moderating the “Mad Dog controversy”: who watches the watchmen?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What happens when a moderator ceaselessly provokes ill feelings and antagonizes forum members? Didn’t Les Robertson lose his moderator status for allegedly berating members and inciting flames?

I’ve been patiently waiting for the anti-Mad Dog seasonal ratings sweep to subside. Now Mike Turber posts a “last” thread which promises to issue even more lurid detail in the following days (in the interest of Truth!). Yet Mike’s enthusiastically aggressive rhetoric (“I win!”) betrays any claim that this is simply about providing “information,” except in the sense that tabloids deliver “news.”

At least a few people have pointed out that we would all do well to drop this whole testing business. I add my two cents to this sensible, if minority, opinion. Many are enjoying the MD roast, I know; but the relentless hostility of the discussions baited by Mike is very disturbing, ironically in its mirroring of the mean-spiritedness for which Kevin McClung has been criticized. Funny (and sad) how what goes around, comes around.

The quality of our participation as members is best measured by how we get along NOT with those we like or with whom we agree, but with those we find disagreeable, or even offensive. Doubly so for the moderators, whose role is to keep healthy debate from sliding into caustic, divisive posturing. Whatever value the original test may have had, it’s moved far beyond that, to chest-thumping and pointless spectacle. Further “updates” do nothing more than add fuel to the fire. Isn’t it time (as Mike himself “says” but does not “do”) to let this dead horse rest in peace?

Shaking my head,
Glen

------------------
“How unfortunate that youth is wasted on young people." Mark Twain


 
In my perfect world, I would have two reviewers with no connections doing the work. Say Cliff (The Ralph Nader of Knives) and someone to be named later. Both would follow a similar format for comparisons sake, but each would be allowed to embellish as they liked. Like Siskel and Ebert. They could argue back in forth on the qualities they like (or dislike) in a particular knife. Mike could publish the reviews in his online magazine. Then everybody could discuss the results in the forums and suggest new reviews. Peace would reign and everybody would be happy.

Well, perhaps not everybody. ;-)

We could use this as a reference:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,119276+1,00.html



[This message has been edited by Pleconin (edited 11 November 1999).]
 
Maybe, just maybe alot of the hub-bub is that Kevin McClung has been so personnally nasty and vindictive to many people in this community. As is totally uncalled for and unsupported in a "real" social setting, so on the 'net.

We all must be careful what we sow...sometimes the macro picture involves more than just making a sturdy knife.

Karma...one of the scarier concepts...

-Michael

------------------
Chefget's Knife Page


 
I for one am really tired of this whole thing.

I own MD knives, I post on MD's forum, and once I got caught up in this whole MD back and forth stuff, and swore I'd never do it again, even apologizing for my uncharacteristic out-burst.

I come here for fun & relaxation, I feel a pall descending over this place, and it's very unpalatable.

A war may be won, but at what cost?


------------------
LD
"Every Dog Has His Day"
BFC Member Since October 2, 1998

 
Chefget

Chefget

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 2, 1998
Messages
5,007
Ah, Pleconin...there's the rub!

We are indeed, though thinking ourselves apart from, part of the 'universe'!

One chooses ones' actions, though one cannot choose the reaction.

-Michael
Just a cork bobbing on the Karmic Sea of Life

------------------
Chefget's Knife Page


 
Since we are being philosphical, if you see a man you don't know attack another stranger, does that give you the right to attack the attacker beyond just stopping the attack?
 
One wonders that without comparison testing (for the consumers)there would be much boasting over particular products that may not be warranted. The market place will make the determination in the end result whether the claims of the maker or the tester would be accurate. If the testing is biased, this too will eventually come to the forefront. If the maker is overstating the product the market place will judge in the strength of continued sales.
 
Sensible words indeed.

I've taken to ignoring all MD threads for now.

Then maybe the bubble will burst soon and the quiet returns.

Or to quote Joshua from "War Games" after the climatic simulated WW III scenarios .... "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"



------------------
Longden Loo - Ventura, CA
Technology's the answer, what's the question?

 
Steve,

Philosophically speaking; depending if one is willing to shoulder the responsibility, good or bad, of the karmic consequences!
smile.gif


Geez...I'm still looking for the good questions, much less the answers!

-Michael


------------------
Chefget's Knife Page


 
Storyville, I understand your feelings, and appreciate your point of view.

I would like to ask your opinion of this, however. When we do tests, and have this sort of situation develop, how should we handle it in the future?

If we get information that impacts the validity of our tests, should we sweep it under the rug, or should we make it public knowledge?

