ERE.net is home to a large professional community - today there are
over 50,000 members of the ERE Network, and they come to the site for
the amazing professional education and networking opportunities that
the community and ERE staff have developed over the years.
Too
often, what they find are personal disputes and squabbles, and it is
usually a small group of people at the center. These beefs take up
huge amounts of time and energy for those involved, and sometimes the
personal history and recriminations go back for years.
The
arguments between our members are none of my business, as long as they
take place in private or on other web sites. They become my business
when those personal arguments disrupt the conversations and flow of
useful professional information to the community on ERE.net.
The
thing is, the other 49,990 members of the network don't care about
these personal disputes. At best, they find them uninteresting. At
worst, they regard them as annoyances that distract from the true
reason that they visit ERE - to learn about the profession of
recruiting. Put another way, the silent majority wants to talk about
substance, not get sucked into a few members' personality conflicts.
Last
week - for the second time in ERE's nearly nine-year history - I made
the decision to ban one of our active members from our site because she
demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disrupting conversation and engaging
in personal disputes on the public discussion boards on ERE.net.
To
date, I've avoided posting about this decision because I didn't want to
needlessly embarrass anyone (which is also why I am not using her name
in this post). However, my lack of explanation and transparency in
decision-making has resulted in a number of people publicly speculating
about what happened, and that is further disrupting the experience of
the silent majority on the ERE site -- the exact opposite of the
intended effect.
So, for those that have been asking:
The decision to ban her from the site was one that we did not take
lightly. It came after no less than three members of the ERE staff --
including myself -- gave pointed warnings about the disruptions that
she was causing. In turn, these warnings were made after we received
multiple complaints from a broad group of ERE members.
This decision was notmade
because we were trying to enforce or censor any particular point of
view - I firmly believe that ERE needs to be a place where ideas can be
discussed freely. I believe just as strongly that those debates need
to not reach the level of personal grievances -- the online equivalent
of shouting down the other side.
I appreciate that some
ERE members will disagree with this decision, and that they find this
individual's contributions to our dialogue to be useful additions. I
understand that point of view, and I am certain that the individual in
question will continue to be a vocal member of the online recruiting
community. She will just do so on other websites with more permissive
policies. I encourage you to continue your dialogue with her on those
sites.
I realize that this is a hot-button issue that many on
ERE feel strongly about, and that there will be some ERE members who
will want to have a dialogue about or express their displeasure with my
decision. The place for that is here on my blog -- not the discussion
groups. This largely personal issue affecting a small number of ERE
members should not be allowed to disrupt the experience of the silent
majority.
There are currently no trackbacks for this blog posting.
comments
The "buck" has to stop somewhere...
posted 7/18/2007 at 10:03 a.m. PT by Maureen Sharib
Thank you David, for explaining the decision. Yours is a very difficult position and we are fortunate to have your guidance on these thorny issues.
Dave, Thank You
posted 7/19/2007 at 6:38 a.m. PT by cancel cancel
Dave, thank you for taking the time to explain your decision. The fact that you are willing to take the leadership role in justifying your decision (while at the same time allowing open discussion on this blog) greatly speaks to your character and leadership ability. It's no accident that ERE has grown to be the #1 resource for recruiting professionals to go for information, articles, and forums for just about every recruiting topic you can imagine.
I only came in contact with ERE 2 years ago, and when I first started visiting the site, I was hesitant to create an account because I thought my information would be sold for marketing purposes. However, that has not happened - ERE has lived up to its promise to not do so. In fact, ERE is now the top resource I turn to when looking for information on a given topic in our industry. ERE.net has personally become my 'stickiest' site on the web, and I know many recruiting professionals that are the same - in fact, I have to discipline myself to not spend more than an hour or more a day reading articles and posts.
Being a new reader with only 2 years of visiting ERE under my belt (and only visiting daily for at least the last 12 months), I have noticed some issues that I hoped you might take a moment to listen to.
1. Often the personality conflicts described above do not appear to be personality conflicts at their core. I have noticed that they are business conflicts - more specifically, they appear to the reader to be business-competition conflicts. The majority of conflicts I observe, at their very roots, seem to be comprised of individuals that train (or aspire to train). As such, these individuals are prone to disagree with one another on the basis of protecting business turf, or better, protecting a sacred cow that is a staple of their given training regimen. Trainers have a business to run, first and foremost, and will aggressively defend against any comment or contrarian viewpoint as if it is a pointed assault on the bottom line of their respective P&L. Unfortunately, that is what looks to have occurred with the "Ethics Sham" post and the corresponding debate. If there was a 'sham' post put out there regarding any other high-visibility topic, such as video resumes, names-sourcing, or HR generalists as recruiters, there would likely be a corresponding debate as well (especially if there was an individual building or running a business around the topic itself).
2. When I first started taking notice of the issue of ethics in message boards, I realized that there appeared to be a polar divide. I also learned that if you took a stance on one side of the fence or the other, you were very fast to earn 'supporters' and 'non-supporters'. However, these terms may be too benign - the truth is that each camp holds so strongly to their opinion that much of the debate we see is a microcosm of sectarian violence. The reason I use this analogy is because these discussions can become personal - after all, situational ethics (and morals/value-systems) are often deeply held beliefs. This is as true with our very own families and friends as it is in a virtual community.
3. For me personally, I also realized that ethics has undeniably become a hands-off subject in our industry (from a professional perspective). The risk of taking a position one side of the fence or the other could have highly negative ramifications to your personal and professional brands. For example, I can point you to a blog that paraphrases my ERE comments about rusing in a way that brands me in a very negative light. This possibility of being personally attacked in blogs and other online groups, as a result of posting a contrarian viewpoint to an ethics issue on ERE, creates an aura of fear that did not exist before. Unfortunately, this is perceived to be a growing practice.
4. My final observation on ERE is only one of overwhelming self-marketing and business promotion. I understand that this may be a blanket statement, so I will briefly elaborate. Today, when I go to the ERE home page, I see the following: ERE Expo 2007 banner ad on top of the page, ERE Expo 2007 banner ad on the right side, and 3 random mini-ads served at the bottom (in this case, LatPro.com, BountyJobs.com, and HireAbility.com). As end-users, we are very used to this, meaning banner ads and served ads. We also recognize that this space was purchased for advertising purposes. However, this will explain what I mean: My end-user surfing pattern on ERE is to go from the home page to the 'Discussions' page - Today, there are 2 discussion posts ("When the Dollar Hits the Deal" and "Growth and Leadership/Biz Dev") and 1 article review ("10 Pillars of Effective Sourcing").
