I really don't want to waste energy on this, but since it is a great learning opportunity of what not to do, will throw down a few keystrokes and keep this comment to under 15 minutes writing time.
When you open a community site and invite people to create groups, they will create groups, sometimes that are at odds with your terms and conditions, which would give you a right to remove them (and the posts etc) Unfortuantely this group did not violate the T&C's and was starting to really further the conversation, as your quote of me (at least something survived) attests (thank you).
The thing is, having a Social Media Club group was what Mark asked me to do after I expressed my displeasure about what I viewed as comment spam he personally left on the Social Media Club site. He expressed very clearly to me that he would welcome such posts on his own site, and invited me to promote our workshop and the club through My Ragan. I did what he asked, did not violate any terms and conditions of the site and he did more than just rename the group - he deleted the group, all of its posts and also deleted my profile. This is not how a community site is run - it is how a corporate site is run where you still believe in the illusion of control you have over other people and the conversation.
I was recently accused of censorship by someone who was upset that I suggested that other people should not link to his post because I felt it was link baiting. Meanwhile, when something like this happens no one seems to care and it does just die away - it is seemingly a non-story, but it is instructive in future decision making.
Well, shoot, I can't help but care about this because once again we have people claiming expertise, demonstrating a different reality. There was a reason we used to throw around the phrase 'these people don't get it' back in 1995 - I hoped to move away from ever using that phrase again, but am failing at the moment. Unfortunately, I am clearly not heeding my own advice either as I end up getting all riled up about this and shooting my mouth off rather than keeping quiet. Bummer for me and my big mouth... Hoping that more people will learn from the mistakes of others so we are not doomed to repeat them and relive this sort of thing over and over again....
PS - I have been a snotty nose kid on some occasions - I am emotional, and wear my humanity on my blog and on my comments - but in this case, would rather this whole thing never happened and am instead just trying to look at it objectively... but objectively there are a lot of reasons to be pissed off...
Connie Reece
· 2 years ago
Lee, I'm responding to the following quote from your post:
"I am in little doubt that someone had raised the issue of duplicate logos with Mark privately, Mark investigated and took the decision to rename the group, so that no ‘conflict of interest’ issues might raise their ugly heads.
"Probably understandably, Chris took umbrage at the decision and let fly with a post on the group’s noticeboard (since deleted) and that was probably why Chris was removed from the administration of the group and it was handed over to Bill Sweetland."
Actually, Mark Ragan made the decision to delete the original SMC group and start a new one with Bill Sweetland as moderator almost 24 hours BEFORE Chris ever made his post. These are the time stamps from the respective posts: May 21, 2007 | 11:48 am for Mark Ragan's announcement, and May 22, 2007 | 8:08 am for Chris' response. I have cached copies of both messages.
Lee Hopkins
· 2 years ago
Hey Connie and Chris, Thanks for weighing in to this, I appreciate your input and timelines. It will be interesting to see if others join the conversation here... Lee
Joseph Thornley
· 2 years ago
Hi Lee, The immediate discussion may end, but I think the important issue it underlines will persist: "...MyRagan is Mark’s site and he can do with it what he pleases, even if it involves changing the rules."
You are right. it is MARK's site. And the community should not forget that "his ball, his rules." This is a serious issue that we should consider when deciding whether to participate in closed communities or to participate through our own blogs - in the open, where "they can't take it away from me."
Lee Hopkins
· 2 years ago
Joe, I think you hit the nail on the head, mate (perspicacious as always!).
Participating via our own blogs runs the risk of isolationism (I very often lack the time to read even my 'must read' bloggers) and so miss out on important news or trends.
But equally, participation in closed communities (IABC, PRIA, MyRagan, the Hub, et al) runs the risk of pissing the owner off, having them change their mind, or all of the above and more. And it is their site, their rules (and right to change them), their dollars invested in the technical infrastructure.
A vexed and perplexing conundrum... I know of no other way of being 'forced' to keep up to date than a site like MyRagan, but equally I am hesitant to abide by someone else's rules when I own my own publishing empire (LeeHopkins.com and LeeHopkins.net) and can create my own rules. Which is no doubt what Chris will continue to do -- use his own publishing platform to continue the conversation and engage with his community. More power to him...
mark ragan
· 2 years ago
It is very upsetting to me to see Chris repeating the falsehood that we had no reason to re-form the Social Media group on our MyRagan site.
Chris knows this is not true. I have told everyone who would listen why we did this. I told him two to three days before we did it and asked him to help us re-form the group. But the lie keeps being repeated on this site and elsewhere:
Here is my side again:
1) We asked Chris to remain as moderator, but to put up a noncommercial logo. This was all we asked. We explained that we couldn't allow his advertisement on our groups page because we weren't allowing other moderators to do this. And it is true that we told him we had no problem mentioning his seminars within the context of relevant threads.
After two days of receiving no response, we re-created the group under a new name. In response, he sent a letter to 100 members accusing us of strongarm tactics to all the members of the club.