If a maker repeatedly makes claims to sell their knives, yet these claims don't actually hold up under scrutiny, should we ignore that as well?

When a maker's supporters are uniformly unwilling to let a matter go, despite their being proven wrong, should we drop that as well?

Please, I'm looking for some input here on how to handle it. Because I see only 2 solutions:
  • Do KnifeRag tests where nothing ever does poorly. This is not to knock all knifemagazines because as of late we have seen some balanced reviews....
  • Do realistic tests and report the results. When people come forward to dispute them, deal with the discussions and report the facts as we know them.[/list=a]

    It's up to you guys. You don't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs...

    As for how we've handled this topic.

    At all times we've tried our hardest to use facts to back up what we've said. Each time someone has made an allegation about our facts or methods or bias, we've done what we could to disprove it.

    Sometimes we've had to start new threads to counter information being brought up elsewhere. It happens.

    I have seen some flames on this issue, and I've done my best to contact those people involved, or post messages saying that that sort of behavior is unacceptable. Mike has as well. Facts work better than flames. Don't confuse facts for flames or insults.

    So, again, if we're doing a bad job, please do not hesitate to step forward and offer suggestions on where it could improve. If you see something in particular that is improper, step forward and point to it specifcally. "Constructive criticism" is what we're after.

    Spark


    ------------------
    Kevin Jon Schlossberg
    SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

    Insert witty quip here


    [This message has been edited by Spark (edited 11 November 1999).]
 
Spark,

I really think farming them out would help. The Bladeforums would still be publishing them, but that seems acceptable to me. That way, when you moderate the resulting discussions, you can seem more objective. Giving the reviews to two people with differing viewpoints would stimulate discussion, hopefully with an appearance of fairness. As long as Bladeforms is taking advertising, helping set up web sites and Mike owns WOW-Distribution, your objectivity could reasonably be put into question. Here is an extract from the Consumer Reports web site that I feel puts it into perspective:

“Why we charge a subscription fee: Consumers Union is nonprofit. We have no connections with any manufacturer or supplier of the products and services we write about. We buy everything we test on the open market, anonymously. Our no-commercialization policy ensures that we are not influenced by commercial interests in any way. Because we do not accept advertising, our web site is not subsidized by ads or sponsorships. Just as with Consumer Reports magazine, we depend on subscribers to support our work.”
http://www.consumerreports.com/

I think they have a good point. You may have the wisdom of Solomon, but how are we to know that? Only through what you write here. You are what you write to people who only know you through this medium.

Now if you could get Cliff interested, and find a good counterpoint to him, I think you would be in business.

Just my opinion,

Pleconin
 
Spark, this is meant a constructive suggestion for how to handle future tests.

State your findings, be as concise, and fair as is possible, leaving out all personal feelings. If your findings are based on the truth they should stand on their own, they don't need to be defended, or drawn out into long multi-threaded topics. A conclusion, if reached in a fair unbiased way is pure, debate only clouds the truth, and adds personal feelings. Ignore those who criticize you, someone will always be there to pick apart what you say.

If Mike and yourself are going to continue to do tests, I believe your going to have to reach an understanding as I've stated, or else, there will be nothing but chaos here.


------------------
LD
"Every Dog Has His Day"
BFC Member Since October 2, 1998

 
If we could get subscriptions to pay for the upkeep of this site, believe me, we wouldn't have advertising.

You and I both know that the minute we start charging people to use this site, it's going to die in a heartbeat. And the "objectivity" and "bias" issues would still remain. Consumer Reports' payment methods would fly for about 2 seconds for us.

Furthermore, we sold off the knife portion of WOW-Distribution to another company. They handle the orders and billing and everything else now, so we don't directly sell knives as a distributor.

Second, when we make statements, you guys are free to call us on them. You get to add your direct opinions and experience in a real time setting. Consumer Reports doesn't offer that - they print their articles, and that's it, no changes or new information. If we say something that is completely off base, you get to speak your mind about it. If we should delete it (something which hasn't happened regarding product information), there's rec.knives and other sites where you can turn to. It's in our best interest to remain as fair and impartial as possible, because you can and will go elsewhere if we don't satisfy your criteria.

It's a different format from Consumer Reports, with a differant market and different needs, so we can't use the same methods. The Consumers Union is very very well financed through trusts and other donations as well, another thing we don't have.

So, your solution doesn't and wouldn't work, I'm sorry. Unless you have a millionare uncle who's willing to put us in his will?