The article review is yet to have any new information. However, this is what I see on the discussion posts -- Using a word count web tool, I see 404 words of content and 104 words of advertising (excluding names, titles, phone numbers, and email addresses). Along with that, there are 10 links promoting business products and services. In other words, over 25% of all of today's discussion content on ERE is business marketing and promotion. In addition, there is a link to a business product or service for every 50 words of content.
I am a huge believer in free enterprise - I am glad I live in the United States and am fortunate to own my own business. However, my situational ethics when it comes to business promotion and self-marketing on message boards (through signature templates) is that it is disrespectful not only to ERE, but also to readers and visitors that visit ERE for the incredible content and community, not advertising. If it is a blog or website, there is absolutely no problem at all because you've driven traffic there - however, with ERE, I would prefer to click on a banner ad or served ad if I want to read about a business or value proposition. In fact, I would greatly prefer it that way because ERE would be able to expand into new areas and possibly offer even more value through utilization of the increased advertising revenue.
This post is by no means, in any way, shape, or form, saying that any decision was incorrect. It is nothing more than a condensed root-cause analysis of what appears to be disconnect between certain camps and strategic alliances that often result in heavy debate on certain recruiting topics in our industry, notably here on ERE. Also worth noting is that not all trainers and strategic alliances (which are not apparent on the surface) behave in this manner. I would like to thank you in advance for your response and again state that I am a tremendous advocate of ERE and the value it continues to provide to our profession.
Not personally upset
posted 7/19/2007 at 7:52 a.m. PT by Dennis Stuempfle
I'm new to ERE and I was not personally upset with anything that transpired between this person and myself whether she agreed or not. In fact I have a bigger complaint regarding people who use postings for personal communications rather than a discussion that will benefit the group as a whole. If someone says I have this form I use, I'd like people who want a copy of the form to send an email and not post "I'd like the form" so by the end of the week there are 200 postings of "I'd like the form".
So while I won't debate your decision given my lack of insight into the issues, I would like to see some communication to members about restricting personal conversations to email between the two members involved so that the board can serve as a forum for open ideas and communication.
Dennis Palatine Technology Services, LLC
How many???
posted 7/19/2007 at 8:06 a.m. PT by Kim Allan
HI David!
Thanks for sharing your feed back with ERE members. I admit I have been a member for quite some time myself and have always found the discussions lively and informative. I am always open to reading/hearing others views. I think it is unfortunate you had to "BAN" someone from the group.
I do not know the whole situation, I have alway found the "person in question" feed back informative and I may have not always agreed with it. I do not even know her at all nor responded to any of her posts.
What I would like to know is a how many complaints is considered multiple you stated there were"multiple complaints from a broad group of ERE members." Is this 10, 20, 500, 1000, 5,000, 10,000, 20,000?? As you stated previously "today there are over 50,000 members of the ERE Network" Even if you received 1,000 complaints that compliant ratio is very slim for over 50,000 members. I really would like to know how many complaints you recieved on this topic.
I think that everyone should have a voice. The best thing about ERE is you don't have to chose to read every post, if you don't like how they are responding....Make a choice and don't read it. As simple as that. Not every one is going to agree, so I just need to be aware if I post something and receive complaints, how many is too many complaints to be banned........
Thanks for your help!
Kim
The need for understanding-
posted 7/19/2007 at 8:34 a.m. PT by William Johnson
I do agree with Dennis that the 50,000 "I would like a copy" posts were very annoying. I'm not sure why people thought that was ok when there is a private way to request a copy. I didn't see the post or post that got Karen kicked off so I have to do more research. I personally liked Karen's posts even though I may not have agreed with all of them.
Joshua, I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. I agree with most of the content but I feel it was tap dancing through the issue, perhaps it was the politicaly correct way to approach the subject.
Am I to believe that Karen upset a paying advertiser or supporter (or several) of the ERE and that is why she was kicked off?
David are you saying that she had personal conflicts with several people and voiced those conflicts on the boards thus she was dismissed?
Lets assume she was not upsetting advertisers because that would be a ridiculous reason to kick her off. If I understand your post correctly she was removed because of personal conflicts with several ERE posters. Keeping in mind that I have not seen the posts the caused this... are they still available to read... I have read some of her posts that do interject personal opinion. Isn't that the point of an opinion though? For example she had a very strong and negative opinion about Jigsaw and basically called the president on the carpet. It was a little uncomfortable but certainly not grounds for silencing her. I don't care if she did it a 100 times. I use jigsaw and find it extreamly helpful in my job.
In order to form an educated opinion about the dismissal of this ERE personality I would need to have all the facts. Do I need to research them myself or will you provide a link to the evidence.
Thanks!
William
Thank you...
posted 7/19/2007 at 8:54 a.m. PT by Heidi Burkley
Dave,
I respect your decision to openly discuss your stance on this matter and allow members to share their concerns. Quite often I hear others talk about passion. It is part of what drives us- it fuels us with the energy and commitment to stay the course. The person in question had passion to help others and was deeply rooted in standing up for what was right in the recruiting world. This person will continue being that light. I am dissapointed that this indivdual is no longer a voice on ERE but, recognize her voice will still be heard.
Thank you
Fairness
posted 7/19/2007 at 9:16 a.m. PT by Wade Bumgarner
Dave,
Thanks for the explanation...I too will miss the "good" part of what she brought to this community. My only concern here is that it takes more than one person to battle...I'm pretty sure she wasn't arguing with herself and if the people that complained enough to get her banned did so simply because their point of view was being challenged...then it was a bad decision in my opinion. I don't know the particulars so I'll keep my mind open at this point, but, it does take two to Tango, so, what happened to the others? I really don't recall her being on the "attack' side as much as the "defensive' side most of the time......I believe we should have the right to defend our beliefs/points of view here as long as it's kept civil.
Missing Voice on ERE
posted 7/19/2007 at 9:36 a.m. PT by Carl Guse'
I too will miss Karen's voice on ERE. Although reading ERE posts generally takes up too much of my more valuable recruiting & sourcing time, I have found it necessary to restrict my input when it come to Sourcing Ethics or Recruiting Ethics in general as very few people seem to agree with my feelings and would go to length in their comments trying to trash my beliefs.
I have learned over the last year to just ignore those who believe that outright lying to candidates is an ethical recruiting practice and who promote that any successful recruiter has to rely on these practices to succeed.
I have seen Karen's input on other mediums on the web so I doubt she feels bad about being banned here.
Life goes on for all of us.
Doing the right thing...
posted 7/19/2007 at 10:05 a.m. PT by Scott Jennings
If you have any wider experience with a discussion board or chat group, then you probably have decided to leave one of those boards/groups due to unchecked commentary that turns into flaming personal diatribes. If you haven't had this experience, then you are lucky and rare. ERE is trying to run a business...this is not a democracy. I applaud their efforts to be proactive about issues that threaten the viability of their service to their audience. ENOUGH ALREADY! If you feel you have to respond to every posting to the group versus sideline discussions, you should use better board etiquette. If discussions get personal and uncomfortable, you should be warned. If you don't listen to the warnings, you should lose your priviliges. The majority of us get this and the minority should refrain from violating basic chat/board tenets. With all due respect, we SHOULD all have better things to do.
