A valid point by Dragon, I think

[Gotcha6]

Dragon started this post this AM:
http://www.ncwoodworker.net/forums/f105/disturbing-ad-site-33302/

I attempted to explain where the ads originated but may not have been effective. His argument bears discussing in light of the controversies of shop safety we've seen here.

 

[ptt49er]

It needs to go, there's no reason to have an ad for lawyers on this site. Especially when they are advertising over such a flammable topic.

 

[Ray Martin]

It does look like Dragon has a point. The ad makes me suspect this firm is the kind of mass tort instigators that drive organizations out of business and raise the prices of everything. In all too many of these suits, the only winners are the lawyers.

I do think there is a place for litigators; there are bad people / organizations in the world and many of them respond to nothing but getting hit in the wallet. There are however, as Dragon pointed out, ambulance-chasers who walk around looking for a fight. There are some in any profession that seem to drag down the reputation of the entire profession.

We don't allow lawyer-bashing or controversial lawsuit discussions (arguments really) so I can see his point in asking why there are ad from litigation firms on our board.

Has anyone read John Grisham's King of Torts?

 

[froglips]

On the surface, I agree that the ad is in poor taste given our history with the topic.

Under the policy section on "controversial topics", I could see blocking that ad.

I'd also urge consideration of moderating that thread.

Dragon is doing his same old same old with his comments. "interests of the vultures and ambulance chasers" and calling us hypocritical for running the ad.

He, in essence, used this ad as an excuse to stir up what he knows to be trouble making topics with many of the triggers that get it moderated.

Ken's follow up post was also a shot across the Moderators bow.

Jim

 

[Gotcha6]

Insofar as moderation is concerned, I feel we, as Mods have the duty to monitor Dragon's thread and thank him for bringing it to the attention of the staff. But it may also be prudent to edit the original post to neutralize any flame bait. We do not, as I see it, set ad policies and such, so I feel the issue of the ad itself should be addressed by the BoD & Admins.
I'll be out of pocket the entire week going on a road trip to MO with my dad. :icon_cheers But I do want to monitor what happens with this. I'll have my 'berry.

 

[toolman]

Yeah, I'm an early riser most of the time. While reading the posts this morning I saw an ad at the top of the home page and clicked the link; http://www.zimmreed.com/Table-Saw-I...ign=TableSaw&gclid=CKWQt7Lk9KICFRY75QodOCytig

Now, I understand the site makes money off advertisements and these funds are needed to keep the site running. My complaint is do we really want to further the interests of the vultures and ambulance chasers? If you play with sharp objects, sooner or later you're gonna get cut. Not trying to ignite a brush fire here just voicing an opinion. I recall all the negative comments in the Saw Stop thread not too long ago and it just strikes me as hypocritical to run an ad in favor of suing our tool mfg's.

What I find offensive is the OP. Since when is it acceptable to refer to personal injury attorneys as vultures and ambulance chasers?. What profession are we going to malign next? ...short sticking grease monkeys? pill pushing quack docs?

Once again, I see this as thinly veiled attempt to push one's opinion on others. There are 4500 members. A handful of members elected to comment on the Saw stop posts. That hardly represents an overwhelming majority to rule against an ad.

No, I don't agree with the OPs opinion nor do I think its hypocritical to air their ad. If a personal injury case causes Saw Manufacturers to take a closer look at saw safety I think that's what we should be about.

Stephen

Moderators I believe this thread has went down hill!

Prohibited Subjects

• Expressions of bigotry and intolerance, including negative comments or direct attacks based on race, religion, sex, or sexual preference.
• "Code words", phrases, or other content that attempt to disguise expressions of bigotry and intolerance
• Personal attacks by name or implication
• Harsh or offensive comments
• Argumentative behavior
• Profane, Vulgar, or Obscene Language or any representation of such language.
• Political content.
• Religious content.
• Controversial topics of any form except, of course, woodworking.
• Sexual content or innuendo, no matter how mild
• Illegal activities of any sort
• Posted links to prohibited material.

If I am wrong please let me know..

 

[Bas]

Moderators I believe this thread has went down hill!

Agreed. The thread needs to be moderated and/ or closed. In fact, any mention about ambulance chasers, vultures etc. should have been edited from the start.

Even though anyone is welcome to express concerns about an advertisement, the manner in which Dragon decided to do it was provocative and unnecessary. A simple PM would have done it. In my opinion, he took this as a way to "get even" and gloat.

 

[SteveColes]

I moderated, edit and deleted posts. I also sent a separate PM to Ken Massingale to let him know that his warning about the thread disappearing is not appreciated or necessary.

Ken I agree that Dragon has raised a valid issue and deserves to get an answer. However, when you pop in to make a comment like that it appears to you are trying to start an issue that has nothing to do with this thread.

So don't be surprised if one of the moderators, or myself, delete your post.

In closing the thread, I asked that in the future we be PM'd for these type of issues.

 

[SteveColes]

I would like to get some feedback on my moderation of that thread. This is a classic issue of the type that we need to address and pretty much agree on how to handle. This is the way I personally think it should be handled once it had gone as far as it did, BUT if everyone thinks I went too far or not far enough or misused procedure, then we need to discuss the whys and wherefores of this case. In fact, even if everyone agrees with me:rotflm::no:, we need to at least ask, why it hadn't already happened and what do we need to clarify or change so it would have happened earlier.

