# We contribute to a business: Obviously not free!



## Alice_in_Wonderland

I have read both recent threads (thread and one post) debating freedom of expression on WRF. Although this is the only online forum to which I have ever participated in a somewhat active way, I often read several other forums about films, art, politics, and so forth. I’m a bit of a lurker, I’m afraid!  

While lurking, I noticed that WRF is relatively strictly moderated, even if some mods seem more liberal than others. After a few inquiries and a quick Google search, the reason for this higher level of formality, strictness and political correctness has become rather clear to me. 

_*All*_ online discussion forums are in fact privately owned, and their servers are privately owned as well. Someone other than a governmental agency has to host them, maintain them, administrate them, etc. Forums are not public discussion arenas or pubs. 

However, in spite of this obvious fact, some of them are freer than others. Still, although *all *forums are obviously private, the standard mod (and admin) reply to all complaints about “excessive strictness” on WRF is that “_*this *_is a private forum.” Well, aren’t they all? 

What distinguishes WRF from the other, supposedly "freer" forums? IMHO, the difference is that WRF is used as part of a business, and _*not only*_ in that it generates traffic to the WR website. In fact, I read that it is for instance possible to integrate WordReference into a corporate web page (more details here). Therefore, Mr Kellogg and his moderators don’t want the following scenario to happen: 

_I surf on the website of WhatNot Inc. corporation, double-click on an unknown word and, since it is not in the WR dictionary, I look it up in the forum, just to find out that its definition has been kindly provided by Mr Pimp of the Pimps, who uses the thread to make small talk with Ms Blowing_in_the_wind and Mr Phat_gangsta. As a result, I complain to WhatNot Inc., who might therefore consider ceasing their partnership with WordReference._

In other words, forum users should IMHO be aware of the fact that the “price” you pay for being able to discuss in the WRF is that in reality (as I perceive it) foreros are actively contributing to a business and must therefore follow its policies and its rules of conduct, which may be a bit stricter than and different from those of other (equally private) forums that do not use the forum as an active part of a business.

In my understanding, moderators act as our supervisors and are employed as volunteers by WR's management (i.e. Mr Kellogg). They defend solely his interests. Once this is clear, all these jacobin discussions  should lose their significance. 

Sincerely
Märta


----------



## ElaineG

Wow, Marta, I'm glad you read my heartfelt exploration of the best response to hateful statements in a community of people I care about and got out of it that I said all those things to serve the interests of a man I've never met that has never paid me a penny.  Thanks.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Wow, Marta, I'm glad you read my heartfelt exploration of the best response to hateful statements in a community of people I care about and got out of it that I said all those things to serve the interests of a man I've never met that has never paid me a penny. Thanks.


 
Elaine,

1) I only linked to one post in that thread - and it wasn't written by you.  

2) My own father is gay. At the tender age of 40 he found out he's gay. Therefore, the gay issue is of some consequence to me. I read your post: Very good. But my reply is to another post (the one I linked to). 

And I never said that you wrote your post to defend anyone's interests. You spoke as a forera, didn't you? Not as a moderator.

3) Sorry to disapoint you and your idealism, but as a moderator (paid or unpaid, it doesn't matter) you _*are*_ serving the interests of WordReference, which is owned by this "man".


----------



## ElaineG

Marta, you may have linked to one post but you cited the "thread". It's completely lame and disingenuous of you to then say oh, I didn't mean you.


----------



## Elisa68

I think that Marta's post #1 is just an analysis of what WR is and I am very grateful to her for pointing that out. If we keep that in mind we can understand much better what happens here and why.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Marta, you may have linked to one post but you cited the "thread". It's completely lame and disingenuous of you to then say oh, I didn't mean you.


 
I apologize. You are absolutely right: I wrote "threads." Edited as requested!


----------



## ElaineG

Thank you.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello Märta,

I'm going to comment on both the facts and opinions in this portion of your post:



> In other words, forum users should IMHO be aware of the fact that the “price” you pay for being able to discuss in the WRF is that in reality (as I perceive it) foreros are actively contributing to a business and must therefore follow its policies and its rules of conduct, which may be a bit stricter than and different from those of other (equally private) forums that do not use the forum as an active part of a business.
> 
> In my understanding, moderators act as our supervisors and are employed by management (i.e. Mr Kellogg). They defend solely his interests. Once this is clear, all these jacobin discussions  should lose their significance.


Mr. Kellogg's business is publication of dictionaries. The forums are accessible from the dictionaries, and forum contents may be of benefit to dictionary users. That's obvious fact. To stretch from that fact to stating that foreros are "actively contributing to a business" is highly debatable, both logically and in business terms. You may choose to intrepret it that way, but I see a considerably more limited linkage.

You speak of a "price". In order to get the benefits of collaboration from thousands, hundreds, or even a handful of fellow foreros, members are required to act in accord with the forum guidelines, which the rules try to elaborate. That's the real price. Behave collaboratively.  That's my personal, condensed interpretation of all the guidelines and rules.  

 Realistically, the relationship to the dictionaries is incidental. If there were no dictionary linkages, the rules would likely be the same. I know of and participate in some etymology forums with much more tenuous commercial ties, and the rules are the same in essence. These forums wouldn't work as a free-for-all in which anyone could post whatever they damned pleased. They would quickly come to resemble many other boards, in which topics are a mere pretext to saying almost anything, about almost anything. 

The policies and rules of conduct allow, permit, and foment what makes this place work for me, as a forero. My adherence to them, in spirit, existed before the rules were written, and before there were any moderators here.

"They defend solely his interests." That's utter rubbish. I spend many hours doing moderator work out of pure self-interest! If Mike draws some tangential benefit from my efforts, I'm very glad for him. I joined the forum when it was less than a month old, and had about ten regularly posting members. I enjoyed the mutual instruction, the variety of linguistic and personal and cultural insights available. When I suggested an improvement to the forums, Mike asked if I would be willing, as an unpaid, untenured volunteer, to help
accomplish it. I was happy to do so. I did so as a volunteer, helping, or at least trying to help, create and enlarge something for my own personal pleasure and benefit. That was done in a spirit of collaboration. 

I was aware that eventually, the forums might grow to such an extent that they could become a beneficial corollary to the dictionaries, but that had nothing to do with my motivation, then, or today. I am not an employee of the forums. My compensation for time and effort expended here is the pleasure I derive from languages and ideas, shared with a mostly sincere and earnest and intelligent groups of people who share these interests. 

I defend the interests of mutual learning. I defend and try to support the growth of a community of people who come here to share their time and knowledge and insights. To say that I solely defend the business interests of anyone is a personal affront. It's untrue. 

It is the sort of remark a naïve young MBA student might make, looking only at the objective data about a situation, and with no regard for, or consideration of, the human behaviour involved. I used to be, very long ago, a naïve young MBA student, and I'm certain I made many such presumptuous and mistaken analyses then.

You have most of the facts right.  You have most of the interpretation wrong.


Over the past few months, most of the moderators spent dozens of hours, thinking and debating and arguing about how to promote learning in the language forums, while preventing unethical aid to students who wanted others to do their homework. This had nothing to do with any business interest. You might even call it an idealistic exercise.

If you wish to ascribe our actions to commerce, you may do so, and you will be wrong.  

Now I'll go out on a limb and make a personal observation about Mike Kellogg. As I see it, he puts in far more time, energy, care, concern and money to allow these forums to operate than he gets back in terms of a business benefit. Maybe he is one of those people who isn't driven solely by a profit motive. I think so.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Now I'll go out on a limb and make a personal observation about Mike Kellogg. As I see it, he puts in far more time, energy, care, concern and money to allow these forums to operate than he gets back in terms of a business benefit. Maybe he is one of those people who isn't driven solely by a profit motive. I think so.


 
First of all, this is an hypotetical statement and not necessarily a fact.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't... who knows?

PS: You post does not deny anything that I wrote. I would like to point that out. You only deny being paid by WordReference, which I never suggested you are.

You vere very cautios in your pretty corporate PR reply: Well done (juridically)! 

PS [edit]:



> To say that I solely defend the business interests of anyone is a personal affront. It's untrue.


 
No, I said that you defend solely the interests of WordReference, not freedom of expression of its users. It's different. I meant that freedom of speech is not the interest you serve here as a moderator. I never said that your only motivation to perform your task of moderator is defending the interests of WordReference.


----------



## cuchuflete

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> First of all, this is an hypotetical statement and not necessarily a fact.
> 
> Maybe he is, maybe he isnt... who knows?
> 
> PS: You post does not deny anything that I wrote. I would like to point that out.