How do I delete My Account?
posted 7/19/2007 at 10:15 a.m. PT by Fred St Laurent
Scott Jennings makes a great point... ERE is a business... I have better things to do (like running my own business)
Banning this person was BUSINESS wasn't it?
I would like to ban myself from ERE please :) How do I do it?
Going by the numbers of the largest group at ERE I reckoned it to have max 20,000 members.It is indeed a pleasant surprise that there about 50,000.Obviously the result of untiring efforts by you and your team.My congratulations.
That personal disputes and squabbles have been going on for years in the groups at ERE as you have observed is a matter of utmost concern is something that I fully agree with you.
Joshua L started a debate regarding this 'banned person' in a group which has 7000+ members and it has been moved to this blog which has far lesser visibility and from where no daily digest goes out.After hundreds of such debates this debate has been singled out.
In my only blog post ever I had said that the decision regarding this person was harsh.I also stated that I had no axe to grind and had taken on this person in another group at Yahoo in one of the discussions.
I get a letters from the two members of the other side(one blogger and another moderator but both partners)They seem to be knowing everything about what's happening and have inside information about decisions being made by ERE.This moderator has the audacity to threaten me not to post any criticism about her ir regard to what's happening to the banned member at her group as well.They seem to be acting like spokepersons for ERE.
Is it true that this banned person was asked not to respond to any attack.I do not think that even a convicted murderer out on parole etc can be aked not to defend himself/herself against attack.I hope it is not true and request you to deny it.
Furthermore it is evident from the posts at the blog that this person was being baited by both these persons.What was in the posts by her that warranted such a harsh action.What about their posts.
Moreover all this happened at a blog and not one of the regular groups at ERE.
Yes,She also got kicked out of Source con.All things happening in a very synchronised manner.
In one the groups moderated by this blogger's partner where I asked her to back the assumptions made I was baited by another person having close links with ERE making allegations of me having hidden agenda etc etc.Good that one of his post was removed.
Kindly share all the informatiom regarding warnings etc.
It is necessary that not only should justice be done but it should also seem to be done.
I think that you have been prevailed upon by misinformation etc.
I hope things are amicably settled and this decision is reviewed.
Sunil
Selective banning
posted 7/19/2007 at 10:47 a.m. PT by Pam Claughton
What really bothers me about the banning of this individual is that as someone else pointed out, it takes more than one person to engage in a battle.
The only question I have for Dave is if you have thoroughly reviewed the entire threads in question, or if you are possibly swayed by your friendship with those who provoked this person into defending herself? I watched these conversations unfold and what I found most disturbing frankly was that ERE blog where this individual was attacked most specifically and clearly so it was beyond obvious who they were referring to, she was attacked for NOT responding to the Call Girl Vicky video. Which was frankly, ridiculous to attack someone for NOT saying anything! Because she did not criticize the lack of ethics portrayed in that video, she came under attack and was then punished for simply defending herself.
So, my question remains, why was she the only one punished? How can you condone the behavior of the others who instigated and provoked her into simply defending herself?
It doesn't add up...unless what really is going on is that this is a personal decision, NOT a business one.
Never mind...
posted 7/19/2007 at 10:56 a.m. PT by Fred St Laurent
I found a way to delete my own account... don't bother responding... oh wait ... you are not responding to anyone here anyway so no problem...
Please keep to the facts.
posted 7/19/2007 at 11:04 a.m. PT by Anthony Haley
Sunil,
I did not bait you but rather responded to your baiting of another.
I DO NOT HAVE CLOSE LINKS TO ERE.
I had my post removed because I suggested that you had a hidden agenda. You call it baiting. What's the difference?
I think it is clear why ERE moved this subject to here rather than clogging up the main discussion board.
It's obvious why it was moved here
posted 7/19/2007 at 11:09 a.m. PT by Pam Claughton
Anthony,
With all due respect, I think the reason the discussion was moved here was simply so that fewer people would be aware of how unfairly ERE has handled this situation. They don't exactly want to draw attention or generate negative PR.
William, Wanted to Answer Your Great Question!
posted 7/19/2007 at 11:15 a.m. PT by cancel cancel
Hi, William! :) I didn't want your request to be lost in the dark - for the record, I always find good insights in your posts. Keep up the good work!
I must admit that since I was the first in-depth response, I feared I could also be banned. However, I worried that nobody would comment if someone didn't step up to be the first. I apologize for being unclear. To try to answer your questions:
a) No, I don't believe Karen is (and possibly ever was) a paying advertiser on ERE. I do know that she speaks at conferences and trains on certain issues, but not once did I see her self-promote or market her training sessions or business on ERE. Maybe I just didn't see it, but I actually appreciate that I can read her posts without sifting through an advertising pitch. Also, although Karen and I disagreed on the meaning of certain laws, I knew that our exchange would remain on ERE (meaning not re-posted or 'journalistically paraphrased' somewhere else on the web that not only damages our professional brand, but that we cannot have removed in the absence of legal representation).
b) The latest posts that I saw Karen engaged in was a response to an ERE blog posting titled, "The Ethics Sham". Here is the link:
In it, the author states, "These are the threads that bring out the so-called ethical sourcers and recruiters from the most squalid recesses of our recruiting community." I have to admit that I had never seen the word 'squalid' used in a sentence (sorry, I wasn't a spelling-bee kid), so I looked it up and was pushed back when I looked up the definition and found, 'morally degraded, foul, run-down, and repulsive'. Yes, my vocab received a boost so hopefully I'm a better Scrabble player now!
Shortly thereafter, the author then states, "Could it be they [the 'usual suspects'] have a connection to the Recruiter’s Lounge and SourceCon?"
I was unsure of who this person could be, but realized that the only two people that have a 'connection' to the Recruiter's Lounge are Jim Stroud and Karen Mattonen. They are the only interviewers! Also, Karen and Jim both were both slated to be speakers at SourceCon (but from what I have heard, Karen was removed from the speaker list shortly after being banned from ERE . . . but that would be really odd so I highly doubt it.) However, in the beginning of the post, Jim is revered and spoken highly of, so it's doubtful the reference is to him. As you move further, you will see a reference to NAPS, of which Karen is a strong advocate:
"Some even want to create a sourcing accreditation via the NAPS model that would no doubt ban the "dumb blond" tactics used in the Recruiter's Lounge demo."
