's portfolio. Logically speaking, The Company must do something to make money. Sciforums isn't it; we don't pay, and I can't imagine the advert revenue generated by unregistered visitors to the board escape the red. Therefore, I can reasonably assert that there are other projects more profitable to the company. Having a free discussion board with modest to high traffic gives the developers a testing range for solutions to be implemented in those other projects. As such, while we can afford to dust off some traffic if we ever restore the Intelligent Community, we cannot crash the numbers. The Company needs a certain amount of traffic in order to do whatever work it is they're actually doing for money. Thus, to stamp out our moron factor could potentially reduce site traffic to such a point that Sciforums no longer has any utility within the company framework. Perhaps I have this wrong. Maybe they'll dismiss me for rumormongering. Maybe I'm close, but they don't care to say. Maybe there is a jet crossing the Atlantic right now with four men in dark suits coming to put a shine on me. More to the point, though, site ownership has not, since acquiring Sciforums, given us much direction as to how we, as moderators, might be useful to them. I think it's probably quite possible to balance the needs of The Company with those of an Intelligent Community, but presently the moderators only possess one set of those priorities, and have no real access to the other.
Totally cute. I think I remember reading some of that thread. The Company. Its prerogative. Proving grounds. Okay. I guess obvious? Sounds great. A little weird. Mysterious even. They told you that specifically? Well, I hope I have made the moron cut. That is, being cut. I would hate to actually be included among the intelligent. So maybe the Company is meant to weed out the incompetent? God bless. Four men in dark suits, yeah. Moderators who think that way might be useful to them. Sounds even more cool. Perhaps, just maybe, you have made the moron cut as well. http://www.lifeforminc.com/about.php The About Us page doesn't explain a whole lot. Or maybe it really is simple. Well, they operate with no fear of market crash. I'm reassured. For not giving a very detailed description of what they actually do, they have quite a bit of confidence in being untouchable. I mean, maybe their description is adequate, but it seems really sparse for being a company that has no fear of complete market failure, or whatever they intend by that statement. In their "Network" area, they list several social networks that they operate. Socialize. Receive benefits. Yes. RealPoor.com Strange name. Materially poor, but rich in ... spirit, I suppose. I especially like the extended arm with the suit, and the Ace of Hearts up the sleeve. Cool. Okay. So they're a company that develops software and web pages/networks that somehow runs this site. And passes along little tidbits that help you govern or moderate better? Or don't say anything at all? Not quite sure about that. You seem to not understand what this company wants, completely, as far as I can understand. They DO tell you how to moderate? Give rough guidelines? Don't say anything at all? You mentioned that you're sure that SciForums doesn't net any profit. Which does?
Rats in a maze, or hamsters on a wheel? No. They tell us nothing specifically. No, that would reduce site traffic too greatly. I do not recall a single policy that has come down specifically from The Company. Our discussions and disagreements about policy have to do with visions of how this community should function and relate to itself. We do know that site traffic is not the sole concern. We do know that the mythical Intelligent Community is not anathema. But no, we know nothing about how Sciforums fits into the company strategically. I haven't the information to be sure. Rather, I stand by my prior statement: we don't pay, and I can't imagine the advert revenue generated by unregistered visitors to the board escape the red. I could be wrong about the advert revenue, but I sincerely doubt it. If I say I have no fucking clue, does that make the point clear? Seriously, though, like I said to Gustav: I don't see how our policies matter as long as we don't get various government agencies showing up to ask about terrorism or child pornography or something like that. As long as we don't put a stain on their business, or wreck the site's utility in the broader scheme, we do what we do and that seems to be good enough for them. Part of me wishes for a cabal of evil, scheming psychiatrists, anthropologists, and other social scientists observing virtual community dynamics. I suppose in that sense I'd rather be a rat in a maze than a hamster on a network-traffic wheel. But Sciforums is my virtual home. The Company would have to wreck a lot to chase me out by my will. It would be easier to just kick my ass out the door if I become a problem, or useless, or whatever. The greatest significance about it is in the question of whether we will ever try to build the Intelligent Community, or simply work to keep this place from self-destructing in a fit of pedantic, partisan pride. If they need anything, we're here. If not, it appears we're going to continue floundering about as we are. Don't know what to tell you. Presently, Sciforums is what we make it. All of us, together.
Define terrorism. Please. You know, it's an evolving term. Gotta keep up to date, Tiassa. Do you mean speaking in a "controversial" manner. Saying something that criticizes the government? If so, we have plenty of terrorists here at Sciforums already. If I were to imagine a cabal of evil, it would be a front company for ABC agency. Not sure that they would have to go so far as purchasing the site, but it might help. Just saying.
Don't f@ck with the anthropologists .... What could you do that would cause enough trouble as to have government investigators and all manner of lawyers banging on the company's front door? It's not really that hard to imagine, is it? Oh what the psychs can do. And the anthropologists? There are at least a couple that will shrug and say, "It's happening, so ... yeah," and then start taking notes.
the battle for sciforums http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2570210&postcount=66 plazma addressed this spammer issue a while back yet.....40000 signups in 2 years?
Admittedly I meant it a little tongue in cheek, The Administration and Moderatorship here occasionally has to deal with people that are just here to rock the boat or sink it, not every member is like that, so I apologise if my generalisation seemed like it included them. As for Fast Buck's (Offtopic: interesting idea for the name of a cocktail!) If we were in it for the money, we would of been selling penis & breast enlargers, dildo's and those little French maid uniforms that GeoffP has made over in East Korea. (We can sell them for a major profit considering how the workers prefer Kudos instead of money for making them.) That reminds me, someone needs to update the Sciforums encyclopaedia to cover this erm... Social Democratic Republics method of dealing with financial stability in the region)
A terminal lack of imagination? Apparently it is. Look, I'm not going to enumerate a bunch of specific points on this one. If you can't figure it out, sorry. I really didn't think it was so hard to figure out. I stand corrected, for future reference.
An one of the interestin observatons is... that not everone is givin 24 houres to apologize after callin James R a lyer... eh.!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!:xctd:Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not exactly sure what this has to do with this topic, but it is interesting. I mentioned the weird formulaic usernames in a previous post. And of course, by formulaic, I mean, they obviously follow some algorithm that puts a name and word, or two or more names or words, etc, together. I see two of those suspicious instances in the Online Users roster as I post this. They seem to register using the same naming convention for days at a time, as far as I can tell. And it from what I have witnessed, the word combinations seem to change over time. Not sure what it means or what the purpose of them is. Here is the thread I started in silliness. Again, not sure what it has to do with this thread, but I do wonder about all the obviously pointless registries that occur on a regular basis.
Yeah, right! I don't think I am, BUT... would you like to mention a few permabanned persons as examples? What does this mean? Please, I beg of you, I have about 2 brain cells... will you be making that entry?