My post most certainly does deny your flawed interpretation that I work solely for the interest of anyone or anything other than myself.  

My post most emphaticaly denies that I am an employee of WR.

My post most clearly denies your inference and implications that the forum rules and their application are based primarily on business motives.  

As I said earlier, you have most of the facts, but not all of them, right.  Your interpretation is just that: a personal interpretation.  It isn't fact.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is another viewpoint...from something Foxfirebrand posted in September 2005 in the English Only forum:



> This place is notably free of deliberate troublemakers, and I can't help thinking about a poll thread, I think on cultural issues, where it was asked "do you participate in other forums." I was amazed by how many people reported that the WR forums were the only ones in their experience. To me there's a correlation between that unity of interest, and the absence of other "cyberforum lifestyles" (say a message board whose unifying theme is tattoos and body piercing)-- and the lack of trolls and flamers.
> 
> In an atmosphere free of such people, exchange of ideas happens, and you see people actually modifying their views, with the emphasis on zeroing in on "the truth of the matter" rather than people shouting past each other and creating arguments they can win.
> 
> Politics and religion are usually the culprit, topics that can be a medium of strife for its own sake, in the guise of discourse. In this place, the emphasis on topic is too specific for extended political arguments to gain the upper hand. The forums are adjuncts to the dictionaries, and that subservience to another purpose might be the key to the uncommon immunity we seem to enjoy, from this gathering place devolving into something resembling a barroom. Compared to most forums, these are heavily moderated-- but the rationale for this has to do with the need for those who visit the dictionary sites to click on the thematic link and find threads that contain the word they are trying to define-- and elaborate on it in a way that is useful to someone who isn't in on the social element, the modicum of chat that has to be waded through. It's never allowed to get too deep, and once people finally understand why (that the dictionary has to work, and the forums are subervient to that function)-- then the function of moderators is easy to accept, and you don't get nearly the resentment and rebelliousness of those foreros who are occasionally disciplined.
> 
> Quite a ramble, but I don't think I got off the question about trolls. In a city where the rule of law is impeccably maintained, and the downtown commercial district is not a war zone-- looters, like trolls, don't find the environment conducive to their agenda, and they move on.
> ​


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> My post most certainly does deny your flawed interpretation that I work solely for the interest of anyone or anything other than myself.


 
See edit to the my previous post.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> My post most emphaticaly denies that I am an employee of WR.


 
But WordReference could release you from your role as a moderator at any time, if you acted against its business interests. Therefore, as a moderator you are bound to them and to their enforcement through the enforcement of the forum's rules.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> My post most clearly denies your inference and implications that the forum rules and their application are based primarily on business motives.


 
Oh, so you are saying that there *are* business motives! But goodwill and a love for languages are the main motive and the main aim of WordReference. Not profit! 

Kellogg seems to think differently:



			
				mkellogg said:
			
		

> I have seen quite a few references to democracy in the forums here. I just want to politely remind everyone that *WordReference is a business*.


 


			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, you have most of the facts, but not all of them, right.


 
I think I have enough facts to state my case. More than those you listed in your PR reply, anyway. It is however up to each and every worthy reader to judge that.


----------



## geve

I don't understand where you're getting at with this thread, Märta, and I think that this


			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> You vere very cautios in your pretty corporate PR reply: Well done (juridically)!


is a pretty harsh thing to say to someone who obviously spent some time writing his post and shared some personal beliefs he has.

While wandering randomly in WRF archives, I incidentally found the thread where Cuchu was informally appointed as the first moderator of this forum. This all seemed to be done in a very collaborative way, indeed. I think you won't disagree that this place _needs_ moderators (like any other forum).
As I've written in another thread, let's not forget that moderators (and administrators) are above all human beings, who spend a lot of time on these forums (just like the other human beings called forer@s), and saying that their attitude and actions are solely made for business motives sounds like a horrible thing to say. 
Do you expect Mike to come here and answer you "Yes, I'm a hardworking man", or "Yes, further than mere financial interests, I find a special personal interest in this community project that I launched"? And if he did so, would you believe him?

But most of all, yes, we know that nothing is free in this world. If something costs money, then one needs to find money to pay for it. 
Yes, the moderators have to make some decisions _in the interest of the whole community_, and sometimes they take the trouble to share these decisions with the whole community and ask for our advice. I would not call that "jacobin discussions".


----------



## cuchuflete

This grows tiresome...you have your viewpoint. You are certainly entitled to it. I disagree with you on a few points of fact, and on most points of interpretation. If you are determined to see this as all about business, rather than about both business and other things, nobody will dissuade you from that.
Nor will you convince me that my motives and actions, or that of the other moderators, are business driven. You have no facts to support that particular argument. 





			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> See edit to the my previous post.
> But WordReference could release you from your role as a moderator at any time, if you acted against its business interests.  WordReference could dismiss me from my role as a moderator for any number of reasons, including prolonged absence, fomenting discord, and a host of other reasons. You could, of course, claim that any and all of these are 'business-related'. You would be correct some of the time.
> 
> If you work for the Red Cross as a volunteer, or for a political candidate as a volunteer, you could be engaged and dismissed for similar reasons. That wouldn't make you an employee.
> 
> You are confusing agency with employment. One is unpaid, and may have no basis in commerce, while the other is compensated with money, and usually, though not always, has a business motive. If you wish to perpetuate this confusion for yourself, that's your affair. If you try to misrepresent my efforts for the forums as employment, I will continue to offer rebuttals. This is a case in which you have got both the facts and the interpretation wrong.
> 
> 
> Therefore, as a moderator you are bound to them and to their enforcement through the enforcement of the forum's rules. I serve at the pleasure of the forum administrator, and at my own pleasure. Either of us can abrogate the relationship at will, with or without any legal cause. There is no legal employment contract, explicit or implicit. As each and every other moderator, I believe in the statements in the forum Guidelines (which I helped craft). Application of the rules is generally consistent among moderators, but each of us applies a personal 'touch' in judgment as to when very strict or less strict interpretations are the best way to encourage the spirit expressed in the guidelines.
> 
> 
> Oh, so you are saying that there *are* business motives! I said so early in my first post.  Don't act like this is a recent discovery!  That's a shabby debating trick.  But goodwill and a love for languages are the main motive and the main aim of WordReference. A love of languages is the main motive for my participation. The owner has demonstrated both that and a business motive. That's never been a secret.  Not profit!
> 
> Kellogg seems to think differently:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I have enough facts to state my case. You have enough facts to overstate your case. You paint it all as a nefarious capitalist plot, implying that filthy lucre is at the heart of all we do here. Fiddlesticks! I really doubt your intelligence allows you to believe such tripe. You seem more
> bent on winning an argument in favor of an overstated proposition than in accepting that the motivations (plural) for these forums are a little more complex than your first post would have us believe. More than those you listed in your PR reply,  My PR reply?  That's a cheap shot. It's also a bogus statement. I don't write PR for anyone. I offer facts and personal opinions. If that adds up to a positive view of the forums, than you and I have coincided in finding them a nice place to spend time. Shall I accuse you of PR for the positive things you said about the forums in your first post?
> 
> 
> 
> Alice_in_Wonderland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *this is the only online forum to which I have ever participated in a somewhat active way*
> 
> 
> 
> Should we thank you for that endorsement of a commercial enterprise? Is it PR, or simply a statement that you find this place worthwile and interesting?  anyway. It is however up to each and every worthy reader to judge that.
Click to expand...


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

geve said:
			
		

> But most of all, yes, we know that nothing is free in this world. If something costs money, then one needs to find money to pay for it.


 
So why is he trying so hard to deny it through the assiduous and prolific production of these long PR posts? This is _*exactly*_ what puzzles me. It is exactly what I argued in the first place: we are contributing to a business, so we are expected to follow certain specific rules. 

It isn't the end of the world, but in my opinion it's good to keep well aware of it as we write.

I repeat, whatever motivation impelled cuchuflete to become a moderator, the fact remains that, as a moderator, he is always bound to serve the interests of a for-profit company called WordReference and that some of his decisions as a moderator might be totally or partially dictated by such interests.

I think it's a realistic observation and I don't understand what is so terrible and offensive about it. If you work with or for a company (paid or unpaid) you're expected a certain level of loyalty toward it and surely not to undermine it. It seems very normal and logical to me.