As I read further, I realized that the probability of the reference being to Karen was steadily increasing. However, there was a statement later in the blog post that sealed the deal that the reference is Karen, and not Jim:
"If you’re pushing an “ethical agenda” but your actions are inconsistent, what does this say about the ethical agenda? Let me help you with a few words: Charlatan, Fraud, Disingenuous."
Why is the above statement a deal-sealer? Because Karen was, before being banned, the most vocal advocate of ethics in our profession on ERE. Her group had posts regarding industry ethics quite a bit, sometimes daily. The easiest way to draw her into a discussion (or debate, depending on which side of the fence the poster is on) would be to comment on any regarding ethics in our profession. To refer to ethics as a 'sham' was surely due to result in a response from Karen.
Well, it did. After that, what ensues is basically a 3-on-1 debate between 7/6/07 to 7/8/07. The situation concludes with Karen going silent on 7/8/07, followed by a post about forgiving one's own self by Maya Angelou, after a comment appears to be made on behalf of two individuals in a response to whether the desired result was achieved:
"The answer to this is "no". It does not make me happy and I know it also does not make Steve happy. We take no pleasure in another's pain."
William, this is the crazy thing - guess how I found the 'Ethics Sham' post in the first place? It was linked to in at least 4 groups on the web, including RecruitingBloggers.com and Recruiting.com in a post titled "The Sourcing Schism".
The rest is history - well, it looks like it's being written as we speak anyway.
The silent majority
posted 7/19/2007 at 11:40 a.m. PT by Bill Wager
David:
Dear Karen, eccentric Karen, Karen, who spends way too much time, energy and emotion on this board; who, incidentally, I like very much, can be, and often is, a complete pain in the ass.
Regrettably, you made as good a call as you could.
This issue though. Should not be taken so seriously. Karen’s cyber-enemies are as flakey as she is, as is anyone who posts more often than I do. It’s far too easy to get sucked into these kindergarten politics. Rise above it.
We are in a sorry state when these are the issues we must engage.
However, as Karen’s abrasiveness is probably more a question of volume than of content, let me suggest an alternative: That after a brief suspension, you allow her back but simply limit the number of posts she can make. Consider that she does have a good thing to say from time to time, is amusing,in a strange sort of way and a little controversy is no bad thing for a product like this.
Limiting the number of posts (probably length of post too) would assure that she chose her battles carefully and made her case succinctly and hopefully, with better punctuation.
Should we ban every one who says a foolish thing (or two)? I'd be mighty lonely in that case.
FREE Advertising/Self-Promo...
posted 7/19/2007 at 12:24 p.m. PT by Ginnie Bellville
I believe the "advertising" Joshua makes reference to isn't paid advertising, but those folks who in my opinion take posting as an opportunity for Free Advertising.
My confusion remains, as to why ERE "dismembers" someone for stating strong opinions in defense, while allowing other members to continually and blatantly mis-utilize the forum as a means for self-promotion. Have other members complained about this?
I can't believe there are only a couple of us who find it beyond annoying when members appear to be taking extreme advantage of posting an ERE group message with the primary purpose to advertise themselves and their businesses, so much so that I've regretted deleting certain daily digests without reading their entirety, because it's so cumbersome to keep seeing self-promoting "free ads" go on and on and on... gb
Thanks for the comments...
posted 7/19/2007 at 12:36 p.m. PT by David Manaster
Thanks to everyone who took the time to weigh in on this subject. As I said in my post, I am aware that it is a hot-button issue, and that there is a vocal minority who feels strongly that this decision was an error.
I want to reiterate that the decision that I made is final, and that I am doing it because I believe that it is in the best interests of the greater community on ERE - the community has zero interest in hearing the same heated personal arguments over and over again.
I will do my best to address the questions and comments here:
Josh - I appreciate your theory on why these arguments are happening, and I am aware that some of those involved have consulting businesses that they are boosting or protecting. I am not concerned with those businesses other than to wish all involved well with them. My sole concern, as it relates to discussions on the ERE site, is with keeping the quality of dialogue high, and take the steps necessary to ensure that the noise does not drown out the signal.
Ethics is an important topic of conversation in any environment, and in an industry like ours, with a poor reputation for ethics and honesty, it is even more important to have an ongoing dialogue. It is important to allow people to have conversations about other topics though, and when conversations on multiple topics in forums not dedicated to discussing ethics are repeatedly turned into ethics battlegrounds, it drowns out those other conversations.
The banner ads that you refer to are what allow us to maintain ERE as a free service. Running the ERE web site takes a lot of money, including our staff, development and server costs, and our sponsors provide the fuel that keeps it all running.
I am not sure what you are referring to with text advertising, since ERE does not currently sell that on the web site proper. If you (or anyone else) feels that an individual post is too salesy - or if it is outright spam - then I urge you to use the flag feature on each and every post in the discussion groups to notify the ERE staff.
Dennis - I could not agree more about the "me too" posts. as a alternative, I recommend that the person who wants to share a file use a service like senduit.com and let people download the files on their own. I have instructed Brendan, ERE's moderator, to flag this type of post and recommend that the poster find another way to share the file.
William - This had nothing to do with advertisers. Karen (since you used her name, it would now be silly or me to try to maintain anonymity) was not an advertiser, nor did any advertisers request her removal. If they had, we would have denied the request. This is about maintaining the usefulness of the community, not ad dollars.
Heidi & Carl - There are many other forums in which she is active, and I have no doubt that her voice will continue to be heard.
Wade & Pam - You're right - it take two (or more) to tango. In this case, this individual had been repeatedly warned about exactly this behavior, and this was simply the final straw. The other individuals involved have now been been similarly warned.
Scott - You're correct - part of the lifecycle of online discussion is that things get to a certain size and then devolve in to flame wars. This action was taken to prevent a small group of participants from continuing to do the same here.
Fred - As you discovered, you are free to leave the community at any time. I'm sorry that you felt the need to do so.
Sunil - I can't respond on behalf of the people who you refer to because I don't know who they are, nor would I presume to speak for anyone other than myself. I can tell you that nobody is authorized to be "spokespersons" for ERE except for myself and other ERE employees, not volunteer moderators and Bloggers. With the exception of ERE employees, nobody has any more or less of a link to ERE than you do as a member, no matter how they may choose to represent themselves to you.
I have nothing to do with SourceCon, and was not aware of any of their speaker choices beyond what is on their site until you wrote your comment.
Pam - This post was moved here because this subject has nothing to do with "recruiting leadership", which is where it was originally posted. I will emphasize again - the vast majority of ERE readers have no interest in these disputes. My goal is to spare them the inevitable "he said/she said" and to let them do what they are really here for - learning about recruiting.
Bill - I would appreciate it if you would not make comments of a personal nature towards anyone on my blog. That said, we have actually already tried asking the person in question to limit her volume - it was one of three requests that we made of her in April of this year in order to avid having to take the step of removing her from the community. The request was unsuccessful, which is why we have reluctantly had to take this step.