Chris, why do you keep telling people in your posts that there was no reason for us to re-form the group? And why didn't you simply write to me and offer to moderate the new group ? Why did you send an angry letter to 100 people on our site? And why are you continuing to keep this alive?
And to everyone who is reading this: There are three dozen moderators, all of them, like Chris, consultants. They have seen no interventions from me at all. In most cases, they have never even heard from me. Please, do me a favor as you try to interpret this debate: go to the site and ask them if they have been treated fairly. Ask them whether conversation has been impeded by me. Better yet, go see the dozens of free-wheeling threads and conversations now going on. Learn for yourself who is right and wrong.
Chris has jumped to so many unwarranted conclusions: He has actually accused me of re-forming the group because he was too succcessful--that I saw his success and shut him down. Do you all think this is fair? Should the blogosphere be filled with posts in which people are allowed to say what other people's motives are? Is this what it means to have open conversations?
At any rate, one final point: I posted a lengthy response to all of Chris's statements about my motives and actions. I posed this to Social Media Club because other people asked me to, including Shel Holtz. I want all of you to know that, so far, it has not gone live. If you want to see my response, ask Chris to approve it. If he doesn't I will send it to you separately. Just e-mail me at: ceo@ragan.com
Shel Holtz told me this morning to "get out" there and tell our side. This is what I hope to do--whether Chris allows my post or not.
Lee Hopkins
· 2 years ago
Hey Mark,
Shel was right, as always -- thanks for joining the conversation and giving your side of the story.
I remember the reason why a pastor friend of mine has stopped any marriage counselling work, despite being good at it: it's just too draining when both sides are equally right.
In kindergarten we would ask the sandpit combatants to shake hands and make up; let us hope that in this new digital sandpit the grown ups find in themselves the ability to do the same.
Chris Heuer
· 2 years ago
I just want the record to show that Mark never posted a comment on any of our blogs. Very little of what he claims he asked me is true, except for the fact that he did email me about renaming the group - not about removing the logo. Please Mark, if this is true, just publish the emails to prove your side of the story. Again, he sent the email from an account called FRANK123 - I replied to this email on Sunday, when I also posted a response to the group on another message. Again, he deleted all this, essentially covering his tracks and no claiming whatever he wants without proof to back it up.
And Mark, stop crying about no one approving your comments when clearly you had the same problem with Joe Thornley and others - choosing to position it as other people censoring you when in fact you just don't understand how to post a comment.
mark ragan
· 2 years ago
For heavan's sake, Chris, let it go. Come on back, join the site. We would love to have you.
If you like, you can resume the moderator's role or create a new Social Media group.
I never had any interest in angering you. This whole affair was just one huge misunderstanding.
I will take part of the blame for sending confusing messages. But I assure you that I never intended to do anything nefarious.
As you can see from the site, which now has 6,300 members, there are other groups that have a ton of members, including IABC.
Most people view IABC as competition to Ragan, and yet I have no intention of kicking them off.
If you are willing, I'd like to put this aside and ask you to rejoin MyRagan and lend your considerable expertise to the community.
Mark Ragan
Chris Heuer
· 2 years ago
For heaven's sake Mark, why can't you apologize for being wrong and for behaving like such as a$$ - take part of the blame? seriously, take all of the blame, step up and admit your mistakes and apologize, and while you are at it, admit that half the things you wrote about this whole thing (and me) were lies. That is how people know who can be trusted and who can't...
All Comments
When you open a community site and invite people to create groups, they will create groups, sometimes that are at odds with your terms and conditions, which would give you a right to remove them (and the posts etc) Unfortuantely this group did not violate the T&C's and was starting to really further the conversation, as your quote of me (at least something survived) attests (thank you).
The thing is, having a Social Media Club group was what Mark asked me to do after I expressed my displeasure about what I viewed as comment spam he personally left on the Social Media Club site. He expressed very clearly to me that he would welcome such posts on his own site, and invited me to promote our workshop and the club through My Ragan. I did what he asked, did not violate any terms and conditions of the site and he did more than just rename the group - he deleted the group, all of its posts and also deleted my profile. This is not how a community site is run - it is how a corporate site is run where you still believe in the illusion of control you have over other people and the conversation.
I was recently accused of censorship by someone who was upset that I suggested that other people should not link to his post because I felt it was link baiting. Meanwhile, when something like this happens no one seems to care and it does just die away - it is seemingly a non-story, but it is instructive in future decision making.
Well, shoot, I can't help but care about this because once again we have people claiming expertise, demonstrating a different reality. There was a reason we used to throw around the phrase 'these people don't get it' back in 1995 - I hoped to move away from ever using that phrase again, but am failing at the moment. Unfortunately, I am clearly not heeding my own advice either as I end up getting all riled up about this and shooting my mouth off rather than keeping quiet. Bummer for me and my big mouth... Hoping that more people will learn from the mistakes of others so we are not doomed to repeat them and relive this sort of thing over and over again....
PS - I have been a snotty nose kid on some occasions - I am emotional, and wear my humanity on my blog and on my comments - but in this case, would rather this whole thing never happened and am instead just trying to look at it objectively... but objectively there are a lot of reasons to be pissed off...