The problem arises when someone tries to imply that it is not a company they work/volunteer for, but an ideal community of people and so forth. Or when they work so hard to downplay the profit factor and how these forums might contribute to it.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> You paint it all as a nefarious capitalist plot, implying that filthy lucre is at the heart of all we do here. Fiddlesticks!



Believe me, that was never my intention.

I think that this excellent site and its forums would never exist if it wasn't for the entrepreneurship of Mr Kellogg. But, like all other business, this one has it's own rules. I don't criticize that. I find it natural and perfectly logical.

I just don't like the fact that WordReference is a downplaying its role as a for-profit business and is trying to pass as an ideal community of people. 

I find it a major waste of time that all debates with the moderators are discussed in pseudo-legal and pseudo-philosophical terms instead of what they really are: In truth, small talk, vulgar nicknames, off-topic discussions, and so on undermine the functionality of the search feature of WordReference in the way I described in post #1 of this thread, which is the reason why these forums are moderated so heavy-handedly. These forums are part of a commercial product that generates profits and that has to work well in order to be sold.

Why deny it with such a passion?


----------



## moodywop

This post is going to be quite brief: I agree with *everything *Cuchu wrote in response to Marta. Anybody who knows Cuchu also knows that he has a fiercely independent mind and would *never *act as anyone's mouthpiece or PR man.

Marta, your argument that the "pimp" nickname was banned in order not to alienate clients does not hold. The fact that a post which offends gays was not censored shows that the mods acted in good faith, putting the ideal of free expression before their reservations about that post.

I now regret raising the issue. I could never have foreseen that it would be used as a pretext to make unfounded allegations about mods' motivations.


----------



## cuchuflete

More distortions and exaggerations...



			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> So why is he trying so hard to deny it In my first post in this thread I agreed with you that there is a business relationship between the profit-seeking dictionaries and the forums, and said that the forums provide support to the dictionaries.  You label this a denial.  I label your remark utter nonsense.  through the assiduous and prolific production of these long PR posts?  I won't waste time doing a similar hatchet job on your logic.  You have done it yourself with your characterization of my words as PR.   This is _*exactly*_ what puzzles me. It is exactly what I argued in the first place: we are contributing to a business, so we are expected to follow certain specific rules. Wrong.  You are contributing to a business, in an incidental way.  The rules of the forum allow it to function as a forum. Your finding an overriding causality between the business aspect and the rules is flawed.  Look at the rules of hundreds of other forums with no business linkage.  If they use vB forum software, most of them have very similar rules, without a business motive.  You persist, stubbornly, in confusing coincidence with causality.
> 
> Yes, WR is a business.  The dictionaries earn a return on investment.  The forums are linked to the dictionaries, hence the forums have a business aspect.  Now, go to any discussion forum with no business aspect, and read the rules.
> They generally call for polite behaviour, and forbid personal attacks, spam, promotion of other sites, etc.  Based on your logic, one could draw the conclusion that these rules are the result of an anti-commercial motive!  There is a forum. It is not part of a business.  It has rules.  Therefore forum rules are anti-business.  What silliness!
> 
> It isn't the end of the world, but in my opinion it's good to keep well aware of it as we write. You are right.  It's good to know where you are, and why.  And yet...I've never once considered the ownership interests of WR forums when answering a question about a verb, or helping a translator with a difficult idiomatic phrase.  I've never once thought of business implications when arguing about what constitutes a "moral right" or when condemning bigotry, or when deleting
> an off-topic rant.  Are there business implications of my actions and inactions?  Yes, very likely so.  Are they my motivation as a forero or as a mod? No.
> 
> I repeat, whatever motivation impelled cuchuflete to become a moderator, the fact remains that, as a moderator, he is always bound to serve the interests of a for-profit company called WordReference and that some of his decisions as a moderator might be totally or partially dictated by such interests.  That's a very tenuous argument.  "Some" followed by "might" followed by "partially"...yes, that's hard to dispute.
> It's not anywhere near a persuasive case that moderator actions are driven by a concern for business matters, although our actions might sometimes have partial or total business effects.  You are taking possibilities, however likely or unlikely they may be, and trying to purvey them as motives. You are
> wrong.
> 
> I think it's a realistic observation and I don't understand what is so terrible and offensive about it.There is nothing terrible or offensive at all about it.  That's why Mike openly states that WR is a business, and why I quickly agreed with you that the forums have business ties.  You have played another debate trick, setting up a straw man, just for the sake of being able to knock it down.
> Who are you arguing with, other than yourself?
> 
> If you work with or for a company (paid or unpaid) you're expected a certain level of loyalty toward it and surely not to undermine it. It seems very normal and logical to me.
> 
> The problem arises when someone tries to imply that it is not a company they work/volunteer for, but an ideal community Oh please!  Who has called it an "ideal community"?  Not me.
> I applaud your debate team coach, who has taught you well how to mix fact and fiction for the sake of winning an argument.   It's a flawed community, because the members include the usual array of humans, with all their better and lesser characteristics.   of people and so forth. Or when they work so hard to downplay the profit factor  Nobody has to downplay the profit factor.  It is present, and at some point it may become significant, as a consequence of bi-directional traffic flows between forums and reference works.   That's the commercial aspect of the forums.  There are many other obvious non-commercial aspects.  Why not try to see that there is a multi-facetted situation, and stop trying to reduce it to a simple formulaic view?  and how these forums might contribute to it.  Yes, let's be clear: these forums might contribute to a profit seeking enterprise.  I hope they do.  Then Mr. Kellogg will continue to be motivated, for that among other reasons, to pay the bills for forum software, for servers, and other forum expenses.


----------



## geve

Again, I fail to understand what you are trying to demonstrate.


			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> I just don't like the fact that WordReference is a downplaying its role as a for-profit business and is trying to pass as an ideal community of people.


Where have you seen that written? You posted a link to one of Mike's post where he seems to be pretty clear about that, really. Should there be an announcement on top of each page, saying "warning, this forum might be used by dictionary users who pay for the service"?

The 'business motives' give _the scope_ of this forum. It doesn't prevent some of us to enjoy it as a nice community of people, indeed.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

moodywop said:
			
		

> Marta, your argument that the "pimp" nickname was banned in order not to alienate clients does not hold. The fact that a post which offends gays was not censored shows that the mods acted in good faith, putting the ideal of free expression before their reservations about that post.


 
That questionable post against gays was in the *culture forum*.

If you for exmple look up an Italian word and you cannot find it in the dictionary, you are prompted to search the italian-English forum.

You are *never* prompted to search the culture forum, whose posts will never be shown as a result of such a search.

Therefore, it's highly unlikely that the corporate clients of WordReference will ever simply stumble into it. --- Which might incidentally be the reason why nobody cared about those offensive statements* for* _*a long time*_, until somebody pointed them out!


----------



## cuchuflete

Now you have pushed the debate techniques beyond distortion and into the realm of pure fabrication.   I don't know whether that's passion in front of logic, sloppy thinking, or if you have some other motive in mind.   (How's *that *for a touch of debate trickery?)



			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> I just don't like the fact that WordReference is a downplaying its role as a for-profit business   You just invented that so-called 'downplaying'.  You quoted Mike Kellogg's open statement that this is a business.  Is that downplaying its role as a business?   No, it is precisely the opposite of downplaying it.
> 
> My own remarks about how and why I act as a moderator  didn't downplay the business aspects.  I'm repeatedly agreed with you that they are fact.   I've also said numerous times that they are not my motivation.   You choose to misrepresent my remarks as downplaying the role of business in WR.  That's a falsehood you are pitching.  The dictionaries are commercial.  I said so in my first post.  The forums are free of advertising and commercial promotion, but are closely linked to the dictionaries.  That's not downplaying anything.  It's a statement of the facts as they exist.    and is trying to pass as an ideal community of people. Why do you persist in
> this nonsense?  Who has called the forums "an ideal community" other than you yourself?
> 
> I find it a major waste of time that all debates with the moderators are discussed in pseudo-legal and pseudo-philosophical terms  We are in full agreement.   The pseudo-legal and pseudo-philosophical discussions are a waste of time. instead of what they really are: In truth, small talk, vulgar nicknames, off-topic discussions, and so on undermine the functionality of the search feature of WordReference in the way I described in post #1 of this thread, which is the reason why these forums are moderated so heavy-handedly.  True, but it's not the whole story. These forums are part of a commercial product that generates profits and that has to work well in order to be sold. True again, but still not the entire truth.  Most of us come here for pleasure, amusement, learning and other silly little human motivations.  That doesn't
> eliminate the business side of things.  They travel in tandem.
> If we didn't maintain order, the business would suffer, and the pleasure and amusement and even the intellectual stimulation would be swamped in the kind of crap found on many other boards.  So, with the most selfish, but not commercial, motivations, we act as moderators.  We do it because we like to have this playground of the mind.
> 
> Why deny it with such a passion?  Nobody has denied it.  Why argue with such passion against what doesn't exist?


