db wrote on Oct 21^st, 2013 at 6:36am:

Personally, I'd love to hear which QJ reputation this post highlighted for you since I read it again and think I already know the probable who/whats and would love to trade whys. Feel free to PM me or post publicly. Your call but I'd like to understand your POS as a relative newcomer a bit better. Perhaps I can give you my take on it and we can both learn something useful to everyone in the process.

db,

I'm sure the Moderator group would be interested in what you might learn, too.  Speaking as someone who has 34+ years of professional human resources experience behind him, I'd be very interested in learning more about the "reputations" earned by the vagaries & vicissitudes of our QJ membership.  If we have significantly deviated from some theoretical "norm" in some meaningful way (good or bad), I suppose the Mod team needs to share some "credit."

People walk away/disconnect/resign from websites for any number of reasons.  Often they simply can't deal with the diversity of perspectives, tones, & attitudes they encounter.  We certainly see all types on QJ!  Some of the disaffected become bitter about it and snipe away at the website (or some of its members) elsewhere in cyberspace.  It's their prerogative to do so, I suppose.  They can frame their story afresh and minus any contention OR they can simply hook up with other disaffected & commiserate.

I, for one, am glad we have a Moderator board to review &, possibly, deal with "extreme" behaviors.  Perhaps it should be more active; perhaps less active.  The only way we know the answer to that question is to hear from members, whether it be complaints or plaudits.  That includes the earning of "reputations" that members prefer we NOT have and wish to have addressed.

As for me, I'm going to keep plugging QJ (in articles I contribute to magazines, other forums, talking to other paddlers & such).  I am very much OK with having my name associated with it... regardless of whatever notoriety/reputation we may have earned along the way.  I am very happy with the preponderance of activity I see on this website.  That's not to say that we don't need to change things every once in awhile; I'm sure we do.

I guess I'm saying that - if we have a "reputation" - it must because the members want it that way.  Otherwise, I trust, we would be hearing more about making changes, interventions, etc..  Geez, from my POS ("point of skew", for the db & QJ uninitiated), when I listen to members about issues, about all I'm hearing is... crickets. 

In the QJ bygone days of yore, Mod interventions were more frequent (& necessary) due to gunfights & inappropriate content blooming here & there.  Lots of member complaints & issues came up... that's how you sort yourself out & decide what you're going to be when you mature, I guess.  And now we are what we are... for better or for worse. 

May we're too "tolerant" now?  I don't know.  Comparatively speaking, however, our current era of MT & PJ "sparring sessions" seems to me more like our halcyon years!

In summary, anything we might learn or do to improve the website, I'm all for it; always have been.  My guess is the other Mods feel pretty much the same way.  If folks have something to say, we'll listen & address it.

Jimbo   8-)