"I am in little doubt that someone had raised the issue of duplicate logos with Mark privately, Mark investigated and took the decision to rename the group, so that no ‘conflict of interest’ issues might raise their ugly heads.
"Probably understandably, Chris took umbrage at the decision and let fly with a post on the group’s noticeboard (since deleted) and that was probably why Chris was removed from the administration of the group and it was handed over to Bill Sweetland."
Actually, Mark Ragan made the decision to delete the original SMC group and start a new one with Bill Sweetland as moderator almost 24 hours BEFORE Chris ever made his post. These are the time stamps from the respective posts: May 21, 2007 | 11:48 am for Mark Ragan's announcement, and May 22, 2007 | 8:08 am for Chris' response. I have cached copies of both messages.
Thanks for weighing in to this, I appreciate your input and timelines. It will be interesting to see if others join the conversation here...
Lee
The immediate discussion may end, but I think the important issue it underlines will persist: "...MyRagan is Mark’s site and he can do with it what he pleases, even if it involves changing the rules."
You are right. it is MARK's site. And the community should not forget that "his ball, his rules." This is a serious issue that we should consider when deciding whether to participate in closed communities or to participate through our own blogs - in the open, where "they can't take it away from me."
Participating via our own blogs runs the risk of isolationism (I very often lack the time to read even my 'must read' bloggers) and so miss out on important news or trends.
But equally, participation in closed communities (IABC, PRIA, MyRagan, the Hub, et al) runs the risk of pissing the owner off, having them change their mind, or all of the above and more. And it is their site, their rules (and right to change them), their dollars invested in the technical infrastructure.
A vexed and perplexing conundrum... I know of no other way of being 'forced' to keep up to date than a site like MyRagan, but equally I am hesitant to abide by someone else's rules when I own my own publishing empire (LeeHopkins.com and LeeHopkins.net) and can create my own rules. Which is no doubt what Chris will continue to do -- use his own publishing platform to continue the conversation and engage with his community. More power to him...
Chris knows this is not true. I have told everyone who would listen why we did this. I told him two to three days before we did it and asked him to help us re-form the group. But the lie keeps being repeated on this site and elsewhere:
Here is my side again:
1) We asked Chris to remain as moderator, but to put up a noncommercial logo. This was all we asked. We explained that we couldn't allow his advertisement on our groups page because we weren't allowing other moderators to do this. And it is true that we told him we had no problem mentioning his seminars within the context of relevant threads.
After two days of receiving no response, we re-created the group under a new name. In response, he sent a letter to 100 members accusing us of strongarm tactics to all the members of the club.
Chris, why do you keep telling people in your posts that there was no reason for us to re-form the group? And why didn't you simply write to me and offer to moderate the new group ? Why did you send an angry letter to 100 people on our site? And why are you continuing to keep this alive?
And to everyone who is reading this: There are three dozen moderators, all of them, like Chris, consultants. They have seen no interventions from me at all. In most cases, they have never even heard from me. Please, do me a favor as you try to interpret this debate: go to the site and ask them if they have been treated fairly. Ask them whether conversation has been impeded by me. Better yet, go see the dozens of free-wheeling threads and conversations now going on. Learn for yourself who is right and wrong.
Chris has jumped to so many unwarranted conclusions: He has actually accused me of re-forming the group because he was too succcessful--that I saw his success and shut him down. Do you all think this is fair? Should the blogosphere be filled with posts in which people are allowed to say what other people's motives are? Is this what it means to have open conversations?
At any rate, one final point: I posted a lengthy response to all of Chris's statements about my motives and actions. I posed this to Social Media Club because other people asked me to, including Shel Holtz. I want all of you to know that, so far, it has not gone live. If you want to see my response, ask Chris to approve it. If he doesn't I will send it to you separately. Just e-mail me at: ceo@ragan.com
Shel Holtz told me this morning to "get out" there and tell our side. This is what I hope to do--whether Chris allows my post or not.
Shel was right, as always -- thanks for joining the conversation and giving your side of the story.
I remember the reason why a pastor friend of mine has stopped any marriage counselling work, despite being good at it: it's just too draining when both sides are equally right.
In kindergarten we would ask the sandpit combatants to shake hands and make up; let us hope that in this new digital sandpit the grown ups find in themselves the ability to do the same.
And Mark, stop crying about no one approving your comments when clearly you had the same problem with Joe Thornley and others - choosing to position it as other people censoring you when in fact you just don't understand how to post a comment.
If you like, you can resume the moderator's role or create a new Social Media group.
I never had any interest in angering you. This whole affair was just one huge misunderstanding.
I will take part of the blame for sending confusing messages. But I assure you that I never intended to do anything nefarious.
As you can see from the site, which now has 6,300 members, there are other groups that have a ton of members, including IABC.
Most people view IABC as competition to Ragan, and yet I have no intention of kicking them off.
If you are willing, I'd like to put this aside and ask you to rejoin MyRagan and lend your considerable expertise to the community.
Mark Ragan