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> These forums are part of a commercial product that generates profits and that has to work well in order to be sold. True again


Ok, this is all I wanted to point out. You agree with me. Good.

Whether it is the whole truth or just a part of it, it still is the truth.

If you think about it, this is all I said in my first post. It is you who tried to dress it up and to throw in all the other motives. Whatever the other motives are, this one still stands.

The real business WordReference works with is integrating its search function with corporate web pages. I don't think this is clearly written anywhere in this website and I find it a rather revealing fact, thanks to which now I can skip all that pseudo-legal and pseudo-philosophical discussions about the mod's choices and policies. 

All in all, WRF is a good service and I really like it. I think you are a very good moderator too, as I already wrote. But not all your colleagues are as good, diplomatic and polite as you are, and some of them can be pretty harsh. I was never rebuked but once (for small talk), but I noticed it elsewhere and it made me wonder: "Why be so heavy-handed?"


----------



## cuchuflete

Yes, we have points of agreement, quite a few in fact.  That will not lead me to accept your mistaken slant on the totality of the situation, which oversimplifies, and obscures much of what is in play here.   At the risk of boring you, it is not as simple as you have presented it.



			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> Ok, this is all I wanted to point out. You agree with me. Good. When you offer facts, and interpretations I can comfortably accept as logical, it is a pleasure to state my agreement with you.
> 
> Whether it is the whole truth or just a part of it, it still is the truth. That's hard to argue.
> 
> If you think about it, this is all I said in my first post. It is you who tried to dress it up and to throw in all the other motives.  I didn't 'dress it up'.  I added a number of pertinent points that you had left out.    Whatever the other motives are, this one still stands. It does.
> 
> The real business WordReference works with is integrating its search function with corporate web pages. This is again a piece of the picture, but not all of it.  It would be a mistake to assume that corporate web pages are the primary target market.  The revenue stream of the dictionaries comes from viewers, whether corporate, or casual language learners, or students, or anyone else clicking on the sponsors' advertisements.   I've never seen a breakdown of the ads'  statistics, and have no idea what percentage of them come from corporate web page links.  I don't even know if that data exists.  Certainly corporate users are part of the served market.  Whether they represent a 'core' market segment is something I don't know.  I don't think this is clearly written anywhere in this website and I find it a rather revealing fact, thanks to which now I can skip all that pseudo-legal and pseudo-philosophical discussions about the mod's choices and policies. I would skip them on more elemental grounds: The forums would not be interesting or enjoyable (and of course the business would suffer) if we didn't maintain some sort of order here.  The business motive is obvious, but let's not overlook the others.
> 
> All in all, WRF is a good service and I really like it. I think you are a very good moderator too, as I already wrote. But not all your colleagues are as good, diplomatic and polite as you are, and some of them can be pretty harsh. I was never rebuked but once (for small talk), but I noticed it elsewhere and it made me wonder: "Why be so heavy-handed?"



Thanks for the kind words.  This may be the second time in my life I've been called diplomatic.  (My mother was so good at overlooking my flaws.....)  As a generality, most moderators begin, as I did, with excessive use of mod powers.  Over time, we learn to temper our 'constable' tendencies, and to do a lot of our work through PMs, out of the public eye.  That spares foreros in general from  distraction, and allows others to reach an accommodation without the embarassment of a public reprimand.  

As to the "Why be so heavy-handed?" part...sometimes I bump into a forero who, despite more than one polite and private request, insists on doing the same thing over and over again.  I wish it weren't so, but now and then I have a bad day, and show a little temper, and write a strong public comment.   As recently as yesterday, when I PMd a brand new member, asking them to delete a link from a signature,
not request translations in a monolingual forum, and take a minute to read the rules, I got a brusque reply calling me "rude".    It took my entire store of self-restraint not to be heavy-handed.


----------



## timpeac

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> But not all your colleagues are as good, diplomatic and polite as you are, and some of them can be pretty harsh. I was never rebuked but once (for small talk), but I noticed it elsewhere and it made me wonder: "Why be so heavy-handed?"


Ah ha! I've been reading this thread in utter perplexity as to what your point is, and now I think I see it. You think that you were harshly treated because the forums are over-moderated because Mr Kellogg wants a non-offensive product to increase revenue from the dictionaries.

Well that is just one big non-sequitur. I think that the dictionaries and the forums are in a symbiotic relationship with each other. Good dictionaries will contribute towards good forums and good forums will contribute to good dictionaries. We can speculate over Mike's motives til the cows come home, so I won't comment further on that. I can say, however, that Mike gives huge lee-way to the mod team to direct the forums, and that all of us moderate these forums to create the place of learning that we want to see. We are obviously not going to do something which will harm his business such as post links to rival dictionaries or post copywrited material he could be sued for - but for all intents and purposes we try to make this the best language forum possible - I'm sure that commercial aspects never cross my mind in that - unless you think we are being paid by Mike, why would moderators give up their free time to help Mike make money? I hope he does make money and at the same time we have this fantastic forum motivated soley by love of learning.


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> It took my entire store of self-restraint not to be heavy-handed.


Oh good... so now there's nothing left in your store of self-restraint for the rest of us!  

(you can delete this message if it helps!  )

Honestly, as a member I read enough 'delirious' posts and PMs to feel respectful and admiring of the moderators for whom it must be a gazillion times worse; even if I might sometimes feel that I would not have done it the same way. But someone has to take decisions.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hey Geve!

Would you like me to move your post to the French Sarcasm thread? 

I think I'll decide to be indecisive.  And you are welcome to have the moderator of your choice delete this off-topic post.


----------



## GenJen54

Forer@s who feel their posts are too often deleted are always welcome to contact the moderator who deleted it, or even another moderator, to discuss the issue. 

As for whether Word Reference is "free," perhaps there is a "cost" associated with being here.  But I have to wonder, is anything in life really "free?"


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

timpeac said:
			
		

> Ah ha! I've been reading this thread in utter perplexity as to what your point is, and now I think I see it. You think that you were harshly treated because the forums are over-moderated because Mr Kellogg wants a non-offensive product to increase revenue from the dictionaries.


 
This is how it went: For 300-odd posts and four months I was never rebuked or had any problems with the moderators. So I never worried about the nature of WordReference and so forth.

Lately, however, I read quite a lot complaints about the “heavy handedness" of some mods, which lead me to compare WRF with the other forums I usually read, and to ask myself "Is this forum more strictly moderated than others?" I concluded that, yes, in my opinion it is.

So I asked myself why this could be. I was in fact not satisfied with the answer "This is a private forum." They all are. So I found out about the fact the WR can be integrated in the web pages of paying corporations and everything became crystal clear. WR is a bit more moderated than other forums because it is part of a product that is being sold on the market.

No conspiration theories, nothing. Just an explanation, the answer I found to a question I had. So I decided to post it for the benefit of others who might have asked themselves the same thing.

I am sure moderators like doing what they do. I never, ever questioned that. But they have to moderate according to certain given rules. Some are standard for most forums, while others are unique to this specific one. They are however in WR's interest.

This interest is however not conflicting with the fact that this is a good and interesting forum. 

So, I hope I have not managed to offend anyone too much. 

Märta


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Forer@s who feel their posts are too often deleted are always welcome to contact the moderator who deleted it, or even another moderator, to discuss the issue.
> 
> As for whether Word Reference is "free," perhaps there is a "cost" associated with being here. But I have to wonder, is anything in life really "free?"


 
Yes, it is that simple. The fact it is not free is "obvious" and perfectly logical. In my 1st post, I just wanted to point out that it is not free _*because of the fact that*_ it can be integrated in the web page of paying corporations.


----------



## timpeac

Ah, ok. Don't you think this thread might have been a bit more interesting if it had been from the point of view of saying "I have the impression that this forum is more heavily modded than the average, and I'm interested in why. I wonder if it is the dual aspect that the business of the dictionary lends to it."? Then we could have seen a) if others agree it is more heavily modded (I agree) and b) what others think it might be due to. I think presenting your own conclusion and then working backwards was rather confusing. Well, in any case, I think you've seen that we don't agree with that conclusion. Actually, I wonder if such a topic has been discussed before - I'll have a search.