Part of the (usually) silent majority
posted 7/19/2007 at 1:21 p.m. PT by Margo Morgenlander
All I can think when I see these endless strings; aren't you all busy with your actual BUSINESS??? How do you have the time??!! I'm going to have to hit 'delete' alot more on the digests I get, I guess, 'cause I'm plenty busy!
Margo Morgenlander
Advertising Revenue Versus Free ("Back-Door") Business Marketing/Promotion
posted 7/19/2007 at 1:36 p.m. PT by cancel cancel
Dave, thank you for your reply. I think it may not have been clear in my elaboration on what is considered widely to be self-promotion (or business marketing) versus legitimate advertising dollars. End users have no problem with paid-advertisements (pop-ups are arguably a nuisance, but if the content of the site is strong enough, we can live with them . . . or use a pop-up blocker.) Regardless, we don't mind ads because we don't have to click on them and read the marketing content if we don't want to. The paying advertisers are paying for the space in front of our eyes.
I often click through ERE ads - I know this is good for ERE because the more unique visits and 'click-throughs' you have on ads, the more you can charge. In business-lingo, Eyeballs = $$$. Google's PPC model is more innovative, and advertisers can set a dollar amount per click-through. In fact, I make it a point to click-through because I know it's good for ERE as a business. However, what happens with many posts is that they are nothing more than ads; however, these ads are not the ones that are paid for. In fact, they are a nuisance, much more so than any debate on ethics.
Per your request, I will now report each and every one that I have to wade through. I hope all others do the same so we can end the marketing abuse of ERE - Ironically I have been in marketing situations with a previous consulting client where advertising vendors (that were paying) came to the table to ask why they had to pay when others were self-promoting and advertising for free. At the end of the day, they were right in claiming that they were paying higher advertising fees because non-paying customers found a way to beat the system and run promotions from the back door.
ERE is so valuable to me as a resource that I'd be willing to pay a monthly fee to end this (if a fee was established).
This is troublesome
posted 7/19/2007 at 1:44 p.m. PT by Dennis Stuempfle
I didn't realize that posting on the regular board so that others could see how I felt about a subject was being disallowed. So I posted my comments and they were removed. I would have preferred they at least be moved to this forum. Ok I was forewarned if I had read the rest of the post. But I've seen some silly discussions on this site and some out and out blatant advertisements and personal communications and no one seemed to have a problem. No one was banned. Something seems wrong to me when a person who has consistently made positive contributions to the discussion groups is "expelled" and then the justification posted on a separate blog which will be seen by fewer than the regular discussion board. I don't really know the people involved other than an occasional debate here or there. But it seems wrong to me. So my question is if there was a problem with a group of individuals, why was one person kicked of ere.net? Why was the discussion moved? Why do we only get one side of a story? When I follow the thread, there seems to be plenty of blame to go around for what you may term "disruptive behavior" since the banned person was communicating with someone else. I've seen a lot of cover ups in my time and this just smacks of one and I don't know the reason for favoring one of the parties over the other.
What would be fairer? If you're warning someone, all parties to the "disruption" should be warned. If you're expelling someone, all parties should be expelled. I would have likely suspended all of the parties involved for a period of time and suggested they reconsider their use of the network for this sort of thing.
Dennis Stuempfle Palatine Technology Services
Thanks for the comments
posted 7/19/2007 at 2:25 p.m. PT by Wade Bumgarner
Dave,
Fair nuff and "nuff said' methinks. Time to move on...I have work to do...se ya on ERE all! ;-)
I am wondering who determines that "vast majority" is not interested in those heated discussions. I consider myself a member of this "vast majority", someone who enjoys reading the ERE articles, blogs and discussions, but (sadly) doesn't contribute much himself. I enjoy Karen's discussions, and never got annoyed by any of the comments. If I would have been, I would have scrolled further down(or up)...very simple... The only reason that comes to my mind for banning someone, would be extensive spam(marketing), swearwords or people insulting others. This was not the case as far as I know. This "ban" really hurt EREs reputation, at least for me.
Michael Gerrity
Fairness
posted 7/19/2007 at 3:19 p.m. PT by Keith Halperin
I was disappointed to hear about Karen's banning from ERE, and was very surprised that she was removed at about the same time from the roster of Sourcecon presenters. I do not know the whole story, but have always been impressed by Karen's professionalism in various postings; she seems particularly to avoid personal attacks. Finally, if there are limits to numbers of postings, they should apply to one and all.
Thank You
Excellent point
posted 7/19/2007 at 4:12 p.m. PT by Pam Claughton
Keith,
You raise an excellent point regarding volume of posting. Am not sure I understand why there was an issue with the number of posts Karen put up and yet no issue with others who post as much if not more, and whose posts are often more self-promo than anything else. It just seems like there are different rules for different people and that the end result is that the quality of ERE's discussions have been diminished.
How Do Some Of You Find Time To Actually Work?
posted 7/19/2007 at 4:45 p.m. PT by A Graham, CDR
OK. I generally do not get involved in this type of nonsense. But since people are opening the flood gates of the "truth" let me add mine. I don't have any friends or alliances on this site so let the chips fall where they may. If I get banned, I get banned.
I think most of you on here that engage in defamation and arguing back and forth need to be ashamed of yourselves. I came to ERE a few years ago to mingle amongst my peers. A haven where I can share recruiting topics with each other. I swear when I get my notification for my digests for some of the groups, I get sick. It's usually some nonsense going on. I hit delete before reading. I get tired of the 3 page advertisements on the sig lines. For a site where there isn't supposed to be blatant advertising, there sure is a whole lot of that going on. But nobody gets called on it. And, in my OPINION, there is way too much minding other people's business and a lot of kindergarten-like finger pointing, tongue wagging and trash talking. I for one am sick of it. If I wanted to experience this I'd go to one of the social message boards.
This whole banning situation is beyond ridiculous because it should be all offenders who should have been banned. You can't just pick and choose based on friendships who needs to be banned. What's good for the goose....you know the rest. But hey, it's your business so do what you have to do.
Are you all grown ups? Better question, how do you get any work done?
I've enjoyed ERE for the most part over the years. But I am disappointed as to how this place has devolved into name calling and infantile behavior in the forums. I USED to point other recruiters to ERE but in recent months, I have chosen not to.
Not afraid to list my name...
Adrienne Graham Atlanta, GA
Thanks again...
posted 7/19/2007 at 8:00 p.m. PT by David Manaster
Josh - I'm glad that you think ERE is such a valuable resource, and your help in flagging inappropriate posts will be greatly appreciated by Brendan (ERE's Moderator) and me.