 

[b4man]

When I read Dragon's post I was more offended by his questioning the ad more than even his remarks.
Sorry, it's not a perfect world. Not here, not anywhere. The ad's are an necessary evil. They are just ADVERTISING, not scripture, not rules not even true. But, they help pay the bills. There is no requirement by any member to click on them.

I am not a proponent of censoring ad's by opinion. The Sawstop debacle is valid to woodworkers. Whether or not we agree with the essence of the legal system it shouldn't result in censorship. What should be insisted upon is civility.

Steve, your remark to Ken was abrupt and made personal in my opinion. :eusa_naug

Lately I've been chastising myself for the lack of proactivity instead of reactivity. Maybe we all need to hone our proactive side and leave the reacting to the members.

Barbara

 

[SteveColes]

When I read Dragon's post I was more offended by his questioning the ad more than even his remarks.
Sorry, it's not a perfect world. Not here, not anywhere. The ad's are an necessary evil. They are just ADVERTISING, not scripture, not rules not even true. But, they help pay the bills. There is no requirement by any member to click on them.

I am not a proponent of censoring ad's by opinion. The Sawstop debacle is valid to woodworkers. Whether or not we agree with the essence of the legal system it shouldn't result in censorship. What should be insisted upon is civility.

Steve, your remark to Ken was abrupt and made personal in my opinion. :eusa_naug

Lately I've been chastising myself for the lack of proactivity instead of reactivity. Maybe we all need to hone our proactive side and leave the reacting to the members.

Barbara

I didn't mean it to be abrupt nor any more personel than if we edit someone's remark.:icon_scraHow could I have said it better

 

[b4man]

However, when you pop in to make a comment like that it appears to you are trying to start an issue that has nothing to do with this thread.

I know you didn't mean to sound abrupt. I bet most other admin's/mod's do too. However, when you said to Ken "when you pop in to make a comment like that" it sounds personal, not professional.

Then there is the part "it appears to you are trying to start an issue that has nothing to do with this thread." Well, it's accusatory and not likely to get a good result:slap:

I remember when I first joined the Mod staff you said that 'smilies' go a long way in capturing the tone of our voice and we all should be cautious of possible misunderstanding. I'm not saying your post was misunderstood It wasn't! It just wasn't appropriate coming from our esteemed founder and leader:wink_smil!

I would have said;

Ken, In the spirit of keeping threads on topic and without undertones of
sarcasm or criticism for any profession as our policy dictates, I have edited/deleted your remarks.

How's that?


Barbara

 

[SteveColes]

I know you didn't mean to sound abrupt. I bet most other admin's/mod's do too. However, when you said to Ken "when you pop in to make a comment like that" it sounds personal, not professional.

Then there is the part "it appears to you are trying to start an issue that has nothing to do with this thread." Well, it's accusatory and not likely to get a good result:slap:

I remember when I first joined the Mod staff you said that 'smilies' go a long way in capturing the tone of our voice and we all should be cautious of possible misunderstanding. I'm not saying your post was misunderstood It wasn't! It just wasn't appropriate coming from our esteemed founder and leader:wink_smil!

I would have said;

Ken, In the spirit of keeping threads on topic and without undertones of
sarcasm or criticism for any profession as our policy dictates, I have edited/deleted your remarks.

How's that?


Barbara

That's great! much better. The only thing missing is that somehow we need to get the point his post was deleted for baiting the moderators. I was trying get there in a semi-nice way.:embaresse

 

[b4man]

I think the best way to get across to a suspect flame baiter is to call them on it without accusing them of it.
" I felt your post was leading in the direction of baiting our staff" " If I misunderstood, I apologize and welcome your comments for discussion."


Something along these lines.

 

[SteveColes]

I think the best way to get across to a suspect flame baiter is to call them on it without accusing them of it.
" I felt your post was leading in the direction of baiting our staff" " If I misunderstood, I apologize and welcome your comments for discussion."


Something along these lines.

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

 

[Bas]

I didn't mean it to be abrupt nor any more personel than if we edit someone's remark.:icon_scraHow could I have said it better

Barbara pretty much nailed it. Whenever I have to criticize someone, I try to write "I" sentences, e.g. "I felt you were getting personal in your comments" as oppposed to "You were getting personal in your comments". "I thought your comment about fresh tomatoes was taking the thread off topic" as opposed to "You were taking the thread off topic with your comment about fresh tomatoes".

Group therapy 101

 

[TracyP]

Barbara pretty much nailed it. Whenever I have to criticize someone, I try to write "I" sentences, e.g. "I felt you were getting personal in your comments" as oppposed to "You were getting personal in your comments". "I thought your comment about fresh tomatoes was taking the thread off topic" as opposed to "You were taking the thread off topic with your comment about fresh tomatoes".

Group therapy 101

Good analogy, but there comes a time when I "needs" to become you. We as a group need to hone in on that time. Some folks will take the "I" to the edge of the cliff just to see who will jump first.