----------



## GenJen54

Alice in Wonderland said:
			
		

> Lately, however, I read quite a lot complaints about the “heavy handedness" of some mods, which lead me to compare WRF with the other forums I usually read, and to ask myself "Is this forum more strictly moderated than others?" I concluded that, yes, in my opinion it is.


 
You seem to mark this as a more recent trend.  I wonder if this "heavy-handedness" is at all connected to WR's recent decision to disallow homework in these forums, which has resulted in numerous deleted posts and closed threads by forer@s seeking others to complete their homework for them.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

timpeac said:
			
		

> Ah, ok. Don't you think this thread might have been a bit more interesting if it had been from the point of view of saying "I have the impression that this forum is more heavily modded than the average, and I'm interested in why. I wonder if it is the dual aspect that the business of the dictionary lends to it."? Then we could have seen a) if others agree it is more heavily modded (I agree) and b) what others think it might be due to. Well, in any case, I think you've seen that we don't agree with that conclusion. [...].


 
I thought that was precisely what I did: When you post your impressions / opinions etc. on a board, you are implicitly submitting them to the judgment of others. So, I thought that was precisely what I did. There must have been a misunderstanding.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> "I think presenting your own conclusion and then working backwards was rather confusing.


 
Sorry about that. I'll be careful to approach things differently, next time. I just chose to present my conclusions to the forum and see what they had to say. Next time I'll try a more direct approach. Hopefully it will work better.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> You seem to mark this as a more recent trend. I wonder if this "heavy-handedness" is at all connected to WR's recent decision to disallow homework in these forums, which has resulted in numerous deleted posts and closed threads by forer@s seeking others to complete their homework for them.


 
This is possible. Good point. I don't know if this is a more recent trend or if I just noticed it recently because lately I read more complaints. Either way, I didn't notice it at first.


----------



## Jana337

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> So I asked myself why this could be. I was in fact not satisfied with the answer "This is a private forum." They all are. So I found out about the fact the WR can be integrated in the web pages of paying corporations and everything became crystal clear. WR is a bit more moderated than other forums because it is part of a product that is being sold on the market.


 Please do not overrate the business aspect of it. We do not have a German and a Polish dictionary, but I am not more permissive in the German forum and in Slavic languages.

My main motivation isn't to help Mike earn money. He is a very nice guy, and I am very happy to see his business flourish, but that's it.

I simply want the forums to maintain a level of discussion that makes a regular participation valuable for people who would hardly be willing to wade through nonsense. I came here to learn. Later, when I was asked to become a moderator, I was given a possibility to directly influence who my teachers are - by actively discouraging behavior that would put off our top-notch foreros and attract some less serious folks.

I don't think I would behave differently in a forum not affiliated with dictionaries. I do not recognize myself in your interpretation of the role of moderators.

Jana


----------



## ElaineG

Just for the record, I participate in only two other forums regularly, and both are as strictly moderated as this one -- I personally can't stand the randomness of most Internet forums.  Both of those forums began as labors of love and recently have developed commercial aspects to attempt to defray the costs of running the forums (and maybe put some change in the owners' pockets as well).  I haven't seen any change in modding policy as a result of the commercial developments.

I am a pretty strict mod about chatspeak, topic, and the like because I am anal, and I hate mess, and I love order.  If that coincides with Mike's business purposes, that's beautiful synergy, I guess, but my attitude is all my own.  Mike has never addressed it one way or the other.  When I used to mod in another forum, that at the time had no business purpose, I was just as anal and finicky.  I am a lawyer after all.....

If you intend your theory as a meta-explanation, Marta, that is operating in the mods' unconsciousness, it could be right, I couldn't tell you what goes on in my own unconscious (obviously). 

But as a conscious explanation for my behavior, it just doesn't hold true for me.


----------



## fenixpollo

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> So why is he trying so hard to deny it through the assiduous and prolific production of these long PR posts?


 If you haven't figured out why yet, the reason is that you made all these claims and when he gave his measured response, you dismissed it and derided it. I don't blame cuchu for appearing irritated. I was also irritated as I slogged through your immature style of argument ("See, everybody? He admitted that I was right!") and I'm glad to see your more recent posts seem to have acknowledged the error of your ways.

This forum may have come into existence because of Mike Kellogg and whatever motives he may have had, but* I* am the reason that it continues to exist, not him.... along with the scores of others that participate with me, for whatever reason they do it. Props to Mike and all, but if there were no participants, there would be no forum (I speak from experience -- I've participated in forums that died for lack of interest).  

Yes, you are correct that there is a business dimension to all of this. There is also a business dimension to hermit crabs. But to demean the energy, work and passion of crabophiles by calling them mere capitalists is antagonistic and misses the point. Same thing at WR. This participant, for one, is not here for any business reasons.


----------



## Kelly B

> WR is a bit more moderated than other forums because it is part of a product that is being sold on the market.


 It's not offensive, no, just inaccurate, from my point of view.

 The moderating action I perform the most frequently is changing thread titles. Why? Because somebody might find this discussion useful again someday, and I want it to be easy to find. I post a lot of links to old discussions, and I can find them myself that way.
Doing this also enables the dictionary to link to the thread. Now, this is in the best interest of the business, but frankly, I don't care about that. I just think it's neat, because it makes the dictionary more useful to ME... and to you, another non-paying forum participant.

As for other types of moderating decisions which might seem burdensome: I'm just trying to keep WR an interesting and user-friendly place to be. Threads that wander all over the place are hard to follow. Threads with multiple questions are hard to find in a search. Threads with bad behavior drive people away. Threads with chatspeak are hard for non-native speakers to understand. Threads that do someone else's homework with no effort on his part are unethical.

These are not business-driven decisions.

The ONLY time that my moderating decisions are specifically related to the business interests of WR is with respect to copyright law. In another forum I enjoy (but do not moderate), the owner was threatened with legal action when a copyrighted text was illegally posted there. I sincerely do not want that to happen here.


----------



## cuchuflete

One more comment on the business web site ties:  Märta has more than once referred to them as "paying".  She has no way of knowing what the specific relations betwee WR and other web sites are, so I'll offer this clarification:

1. A business web site with links to WR* does not pay for that link.
*2. The business self-interest of WR in allowing and even encouraging such links works like this--  a. More links encourage more dictionary usage; b. More dictionary usage allows, but does not in any way require, users to see the ads on the dictionary pages; c. Some users click on those ads. d. WR is compensated when someone views a paid advertisement.

This is different from WR being directly paid by another corporate entity for the existence of a link. 

The net effect is a financial flow to WR, so Märta is correct in general principle, though the phrasing of her statements might lead to some misunderstandings.  

In the operation of the forums, the Culture forum in particular, we are not beholden to or subservient to corporations, whether or not they have links.  No moderator knows which corporations do or do not have such links, other than, possibly, by accidentally hearing about it from an employee of such a corporation.

Many of the threads I've participated in in that particular forum include some very nasty and ignorant remarks about businesses in general, and some named businesses in particular.   As mods, we leave those statements alone.  As a forero, I sometimes debate the facts, or lack of facts, informing the statements.  I do that because of a personal distaste for naïve mudslinging by people whose awareness of economics is slim to nil.  I don't give a flying fig what some linked company or advertiser may think.  I've roundly condemned a few companies myself.  For all I know, they may have links from their company web sites to these forums.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> 1. A business web site with links to WR* does not pay for that link.*
> 2. The business self-interest of WR in allowing and even encouraging such links works like this-- a. More links encourage more dictionary usage; b. More dictionary usage allows, but does not in any way require, users to see the ads on the dictionary pages; c. Some users click on those ads. d. WR is compensated when someone views a paid advertisement.
> 
> This is different from WR being directly paid by another corporate entity for the existence of a link.


 
However, you forgot to mention point e). More details here.

e. Companies that choose to insert the add-free integrated version of WordReference into their web pages, do pay for it!

Quote from the above mentioned article:

“For large, professional web sites unwilling to accept advertising, WordReference.com also offers a *fee-based* advertising-free service.”


----------



## cuchuflete

I don't know how many firms use that option, or whether it still exists (the article you cited was from January 24, 2000) and if it does, whether it represents a small or substantial portion of the revenues. I don't intend to ask Mike Kellogg. It's none of my business, and in any event it would not have any influence on the way I work as a moderator.


