The Observation Deck

Which troll? Brian sure seems to egg people on and then demand a higher level response to his questions than he is willing to provide to others.

In regards to the other post "How many people actually look at the DECK?" I am thinking it will be less and less unique visitors the more cat fighting going on that invades every post.

Ryan Salo wrote:Which troll? Brian sure seems to egg people on and then demand a higher level response to his questions than he is willing to provide to others.

In regards to the other post "How many people actually look at the DECK?" I am thinking it will be less and less unique visitors the more cat fighting going on that invades every post.

Jeff Dreger wrote:

Ryan Salo wrote:Which troll? Brian sure seems to egg people on and then demand a higher level response to his questions than he is willing to provide to others.

In regards to the other post "How many people actually look at the DECK?" I am thinking it will be less and less unique visitors the more cat fighting going on that invades every post.

Jeff

It pains me to admit, there could be a time to limit participation and comments on the Deck. Dan Alaimo, Meg Ostrowski and others are looking at how to control conversations, stop trolling and what are often seen as personal attacks on the Deck, in an effort to make it more "family friendly." They have as much latitude as they need to develop, and look at ideas. Dan has been active recently in questioning posts and comments, and was the leading influence in ending the "faux name poster" that was also set to destroy the Deck last year.

If you have ideas, please share them here. Be warned, they will be met with resistance and skepticism if they included editing, or controlling conversations. We realized early on the restriction of the ability to share ideas, comments and opinions, works against the vetting of ideas and "facts" that were the lifeblood of this project since day one.

And now here is the big problem, everyone on the Deck has brought gold to the party, if only by mistake. Do we want to limit the chances of finding that because of people never realizing, the project is based on always having enough rope for someone to hang themselves, as often as needed?

As people get more and more comfortable on the Deck, the charade washes away, and their souls and thought process/projections of the people are left to be observed.

I remember when everyone assured me, "The Deck needs to be more like Facebook, it is so positive and upbeat" well those days are no longer, social media, especially those allowing fake names have become cesspools of hate, misinformation, and much skullduggery.

I wish the Deck was my idea, it was a team of people working together then knew full well how people, and adults act.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:It pains me to admit, there could be a time to limit participation and comments on the Deck.

a safe space. adults need a safe space. good grief.

kate e parker wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:It pains me to admit, there could be a time to limit participation and comments on the Deck.

good work, rossen, now look what you've done.

kate e parker wrote:

kate e parker wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:It pains me to admit, there could be a time to limit participation and comments on the Deck.

good work, rossen, now look what you've done.

I need a mute button for my keyboard!

Wait, was it me? Oh yes, it must've been me, all cracks in the sidewalk are from my footsteps.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Jeff Dreger wrote:

Ryan Salo wrote:Which troll? Brian sure seems to egg people on and then demand a higher level response to his questions than he is willing to provide to others.

In regards to the other post "How many people actually look at the DECK?" I am thinking it will be less and less unique visitors the more cat fighting going on that invades every post.

Jeff

It pains me to admit, there could be a time to limit participation and comments on the Deck. Dan Alaimo, Meg Ostrowski and others are looking at how to control conversations, stop trolling and what are often seen as personal attacks on the Deck, in an effort to make it more "family friendly." They have as much latitude as they need to develop, and look at ideas. Dan has been active recently in questioning posts and comments, and was the leading influence in ending the "faux name poster" that was also set to destroy the Deck last year.

If you have ideas, please share them here. Be warned, they will be met with resistance and skepticism if they included editing, or controlling conversations. We realized early on the restriction of the ability to share ideas, comments and opinions, works against the vetting of ideas and "facts" that were the lifeblood of this project since day one.

And now here is the big problem, everyone on the Deck has brought gold to the party, if only by mistake. Do we want to limit the chances of finding that because of people never realizing, the project is based on always having enough rope for someone to hang themselves, as often as needed?

As people get more and more comfortable on the Deck, the charade washes away, and their souls and thought process/projections of the people are left to be observed.

I remember when everyone assured me, "The Deck needs to be more like Facebook, it is so positive and upbeat" well those days are no longer, social media, especially those allowing fake names have become cesspools of hate, misinformation, and much skullduggery.

I wish the Deck was my idea, it was a team of people working together then knew full well how people, and adults act.

.

I can't speak for Jim's Facebook, or any of yours but if you want positive, upbeat stuff about Lakewood with nice photos, feel free to check out my "Faces of Lakewood" page. Jim and I have always disagreed about popular social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram et al since I come from NYC where social media is integral for photojournalists to get their news and photos out.

kate e parker wrote:

kate e parker wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:It pains me to admit, there could be a time to limit participation and comments on the Deck.

good work, rossen, now look what you've done.