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here
 
LuckyDog,

Mike and I have talked about this and he won't be posting any more tests without my first looking over them. I watched and participated in most of the tests of the knives (including the controversial ones). While I can attest to the honest of the testing and methods, I have to admit, Mike isn't an English major, though he excells in his native tongue - Gibberish!
biggrin.gif


I agree with the "feeling" part, except where it comes to perception issues like "It felt good in my hand" and the like, and gross failures, etc.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here


[This message has been edited by Spark (edited 11 November 1999).]
 
Storyville,

I did not say.
Now Mike Turber posts a “last” thread which promises to issue even more lurid detail in the following days (in the interest of Truth!).
Click to expand...
What I did say was...
I now have all the info I need and I am now more comfortable than ever about my tests. I will not release this info as much of it is personal and much you will find out within days anyway. It is a good thing Earl sold KFC when he did. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

From that, how did you derive that I will be the one making the posts? I in fact said I would not. Please do not put words in my mouth and please read my post again.

What I was getting at was that over the next few days you all will see things change at KFC and much of it is because of Mad Dog.

You guys want the truth? You want it now? OK here goes and this will end all of this crap and I will shuffle any future threads off into another forum or whatever.

While checking on Mad Dog and informtaion I ran across several web sites. Including a couple owned by Mad Dog. Here is the Whois search. www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois/?STRING=MADDOG

You will see: www.tacticaltruth.com
and www.tacticalforums.com

Looks like Kevin has his own ideas.
I won't speculate on things beyond that but I would bet money that Earl sold KFC once he realized McClung and a few others are going to start their own forum.

That is fine and I have already posted on their new forum a good luck message.
You will also notice that the word BladeForums is on their edit list. So you will not be able to say anything about BladeForums without the *********** showing up. We will not to that here.
www.tacticalforums.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000002.html

Here is the list of forums they have already in place. http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&BypassCookie=true

The rest of the pieces will fall into place over the next few days. I did not make the puzzle and I am also not trying to put it together. I am giving you all the peices, do with them as you please.

I have work to do.

I wish Mad Dog good luck with his new forum and if we can help we will. I think by announcing it over here we may have just gave him all the publicity he needs. I will visit his forum as well as all the others I visit. See you guys there too.

Have fun guys!

------------------
Best Regards,
Mike Turber
BladeForums Site Owner and Administrator
Do it! Do it right! Do it right NOW!

Hey go buy something from the BFC Store!
www.bladeforums.com/store
www.wowinc.com
www.gigandknives.com
www.macedirect.com
www.dragon-forge.com
The above sites are pure shamless plugs!

[This message has been edited by Mike Turber (edited 11 November 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Mike Turber (edited 11 November 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Spark (edited 11 November 1999).]
 
Looks like Mrs. Mad Dog already has spilled the beans on www.tacticalforums.com (They also have www.tacticaltruth.com) on the Mad Dog Forum on KFC.

Looks like whoever bought KFC just got e-screwed, since 3 forums + will be jumping ship.

Mike, I notice that BladeForums.com is a censored word as well.... oh wait, that message has now been deleted, what a shock.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com

Insert witty quip here


[This message has been edited by Spark (edited 11 November 1999).]
 
Spark:
I would like to ask your opinion of this, however. When we do tests, and have this sort of situation develop, how should we handle it in the future?

If we get information that impacts the validity of our tests, should we sweep it under the rug, or should we make it public knowledge?
Click to expand...

I submit that all current and future MD threads should be (and should've been) locked and moved to a less public, and more appropriate forum (ie Knife Reviews) as the moderators had been already doing with threads opened by us, the peons.

Then you're not limiting public access, nor sweeping things under the rug.

[This message has been edited by Longden (edited 11 November 1999).]
 
Sorry Spark,

I did not mean to imply you should change you format to a Consumer Reports one. I was just using them as an example of objectivity.

As to calling them on it, they now have forums too! Everybody is getting into the act. Virtual communities are popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm.

My suggestion was to farm out the reports to a couple of people that are respected, and are outside the financial interests of the Bladeforums. Perhaps you could rotate the positions. It’s happening informally already, all you would be doing is formalizing the structure and giving them a higher soapbox.

Keeping the testing in-house, while no doubt a lot of fun, in my opinion is a disservice to your community. You have helped create a pretty amazing community here, and I think it will continue to evolve and grow. I just want what I believe is best for it.

I do understand I could be completely missing the point here. I am honestly trying to add something constructive to the debate.

All the Best,

Pleconin
 
Hey Mike,

No fair, I spilled the beans 24 minutes before you did, and you get all the credit
wink.gif


BTW, It is now pretty obvious why Steve Harvey has been so strongly opinionated in this discussion, he is a moderator on the new forums.



------------------
C.O.'s-"It takes balls to work behind the walls "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top