----------



## zebedee

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> However, you forgot to mention point e). More details here.
> 
> e. Companies that choose to insert the add-free integrated version of WordReference into their web pages, do pay for it!
> 
> Quote from the above mentioned article:
> 
> “For large, professional web sites unwilling to accept advertising, WordReference.com also offers a *fee-based* advertising-free service.”


But surely that's just an option for those people who don't want to read ads and are prepared to pay for the privilege, it's a system that exists on many websites and has nothing to do with the standard of modding on this website. The ad-free paying version is exactly the same forum with exactly the same level of modding as the free version with ads. 

I've been a mod since 2004. The article you quote is from 2000. If you have a look at a thread from 2004 you'll find it full of chat, off-topic comments and in-jokes - there were less than 100 members at that time. But all the things you think are purely business-related strategies: the guidelines, the WR Mission statement, the rules and all that actually date from 2005. They sprang up at a later date when the forums grew to such an extent that we mods got together to work out some kind of structure in order to help us maintain the learning atmosphere we'd all enjoyed until then. Not one of us thought of the 'business-related' aspect of the forum when we made these rules, we thought of how to preserve a space we had grown very fond of.

You joined the forums in Feb 2006 and you're second-guessing the origins and motivation behind it all from a very new perspective. And maybe you and my minds also work in very different ways, but I can assure you my rôle here is " por amor al arte" and always has been.


----------



## emma42

Zebedee's post #41 second paragraph is most informative and should elucidate matters re mods' motivations being dictated by Mr Kellogg's business interests.

Secondly, I would be* devastated *if these Fora were allowed to turn into chatrooms and I thank the mods from the bottom of my heart for their vigilance. This, from a forera who has been deleted for chatting on more than one occasion and for "personal attacks" (of which I am now deeply ashamed) and, once, for "flirting". And so I should have been. And I hope I have learnt from the experience. I am in no doubt that the motivations behind the deletions were driven by the desire to promote learning.

Thirdly, here is one simple proof that mods are not here to promote anyone's business interests: People are constantly quoting from and helpfully directing others to (inter alia) various dictionaries. Need I say more?

Fourthly, "part of the truth" is not "the truth" it is "part of the truth".


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

emma24 said:
			
		

> Secondly, I would be* devastated *if these Fora were allowed to turn into chatrooms and I thank the mods from the bottom of my heart for their vigilance.


 
What puzzles me is that my posts have been mistaken for a) an attacks against the moderators (who have never done anything wrong to me whatsoever, and who I normally like very much), or b) a call for some kind of anarchy, chattiness, the abolition of rules and other jacobin dreams (the very ones I had criticized in the first place).

I guess it is because I haveve posted it during these times of unrest (they have even closed the thread "on hate"). Wrong timing or whatever.




			
				emma42 said:
			
		

> Fourthly, "part of the truth" is not "the truth" it is "part of the truth".


 
But if it is the only part you were referring to in the first place, who cares about the others, which have nothing whatsoever to do with it?

All I said, in the first place, was that this site is a part of a business, which mods and users have to respect.

Then cuchuflete started implying that I had stated that he doesn't moderate for fun/pleasure/love of languages, but for other reasons, which only confused things, in my opinons.

He confused "Mod defend solely the inderests of WR" (which I had written) with "mod solely defend the interests of WR" (which I had never written.) 

It's like confusing the statement "you drink only soda dy Coca Cola" (as far as soda goes, you only drink Coke, but you might still drink water or fruit juice as well) with the statement "you only drink soda by Coca Cola (and you drink nothing else at all).

So I said, ok, whatever. There might be more truth to why you are a mod, I don't deny that (who am I to know anyone else's motivations?) But the fact remains (and he admitted it, too) that these forums are part of a marketable product in the way I repeated in my previous post.

So, there can be several sides to something, but this is the only one I had pointed out, and even cuchuflete admitted it's true. 

He also admitted that companies do pay for integrating the add-free version of WR in their websites, just like I pointed out. One mod even admits the fact that the relative heavy-handedness of the moderation here may be due to the dual nature of WR as both a free forum and a business.

So they agree with everything I _*actually said*_ in my post #1. Therefore, the part of the truth I had pointed out is still true. I hope I have clarified what I meant.

They only disagree with something _*they*_ brought up and which *I had never, ever stated*, that is that, in their individual moderating choices, mods follow precise, micromanaging corporate guidelines. I never said that.

Who am I to know what rationale mods follow when deleting a post or when when rebuking someone (except for the forum rules, which we all know). I would never presume to know that, so I never uttered myself in those regards.

I only said the following: Let's keep in mind (talking to those who advocate freedom of speech here) that this forum is also part of a product and cannot possibly hurt the business that sells it.

So forget the freedom of speech. There are rules (a) and this forum is a commercial product (b).


----------



## lizzeymac

Oh, please.

While I disagreed with your analysis as stated in post#1, I thought it was an interesting subject & a well written 
starting post so I read the thread.  

Twice.  

I still don't agree with your analysis but many interesting aspects of the issue were explored & all parties showed a clear committment to this forum.  However, now I don't understand your attitude.

You have used moderately accusatory language & come as near as dammit to calling moderators disingenuous.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if so many people seem to have taken your comments as "attacks" it is because that is how they "read."  

Don't backpedal from your original thoughts now - perhaps the best thing you had was a clearly expressed opinion in opposition to a trend in enforcement of community rules, and what appeared to be objectivity.  

What puzzles me is that my posts have been mistaken for a) an attacks against the moderators (who have never done anything wrong to me whatsoever, and who I normally like very much), or b) a call for some kind of anarchy, chattiness, the abolition of rules and other jacobin dreams (the very ones I had criticized in the first place).

I guess it is because I haveve posted it during these times of unrest (they have even closed the thread "on hate"). Wrong timing or whatever.​
No one called you are a skreeing, anarchistic jacobin - 
They just disagree with you.  





			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> What puzzles me is that my posts have been mistaken for a) an attacks against the moderators (who have never done anything wrong to me whatsoever, and who I normally like very much), or b) a call for some kind of anarchy, chattiness, the abolition of rules and other jacobin dreams (the very ones I had criticized in the first place).
> 
> I guess it is because I haveve posted it during these times of unrest (they have even closed the thread "on hate"). Wrong timing or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if it is the only part you were referring to in the first place, who cares about the others, which have nothing whatsoever to do with it?
> 
> All I said, in the first place, was that this site is a part of a business, which mods and users have to respect.
> 
> Then cuchuflete started implying that I had stated that he doesn't moderate for fun/pleasure/love of languages, but for other reasons, which only confused things, in my opinons.
> 
> He confused "Mod defend solely the inderests of WR" (which I had written) with "mod solely defend the interests of WR" (which I had never written.)
> 
> It's like confusing the statement "you drink only soda dy Coca Cola" (as far as soda goes, you only drink Coke, but you might still drink water or fruit juice as well) with the statement "you only drink soda by Coca Cola (and you drink nothing else at all).
> 
> So I said, ok, whatever. There might be more truth to why you are a mod, I don't deny that (who am I to know anyone else's motivations?) But the fact remains (and he admitted it, too) that these forums are part of a marketable product in the way I repeated in my previous post.
> 
> So, there can be several sides to something, but this is the only one I had pointed out, and even cuchuflete admitted it's true.
> 
> He also admitted that companies do pay for integrating the add-free version of WR in their websites, just like I pointed out. One mod even admits the fact that the relative heavy-handedness of the moderation here may be due to the dual nature of WR as both a free forum and a business.
> 
> So they agree with everything I _*actually said*_ in my post #1. Therefore, the part of the truth I had pointed out is still true. I hope I have clarified what I meant.
> 
> They only disagree with something _*they*_ brought up and which *I had never, ever stated*, that is that, in their individual moderating choices, mods follow precise, micromanaging corporate guidelines. I never said that.
> 
> Who am I to know what rationale mods follow when deleting a post or when when rebuking someone (except for the forum rules, which we all know). I would never presume to know that, so I never uttered myself in those regards.
> 
> I only said the following: Let's keep in mind (talking to those who advocate freedom of speech here) that this forum is also part of a product and cannot possibly hurt the business that sells it.
> 
> So forget the freedom of speech. There are rules (a) and this forum is a commercial product (b).


----------



## cuchuflete

Alice said:
			
		

> In my understanding, moderators act as our supervisors and are employed as volunteers by WR's management (i.e. Mr Kellogg). They defend solely his interests.