Dennis - All parties to this particular dispute received a warning. One of those parties had already been warned repeatedly, and it was clear to me that further warnings would be ineffective.
Keith - As I posted previously, I have no connection to SourceCon, and no knowledge of their agenda beyond what I have read on their site and the comments on this blog.
Adrienne - I am sorry that you've stopped recommending the site to your peers. I hope that we can bring the level of discourse back up so you can feel good about spreading the word again!
Keith, Pam & Adrienne - ERE has a "flag" feature on every post in the discussion groups so you can bring them to the attention of our staff moderator. I encourage you (and everyone else) to use it when you see objectionable or excessively promotional content in the future. We share the same goal - making the site a more useful tool for recruiters.
You never addressed my question David.....
posted 7/20/2007 at 5:20 a.m. PT by Kim Allan
HI David,
Maybe I didn't see your response, so I apologize up front if you did respond directly to the question.....
If you did not I find it interesting you never addressed my question nor Michael querrity (whos question was similiar)..... did you do this purposely because the decision was made on "personal level" VS a "business level"?
Again, I think it is important for the ENTIRE community to know how you can get you banned from ERE...so I will ask again for both Michael and myself and rest of the members of ERE the same question I asked yesterday....
What I would like to know is a how many complaints is considered multiple you stated there were"multiple complaints from a broad group of ERE members." Is this 10, 20, 500, 1000, 5,000, 10,000, 20,000?? As you stated previously "today there are over 50,000 members of the ERE Network" Even if you received 1,000 complaints that compliant ratio is very slim for over 50,000 members. I really would like to know how many complaints you recieved on this topic.
I think that everyone should have a voice. The best thing about ERE is you don't have to chose to read every post, if you don't like how they are responding....Make a choice and don't read it. As simple as that. Not every one is going to agree, so I just need to be aware if I post something and receive complaints, how many is too many complaints to be banned.......
Thanks David! I look forward to your response.
Kim Allan
Thank you, David
posted 7/20/2007 at 5:49 a.m. PT by Jeff Altman
Thank you for both writing this and for the call to talk with me about it.
Margo, said it best--to paraphrase, I would see these endless strings and delete them.
For someone trying to promote a site as a vehicle as a vehicle for any industry and who puts in time, effort and care into its success, as someone who has sweat bullets at times, I'm sure, reading that message, I hope, helps you feel even more comfort in your decision.
As you know, I like Karen and respect her views on many things, yet, as I was taught when I was doing psychoanalytic training, the therapist needs to charge a good fee in order to be able to be there for the patient.
Well, unless ERE creates an environment where people want to come and not just hit delete repeatedly, it will disappear and we will all suffer.
And sitting in the chair you do, you MUST make decisions like this, even when unpopular.
Jeff Altman The Big Game Hunter
Pam, Great Question (and my final comment)
posted 7/20/2007 at 8:38 a.m. PT by cancel cancel
Pam, you bring up an outstanding point that I would briefly like to touch on before this thread disappears into cyber-space (please note, however, that the terms 'silent majority ERE' currently list this discussion #1 and #2 in my local Google results).
ERE is privately held so there's no way for any of us to know what relationships or alliances exist anywhere behind the scenes (for example, if the CEO of Walmart is on the board of Proctor & Gamble, well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the rest out.) In a perfect world, we'd like to think that these hidden sects and clandestine relationships don't exist, but they do. The problem is that we won't be able to see the real deal until this whole situation unfolds - from there, we'll be able to see everything with clarity. The facts will lead us to the truth.
Sunil, I believe I have seen the same emails you have, but they are not authenticated. This includes the email that, if authenticated, will show that this was a pre-meditated business maneuver aimed at eliminating competition just prior to the launch of Sourcecon in Atlanta.
The bottom line looks like this: If ERE has no relationships with any businesses or any individuals, then ERE was manipulated by a 'bait and switch' technique that led to a pre-planned barrage of complaints (like a DDoS attack on the main server) in regards to a blog post that obviously called the 'said individual' out.
I guess only time will tell - I hope the facts come out so that we can all make our own decisions about what really went down here.
I wish my posts about recruiting got this many comments!
posted 7/20/2007 at 1:48 p.m. PT by David Manaster
Jeff – It was a pleasure speaking with you last week as well. I agree that Margo perfectly voiced the frustrations of the “silent majority” on ERE.net – most people simply have no interest in this personal drama, which is why it won’t be allowed on the discussion forums any longer.
Josh - I’m not sure what e-mails you are referring to in your comment, but I will state it again – I have nothing to do with the Sourcecon event, and neither ERE Media nor I have any financial interest in its success or failure.
Kim – I will respectfully disagree with you about the best thing about ERE. In my humble opinion, the value of ERE is not that you can pick and choose which messages you read – you can find that anywhere, thanks to your delete button. The value in ERE’s discussions comes from our community’s focus on issues of substance within the profession, and these repeated personal conflicts are destroying that focus and value.
I don’t have a “personal level” with the individual in question. She was a frequent user of the ERE site, and to the extent that she was a productive member of the community, we had a business relationship. To the extent that her frequent personal arguments disrupted the network and scared away other members of the community, that was strictly business as well.
We don’t get a single complaint about a typical ERE member and their participation on our services. Not one.
On the other hand, this person has received dozens of complaints over the last couple of years. I don’t have a hard number (believe it or not, the ERE staff has better uses of their time than tallying complaints about a single member on the network), but I would estimate that it is somewhere between fifty and a hundred. Common sense would dictate that for every one of those emails on this subject, there were many others people who felt similarly but did not take the time to write – they simply left ERE altogether.
ERE’s posting guidelines are available for all to see at http://www.ere.net/forum/guidelines.asp . In particular, this member repeatedly violated rule #6 – No attacks on a particular person or organization. After receiving many complaints, and after a particularly nasty, personal and public dispute in April of this year, we warned this person repeatedly about her actions. When this warning was not heeded, we took action.
What'
posted 7/20/2007 at 6:02 p.m. PT by Sherry Karr
David, Thanks for posting this. I think it is important that this be addressed publicly - although I don't agree with your decision of course. (But you knew that already.)
I just hope tat if the other two parties were warned as Karen was that they either take things down a notch, or else are banned. They are both smart people, and know better, so hopefully they will take the warnings seriously. But if they don't, and things continue as they have been (sans Karen of course) I think it will start driving more people away from ERE. And THAT would be a shame. I still believe that if one was banned they all should have been - but you have already stated your reasons, etc., so I am not trying to debate it with you.
I too am very reluctant to refer other recruiters to ERE lately. Hopefully things will calm down and that will change.
I think it would be a shame if Karen cannot be allowed back in sometime in the future. Hopefully after a few months things will calm down and objectivity and reason will shed some light on the subject. Of course we have to leave that in the hands of ERE, so this will be my last post about the subject.