Kate E Parker

Not on Corey. I would say more on the collective of people that want back in.

As I have mentioned we are working to change the format of the paper, and find volunteers looking to keep the Deck going.
As we had the latitude to set up as we wished to, a certain amount of latitude should be given to them.

I have heard rumblings from limiting number of posts a day, to having everyone re-register so they can verify, and re-establish the rules of the Deck, which do exist.

Again, suggestions re appreciated.

.

Ryan Salo wrote:Which troll? Brian sure seems to egg people on and then demand a higher level response to his questions than he is willing to provide to others.

In regards to the other post "How many people actually look at the DECK?" I am thinking it will be less and less unique visitors the more cat fighting going on that invades every post.

Thank you Ryan.

So you would agree that one of my hypothesis has been proven:

If a poster like me pursues and acts like Corey, the poster will be perceived as a troll and it is "bad" for the Deck.

This also proves that Corey's longstanding behavior has the effect of being "bad" for the Deck.

One could also conclude that Corey's purpose in behaving badly is to cause damage to the Deck.

My posts in the past week prove that the more one engages with Corey, the more posts he makes--indeed he outpaced my posting.

Conversely, if you ignore Corey, he still invades nearly every post, adds no content and usually tries to change its subject claiming all the while claiming he has no agenda.

Also, it is interesting that there is a perception that I refused to answer questions---a perception created by Corey repeatedly asking the same questions about the mere filing of articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State. In fact, I have answered all there is to know about that recent filing---more than Summers has about something he has been working on for several years. So a lie repeated over and over creates a false "reality"---nothing new there.

kate e parker wrote:

kate e parker wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:It pains me to admit, there could be a time to limit participation and comments on the Deck.

good work, rossen, now look what you've done.

If naming rights go up for bid I want first say. Or maybe they will just name it after me. The possibilities are endless.

Brian Essi wrote:

Ryan Salo wrote:Which troll? Brian sure seems to egg people on and then demand a higher level response to his questions than he is willing to provide to others.

In regards to the other post "How many people actually look at the DECK?" I am thinking it will be less and less unique visitors the more cat fighting going on that invades every post.

Thank you Ryan.

So you would agree that one of my hypothesis has been proven:

If a poster like me pursues and acts like Corey, the poster will be perceived as a troll and it is "bad" for the Deck.

This also proves that Corey's longstanding behavior has the effect of being "bad" for the Deck.

One could also conclude that Corey's purpose in behaving badly is to cause damage to the Deck.

My posts in the past week prove that the more one engages with Corey, the more posts he makes--indeed he outpaced my posting.

Conversely, if you ignore Corey, he still invades nearly every post, adds no content and usually tries to change its subject claiming all the while claiming he has no agenda.

Also, it is interesting that there is a perception that I refused to answer questions---a perception created by Corey repeatedly asking the same questions about the mere filing of articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State. In fact, I have answered all there is to know about that recent filing---more than Summers has about something he has been working on for several years. So a lie repeated over and over creates a false "reality"---nothing new there.

It's getting deep in here, good thing I brought my boots!

By the power vested in me by JOB, I decree the following solution to the Essi-Rossen "debate."

In the spirit of "Hamilton":
- Solstice Steps.
- Dawn.
- Spitballs.

The winner will be declared right in whatever the hell it is they are squabbling over. The loser picks up the spitballs.

Dan Alaimo wrote:By the power vested in me by JOB, I decree the following solution to the Essi-Rossen "debate."

In the spirit of "Hamilton":
- Solstice Steps.
- Dawn.
- Spitballs.

The winner will be declared right in whatever the hell it is they are squabbling over. The loser picks up the spitballs.

you will probably have to pick a different spot as the minions aren't overly fond of the steps. too painful of a reminder I guess

Dan Alaimo wrote:By the power vested in me by JOB, I decree the following solution to the Essi-Rossen "debate."

In the spirit of "Hamilton":
- Solstice Steps.
- Dawn.
- Spitballs.

The winner will be declared right in whatever the hell it is they are squabbling over. The loser picks up the spitballs.

Not a fair contest for Brian Essi. Essi is too one dimensional. He would first have to research what a spitball is and how one spits it. Then asked if he would like to go first or second he would not have an answer. The actual contest itself would not happen, the pressure of the question would be too much.

Victory Corey, now someone please wake up Stan and tell him there is a parade about to happen.

Dan Alaimo wrote:By the power vested in me by JOB, I decree the following solution to the Essi-Rossen "debate."

In the spirit of "Hamilton":
- Solstice Steps.
- Dawn.
- Spitballs.

The winner will be declared right in whatever the hell it is they are squabbling over. The loser picks up the spitballs.

I've already won. Corey just hasn't figured it out yet.