 Post #1



			
				Alice said:
			
		

> as a moderator (paid or unpaid, it doesn't matter) you _*are*_ serving the interests of WordReference, which is owned by this "man".


 Post #3



			
				Alice said:
			
		

> No, I said that you defend solely the interests of WordReference,


Post #9



			
				Alice said:
			
		

> the fact remains that, as a moderator, he is always bound to serve the interests of a for-profit company called WordReference and that some of his decisions as a moderator might be totally or partially dictated by such interests.


Post #15



			
				Alice said:
			
		

> "Mod defend solely the inderests of WR" (which I had written) with "mod solely defend the interests of WR" (which I had never written.)


Post #43

So, which one should we take seriously? They are not quite alike, and many of them are factually erroneous.

You have a most peculiar writing style. You tell me I didn't "deny" what I had just debunked and contested. When I make a flat statement of fact you say I have "admitted" something. This prosecutorial approach may be well suited to a television courtroom drama. In this setting it is needlessly
argumentative and, whether by intent or not, it is misleading.

Your statements all push the proposition that moderator actions are business-driven. Quite a few moderators have told you directly that this is not true. You persist in your assertions. You distort statements made by others...I have already pointed out numerous distortions, and won't waste your time or mine repeating what is plain to see in earlier posts. 

Here is a new distortion to be undone:



> He also admitted that companies do pay for integrating the add-free version of WR in their websites, just like I pointed out.


1. I did not "admit" anything of the sort.  I wrote, in Post #38, 





> 1. A business web site with links to WR* does not pay for that link.*


 You cited a press release from over six years ago, which stated that, at that time, there was an offer to provide links for a fee. I replied that I do not know if that offer still exists, or if firms have purchased such a service. That is totally different from "admitting" that such payment schemes are in effect. They may or may not be. You don't know whether or not any firm ever agreed to purchase such a service, yet you continue to write as if this were a certainty, and your words imply that such arrangements not only exist, but are material. Please provide proof of this, or stop harping on a speculative possibility.

2. "Just like I pointed out." You pointed out, by citation, that a commercial offer was available as of 24 January, 2000. You have jumped to the conclusion that it has been accepted. Please tell us how you managed to transit, with such assuredness, from the existence of an offer to the assumption that firms have taken advantage of it, and that this represents a material business circumstance. Your proclamations on this point may be correct, or totally wrong.
So far you have offered not a word to persuade anyone other than yourself that they are accurate.  

You also drew a number of personal inferences about how moderation is done in the Cultural Discussion forum. You presented these as fact. You quite simply have no way of knowing the circumstances of individual moderating decisions, but that hasn't prevented you from presenting yourself as an authority. 





			
				Alice said:
			
		

> Therefore, it's highly unlikely that the corporate clients of WordReference will ever simply stumble into it. --- Which might incidentally be the reason why nobody cared about those offensive statements* for* _*a long time*_, until somebody pointed them out! __________________



More bogus logic. Corporate clients, including paying ones which may or may not exist, have access to links from dictionaries to the forums. Once any corporate employee is in the forums, they can navigate freely to any part of WRF, including the Culture forum. You have made your assessment of likelihood, and with nothing to back up the assertion, you have declared it "highly unlikely" that someone entering the forums is going to have a look around.

You are welcome to your partial truths, to your flawed interpretations, to your misguided implications. You may jump to conclusions as much as you like. However, when you
contest statements of fact with unsubstantiated suppositions, and when you distort what others have written, and when you
use insulting characterizations, please be prepared for a dispute.  

I will continue to agree with you, in public, when you state the facts accurately. I will continue to point out errors in your interpretive assertions and judgments.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> You have used moderately accusatory language & come as near as dammit to calling moderators disengenuous.
> Perhaps, just perhaps, if so many people seem to have taken your comments as "attacks" it is because that is how they "read."


 
I regret that. I stated the same thing over and over. That is all I did. I still stand by it.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Don't backpedal from your original thoughts now - perhaps the best thing you had was a clearly expressed opinion in opposition to a trend in enforcement of community rules, and what appeared to be objectivity.


 

I am not backpedaling (ok, maybe toward the end I tried to be kinder and more reconciling as I was growing tired of this strenuous debate - I grant you that). However, I still stand 100% for what I wrote in my first post: In my opinion, these forums have to be as little offensive and controversiasl as possible because this is a commercial product. Moderators act accordingly.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> No one called you are a skreeing, anarchistic jacobin -
> They just disagree with you.


 
I was being slightly ironic.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> So, which one should we take seriously? They are not quite alike, and many of them are factually erroneous.


 
They all state that as a moderator you are bound not to harm and indeed to serve the interests of WR, and, in case of disputes, solely those, as opposed to those of the foreros.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Your statements all push the proposition that moderator actions are business-driven.


 
I said that they are bound to the enforcement of a set of rules set forth by a business. Even if some of these rules are standard for all forums, the business endorses them. Besides, such business has added more rules of its own to the standard ones.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Here is a new distortion to be undone:


 
And this is how corporate PR   bs is done:



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> 1. They may or may not be. So are they or not?
> 
> 2. You have jumped to the conclusion that it has been accepted. So has it or not?
> 
> 3. Your proclamations on this point may be correct, or totally wrong. So are they right or wrong?
> 
> 4. Corporate clients, including paying ones which may or may not exist, ... So do they or not?


 
Of course, I don't expect a direct reply. But this vagueness is remarkable, isn't it?


----------



## cuchuflete

Your style remains that of a television courtroom prosecutor, badly acted. I ask you questions, and you don't answer them. I ask you for proof to back up your assertions, and your provide none. That's not only lousy debating technique, it's shameful.

I will now answer your questions.




			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> They all state that as a moderator you are bound not to harm and indeed to serve the interests of WR, and, in case of disputes, solely those, as opposed to those of the foreros. What disputes? Five or six moderators have already told your deaf ears what specific interests they work to protect. Now you have backed off from
> serving the business interests of WR to serving the interest of WR. That's a step towards reality. It's also a very thin platitude. Any moderator in any forum works to serve the interests of the forum. So what precisely are you offering in the way of insight here?
> 
> In case of disputes between members of any forum and other members of the same forum, or in case of disputes between members and moderators, any moderator in any forum should try to protect the forum. For the overwhelming majority of members, there is a coincidence of self-interest between themselves and the forum, which obviously wouldn't exist without the members. Conversely, if the forum were harmed, the members wouldn't have it available or to their liking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is how corporate PR   bs is done:  No, this is how a squirrelly accusatory argument is conducted. This is a hatchet job. You are quick to call other people and their statements PR, and even PR bs. Yet you have 'admited' your own innacuracies, and nobody called you a bs merchant for the false statements. I asked you all of these questions and your reply is nothing but a hollow accusation. I have already answered these questions before, in previous posts you haven't seemed to notice, but I'll answer them again, and then wait for you to answer the many questions you have chosen to ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I don't expect a direct reply. What a strange expectation on your part. I've addressed all of your prior statements and questions. Why would you expect me to suddenly change character? I certainly expect you to remain true to form, and not answer the questions I've already asked you.  But this vagueness  I presume you are speaking of your own vagueness  is remarkable, isn't it?


Thanks for quoting these statements out of context.  I really shouldn't have expected otherwise.

They may or may not be. So are they or not? 
For the sake of any reader who wants to know the origin of the statement:  You cited a press release from over six years ago, which stated that, at that time, there was an offer to provide links for a fee. *I replied that I do not know if that offer still exists*, or if firms have purchased such a service. That is totally different from "admitting" that such payment schemes are in effect. They may or may not be. 
The answer was right there. I'll repeat it for you. I do not know if that offer still exists. I also do not know if any firm ever accepted the offer, or if such payment terms are in existence today. You, on the other hand, write as if you had all the answers. I grant the possibility and ask you for evidence of the validity of your assertion, and you *don't answer and conveniently change the subject to an attack.*
 
 2. You have jumped to the conclusion that it has been accepted. So has it or not?  Here is the statement in context, including the question you have ducked.