What's good for the goose....good for the gander.....
posted 7/20/2007 at 6:02 p.m. PT by Sherry Karr
David, Thanks for posting this. I think it is important that this be addressed publicly - although I don't agree with your decision of course. (But you knew that already.)
I just hope tat if the other two parties were warned as Karen was that they either take things down a notch, or else are banned. They are both smart people, and know better, so hopefully they will take the warnings seriously. But if they don't, and things continue as they have been (sans Karen of course) I think it will start driving more people away from ERE. And THAT would be a shame. I still believe that if one was banned they all should have been - but you have already stated your reasons, etc., so I am not trying to debate it with you.
I too am very reluctant to refer other recruiters to ERE lately. Hopefully things will calm down and that will change.
I think it would be a shame if Karen cannot be allowed back in sometime in the future. Hopefully after a few months things will calm down and objectivity and reason will shed some light on the subject. Of course we have to leave that in the hands of ERE, so this will be my last post about the subject.
Thanks David
posted 7/22/2007 at 10:44 a.m. PT by Kim Allan
Thanks David for answering my question. I appreciate it. I will still use ERE as I find it a valuable tool, but I am definitley hesitant to post now. I was just trying to understand what the guidelines were as to how many complaints you can receive before being banned.
Thanks again! Kim
karen m is gettin her blog on !!
posted 7/24/2007 at 8:52 a.m. PT by Jeremy Langhans
Give me a break
posted 7/24/2007 at 1:33 p.m. PT by YL Catino
You all have way too much time on your hands. I'm a sporadic participant on ERE because I'm too busy RECRUITING.
First, while Karen and I have not always agreed on topics, I respect her experience and opinion. We have, at times, agreed to disagree.
Second, if an individual cannot support a posted statement then that individual opens himself/herself up for criticism and should thus be prepared for an onslught of commentary. Negative comments do not equal attacks unless they are personal in which case the moderator/group leader should pull the individuals offline and have a discussion. Was this done for all parties?
Third, I found it interesting that Maureen was the first person to comment not more than 20 minutes after the initial posting. I have heard that Maureen and Steve are in business together and Steve and David are good friends. These relationships strike me as an interesting twist to this tale.
Lastly, by removing Karen from the site, you have eseentlially tried to censor her. As has been said before, "You can never keep a good woman down": http://www.karenmattonen.blogspot.com/
Again, while Karen and I do at times have heated disagreements, I feel that ERE has, without full and specific disclosure of the situation, removed a popular, though no less controversial, participant on the site. It is the very nature of heated debate that sparks innovation this industry so badly needs.
So, David's action and nebulous explanation, just doesn't quite ring true to me.
Just my two cents....
Fair and Balanced - What silent majority wants
posted 7/28/2007 at 2:31 a.m. PT by Thomas Zhou
It is really unfortunately to see Karen banned from ERE. From what I read, saw and observed, I don't feel this judgement by the Great David is fair and balanced.
As David indicated in mail to Karen, "I want to emphasize that I am not interested in resolving your personal disputes or serving as a mediator." Really, who cares? I have no interest to that too, but admittedly and guiltly I do occasionally read this kind of threads for fun. :) I always can pick what ever I want to read, that's the beauty of reading freedom.
The loss of Karen is not only the loss of good content contributor, but also the loss of ERE's reputation as an objective and opinionated (sometimes heated discussed) community. This action brought in more negative PR than positive one.
David, please give Karen a chance to re-enter this community where she has great interest and respect.
That's what I feel silent majority really wants. ================================================
Silent M
posted 7/30/2007 at 7:24 a.m. PT by John Sloan
Manaster, your explanation is nothing if not lacking in credibility. If you are going to tell the story, tell the whole thing....when I finished reading your post I felt like I had just been given an excuse by my high school aged kids and found myself shaking my head in disbelief wondering how anyone could think that what you provided was the whole truth or how fairness played even a small part in your decision to ban. But hey...it's your site.
The whole story
posted 7/30/2007 at 8:25 a.m. PT by David Manaster
John - I've presented the whole story. I've done my best to directly and forthrightly answer the questions presented in the comments to this post.
If you have additional questions, you can give me a call at (212) 671-1181 x801 or post them here.
Just Read Karen's Blog - WHO WROTE THIS EMAIL?????
posted 7/31/2007 at 11:59 a.m. PT by cancel cancel
Karen's blog was just emailed to me and it looks like she has some questions she's asking ERE, but I don't see any responses here.?. This is the link (I believe): http://karenmattonen.blogspot.com/
This post is really long, though . . . So I was doing all I could to keep up. Can someone please help me answer the following question - Who wrote the following? (Because it's the same email forward I received.) I unfortunately can't tell who wrote it. I also can't understand who it is attributed to in the blog because there is not a 'Sender' name next to it:
"You're about to feel what it's like to have someone follow you around and disagree with you all the time"
… “I see that you are pursuing the candidate devt space — I was kind of thinking that you and I could have worked together segueing the sourcing process into the candidate development process quite nicely together before you went off the hook in this, your LAST tirade”
… “Know now, you do (and will) have competition in the space.“
This is the same email forward I received from an anonymous email address, however here it is in it's entirety:
Karen,
STOP following me around trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not the only one that thinks this - my Inbox has been flooded of late with "What's wrong with Karen?" emails.
It's not nice and you have gone way over the edge.
STOP with your snide remarks and inferences that I (or Steve) are hiding things.
It's ridiculous.
You are free to disagree with my metrics all you want but if you can't stand the heat of my retorts to your snide and ridiculing posts get outta' the kitchen.
Come with FACTS and EXPERIENCE on the subject - not a limited viewpoint you have from a tightly narrowed niche space in recruiting. YOUR metrics are not what fit over mine.
You're about to feel what it's like to have someone follow you around and disagree with you all the time.
I see that you are pursuing the candidate devt space - I was kind of thinking that you and I could have worked together segueing the sourcing process into the candidate development process quite nicely together before you went off the hook in this, your LAST tirade. Candidate devt is a space I think needs a lot of attention - I wish you luck in pursuing it. If you do it RIGHT it could represent some BIG MONEY for you. Know now, you do (and will) have competition in the space."
I can see a name included in the text above, but that person is not the one who evidently wrote it - it just looks like he's being spoken for by a vendor partner or something.?. I only have the date on it of 7/8/2007, but no other sender info.
All I can really tell is that the above person looks to have a serious personal issue with Karen . . . and above that, it looks like it's all about the $$$ and nothing else. I can see the threat of competition and the reference to "BIG MONEY", but what throws me off the most is the reference to the "LAST TIRADE" - how could someone know something was to be someone's "LAST" anything if they didn't have insider information that Karen was getting banned in the near future?