"Just like I pointed out." You pointed out, by citation, that a commercial offer was available as of 24 January, 2000. *You have jumped to the conclusion that it has been accepted.* Please tell us how you managed to transit, with such assuredness, from the existence of an offer to the assumption that firms have taken advantage of it, and that this represents a material business circumstance. *Your proclamations on this point may be correct, or totally wrong.*
 So far you have offered not a word to persuade anyone other than yourself that they are accurate.  
My answers to the previous question all apply here as well. Just to be sure you have a thorough reply, however, I'll give you the detail yet again. Until I read the link you posted to a January 2000 press release, I was unaware of even the possibility of a paid linking arrangement to the dictionaries.
Obviously, if I didn't know of such a thing, I'm in no position to tell you whether the deal on offer some six and a half years ago was ever accepted. You, on the other hand, have presumed that it was, but you are being extremely secretive about letting anyone know how or why you believe this to be true. I'm honest enough to tell you directly that I don't know.
Are you honest enough to tell us anything, other than that the offer was around in 2000?
 
 3. Your proclamations on this point may be correct, or totally wrong. So are they right or wrong?  Again, I don't claim to know, so I give you the courtesy of allowing for the possibility, and again offer you the chance to give evidence that your proclamations are correct. You have missed previous opportunites to do so, but the thread remains open. 

 4. Corporate clients, including paying ones which may or may not exist, ... So do they or not?  Corporate clients, including paying ones which may or may not exist, have access to links from dictionaries to the forums.  

Just read the answers above. Again I give you the courtesy of allowing for the possibility that your interpretations may have some basis in fact, because I really had no awareness of the offer until today. You are welcome to continue to keep your information, if in fact you have any, private, or publish it to establish the facts.

Here is yet another question for you to answer or to avoid:

If, as you have claimed repeatedly, moderators act to protect the business interests of the forums, then why do you suppose moderators are not aware of the details of the business they are supposed to have an interest in protecting?
Five or six moderators have told you directly that they are not business-driven in their forum decision making. You have made some self-contradictory statements about this.

If we don't know if there are paying corporate clients, and if there are, how many they might be, or what their identities are, how might we be presumed to act in defense of such business relationships? The answer is clear. We act in the interests of maintaining and building the forums as a place we like to participate in as foreros. If that's good for the business side of the house, we are happy for the owner, who has earned our respect. But we don't know if our actions as moderators please or offend any one or more clients. We do know if they please or displease other foreros, who are not at all shy about stating their opinions. 

Some state opinions only.  Some also offer facts in support of those opinions.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Your style remains that of a television courtroom prosecutor, Some state opinions only. Some also offer facts in support of those opinions.


 
Don't worry, I was expecting this kind of long, *pseudo-legal* reply. You can hide behind that, if you want to.

Or... WR could be ethical and open enough to provide us (the users) with these answers (to the pink questions in my previous post) and with this crucial information without turning it precisely into the courtroom farce you mentioned. "Do you have any evidence?" is precisely the legalistic attitude you criticize. If this company was an ounce ethical, it would answer frankly and openly to those questions in public.

The fact that you or who you moderate for decline to do so and that WR refuses to give me public, clear-cut answers is, in my eyes, extremely arrogant and especially unethical.

I don't expect an answer, however, except perhaps some more legalistic jargon. I set forth a hypothetical explanation and your answer is "It may or it may not be so."

Very explanatory, thanks a lot!


----------



## danielfranco

When I read the first post of this thread I thought to myself, "Well, that's kind of true, *also*".
But as Cuchuflete's many replies have helped to clarify, that's not the whole story...
Now, I'm just going to comment on the title of the thread. Yes, we contribute to a business. Right, nothing is free in life.
What then, is this forum moderated heavy-handedly (if such a word exists)?
Yes, maybe, but I don't mind.
And that really is all that matters in my relationship with the WRF. Once upon a time, I wasn't helpful to the mods in their endeavors because I'm a cheeky bastard, but I like the forums enough to get over myself and get on with the program and follow most of the rules, mostly. If someone makes a fast buck out of my involvement here, well, good for them and well done. I wish I did stuff that was interesting to a whole bunch of people all over the world and made me money, too!

But I don't...


----------



## cuchuflete

For some strange reason you act as if you own the rights to the private business information of these forums. I don't have it to give to you or withhold from you. 

Rest assured, if I had it, I wouldn't share it with anyone but the owner. That's obviously troubling to you. That's entirely your problem. 

I've answered all of your questions.  You have descended to hurling invective because you don't seem to like the answers.
As to ethics, you have made sweeping assertions with nothing to back them up. That's unethical. You have made personal insults about other members' statements. That's not very nice behaviour. 

This company has reason to put it's business information in your hands? Other than appeasing your passionate claims that you want it, I see none. You appear quite frustrated by that. Your problem entirely. It would be extremely imprudent for any well-run organization, public or private, to offer such information to a total stranger, with whom the enterprise has no business relationship. In terms of the business, you are a total stranger.




			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> Don't worry, I was expecting this kind of long, *pseudo-legal* reply. You can hide behind that, if you want to.
> 
> Or... WR could be ethical and open enough to provide us (the users) with these answers (to the pink questions in my previous post) and with this crucial information without turning it precisely into the courtroom farce you mentioned. "Do you have any evidence?" is precisely the legalistic attitude you criticize. If this company was an ounce ethical, it would answer frankly and openly to those questions in public.
> 
> The fact that you or who you moderate for declines to do so and that WR refuses to give me public, clear-cut answers is, in my eyes, extremely arrogant and especially unethical.
> 
> I don't expect an answer, however, except perhaps some more legalistic jargon. I set forth a hypothetical explanation and your answer is "It may or it may not be so."
> 
> Very explanatory, thanks a lot!


----------



## elroy

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry - whether to laugh at the utter absurdity of your nonsensical claims, or whether to cry at having been personally affronted with presumptuous and audacious accusations that have absolutely no basis in fact.

Yes, there is a business aspect to WRF, and yes, we are relatively strict disciplinarians, but *there is no connection whatsoever between the two*. Your claim to the contrary constitutes the crux of your argument, but it is also nothing but a figment of your imagination.

You yourself said that you were intrigued by the fact that WRF is more strictly moderated than the average forum, and that you *sought* to find an explanation. You happened to stumble upon a piece of information and - lo and behold! - all of a sudden you came to a conclusion of which you were so sure that you promptly and blithely opened an elaborate thread declaring that conclusion as unquestioned truth.

Sorry to break it to you, but you're wrong. How I moderate has *nothing* - I repeat, *nothing* - to do with the business aspect of WRF. Let me put it another way: If WRF were not a business, I would not change my moderating style *one bit*. Here's another variation: The rules were created by the moderators to reflect the forum spirit that already existed - not the other way around, i.e. the moderators did and do not base our decisions on a set of preexisting rules that we "have to" abide by. I am so certain of the total lack of truth and logic in your claims, and the completely opposite nature of our motivations as moderators, that I know that I speak for all of my colleagues when I state that *none* of us fits the description you have painted. 

And don't you dare insult me even further by claiming that this was PR.


----------



## heidita

Well, a little late on the page, but the first thing I want to state is my absolute state of shock at learning that moderators aren't paid! I presumed they did get paid for their dedication and also because they were named by the owner of the web. 

Though I agree with the fact that the web is a business, I now might look at the moderators in a different way. All the free dedication and time spent, all the moral obligation to be here "all the time"... Well, this doesn't mean I agree with some moderators' way of moderating. I do see some mods very heavy handed and very narrow-minded, which is their perfect right, but as a teacher (I myself am ) one shouldn't impose one's way of thinking upon others. I have seen that some moderators, for example, do not like to be corrected ( in posts) which I find confusing, as we are all here to learn and help. 

I also agree with Märta, that some mods are more open-minded than others, but if the rules were actually made by them there had to be some kind of agreement among them. Just one thing that has always bothered me: is a thread closed by agreement among the mods, or is a single moderator free to do as she/he wishes? This is one of the things I find especially unfair.


----------



## geve

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> Don't worry, I was expecting this kind of long, *pseudo-legal* reply. You can hide behind that, if you want to.


So when people take the time to adress each of your comments, they're being pseudo-legal?

Now I don't want this to sound offensive, Märta, but we haven't met anywhere else on this forum so I have no way to know: is there any chance that the reason you are being so harsh, is that you don't exactly realize how the words you use in English can sound?
I'd like to think so.

And I can't help thinking that you must have something else on your mind, that you haven't shared with us so far. Otherwise why being so polemical?


I'll be happy to talk about the mods' work, but certainly not in a thread bearing this title.


----------



## belén

This thread is deviating, if you want to discuss mod actions there are other threads available to do that. 

Different moderators and foreros have answered all of Märta's enquiries. She seems not to be satisfyed by them, but I frankly don't think we can add any additional information on this subject. 

Therefore, this thread will be closed right now.

Thanks,

Belén


----------