Did this email come from someone at ERE, or was it another trainer that wanted to possibly partner with her for "BIG MONEY"? I don't know any trainers that look to conduct themselves this way . . . in any industry. In that sense, I doubt it's a trainer . . . but I doubt it's someone who works at ERE, either. Surely, neither a competitor-trainer or ERE would do something that would likely wind them up with a lawsuit on their hands. Does anyone understand who Karen is saying wrote this in her blog post?
David, I know we don't know each other and I've only seen your posts and the video of your comments put out by ZoomInfo a few days ago, but do you know how whoever the sender of the above email is . . . considering they apparently knew Karen would be banned a couple days before you formally issued the Code Red?
That email was NOT sent by an ERE employee...
posted 7/31/2007 at 1:06 p.m. PT by David Manaster
Josh - Karen forwarded me that email as well. It was not sent by me or any other ERE employee, as I am sure that Karen will confirm if you ask her.
In fact, if your "anonymous tipster" sent you the entire conversation thread of that email, you would see that it was actually referring to an argument that occurred on the Sourcers Unleashed group on Yahoo at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/SUAngst/message/26
The email was not about ERE, was not sent by an ERE employee, and the reference to "LAST comment" appears to have been about the Forum on which that argument took place - Sourcers Unleashed.
If you are interested in learning more about Karen's private communications I suggest that you ask her directly - as you note, she is very easily reached via her blog.
Ok, So Does The Email-Threatener Reside on SU?
posted 7/31/2007 at 3:17 p.m. PT by cancel cancel
David, I just took your advice and contacted Karen. Here is the situation:
Karen forwarded you that email on 7/8/07. You banned her on 7/9/2007. Are these facts and dates incorrect? Also, you reference SU as the origination point of the email. Who forwarded the email, however?
This email was not due to Sourcer's Unleashed - it was due to the blog post titled, "The Ethics Sham" that started on an ERE blog. In other words, the efficient proximate cause of the cross-post to SU was the ERE blog. It started as "The Ethics Sham", and then was reposted as "The Sourcing Schism" in 4 different locations on the web (with some ad-lib). The argument, which I would more term a defense of character, was solely on ERE.
If it is SU, and not ERE as the efficient proximate cause, where are Karen's responses on SU? Her ERE response has been simply posted to SU, but the original, non-duplicated conversation never left ERE; the SU post is nothing but a cross-post of an argument (i.e. defense of character) that started on ERE.
Here is the specific url that references "metrics": http://www.ere.net/blogs/Blogging_outside_the_box/AB556B5CFF414C0299E566BC35183D2B.asp#comments
The comment in the email is "LAST tirade", not "LAST comment". "Comment" would make the email appear as if it was not referencing the forthcoming ban on ERE (the next day), but the phrase was "LAST tirade".
Anyway, please let the silent majority know who wrote the threat that Karen received less than 24 hours to your issuing of the Code Red.
I'm not sure where you are going with this, Josh...
posted 7/31/2007 at 4:59 p.m. PT by David Manaster
....because I've already told you the reasons behind the decision, and they have nothing to do with two words in a email which I did not send.
As I've already stated, Karen was the one who forwarded me the email. Since you said that you contacted Karen today, I find it odd that you don't just ask her who sent it to her - its not my place to air details on a pretty embarrassing private email to which I was not a party.
Your dates are correct, but you are simply incorrect about the email - the thread of conversation in the email itself began with the posting from Sourcers Unleashed. I don't know if you received the entire thread from your "anonymous source" or just the single email that you posted, but I urge you to get the full chain from your mysterious friend if you don't have the full thread already.
I left you a voicemail earlier today, which you did not return. Are you really interested in getting answers to these questions, or are you just trying to publicly ask them in such a way that it looks like Karen was treated unfairly?
Dave, This is Where I'm Going - Here's the Bottom Line (And I'm Over and Out)
posted 8/1/2007 at 7:30 a.m. PT by cancel cancel
Dave, unless I've penciled you in, I cannot answer every single call and remain productive. In addition, I must also be forthcoming with you in the sense that I'm not entirely interested in having a one-on-one conversation with you about Karen or your decision. Please don't take that personal.
I'm only asking public questions because that's why you created this blog. I thought the place to post questions and get answers was, like you wrote, here on this blog (meaning nowhere else). Now that I've asked for the facts, however, I see a request to leave this blog that you yourself created for this very purpose.
I am at a loss regarding your comment regarding if I really want answers, but I'll break down your question to give you specifics:
1) Are you really interested in getting answers to these questions -- My Answer: Yes, but what matters more to me than answers are the facts. Facts resonate and hold water.
2) Or are you just trying to publicly ask them in such a way that it looks like Karen was treated unfairly? My Answer: For the first part, yes, I have asked my questions publicly - we don't know each other on a personal level, and I'm only 1 of the 50,000 members of ERE. For the second part, I regret that you think I've posted my questions in a way that makes Karen look like she was treated unfairly. I've only asked for facts, so I find it disturbing that you'd classify a request for facts as making the situation look unfair.
It's not any series of questions that make any situation appear unfair, it's the actual facts of the case that allow us to form that determination. Our position, as rational beings, is to have the facts laid out in front of us - the rest is conjecture and speculative justification.
As far as your continued reference to SU, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. The start of the attack/argument was on ERE - I've even pointed you to the blog. Look for yourself - "The Ethics Sham" was reposted with new comments as "The Sourcing Schism". That's the bottom line - the facts are apparent. I looked for myself, with my own eyes - Karen has zero posts or responses on the link you provided. Therefore, it's not a two-way exchange, which means it cannot be classified as an 'argument'.
I can see that this conversation is going to be brought to an end with a request for private one-on-one conversation. In that respect, unless you can state different facts, this is what the situation looks like to me (and the following is an objective, rational, non-biased statement):
The actions applied by ERE were unilateral - given the situation in its entirety, one person was banned when there were multiple individuals involved.
Is that fair and just? Only the individual can make the determination. It's a matter of individual ethos, which ironically, was Karen's platform on ERE. There is absolutely no need for further dialogue between you and I on this issue. It's highly likely that we look at the decision and situation differently.
I will leave with my original question intact: Who wrote that email? If they had the audacity to write it and follow through on the ERE ban less than 24 hours later, why are they not stepping up to the plate now? I respect you for having the guts to step forward - it's a trait not seen very often in the business world anymore. However, there is obviously more to that email than you claim. It shows that this was a $ issue, an anti-competition issue, and moreover, a petty personal issue. When I read that email, it's appalling and upsetting because the threat was carried through - less than 24 hours later, Karen was banned. If there is anything that speaks to anyone's personal character, it is the content of that email . . . that's why I'm asking who wrote it.
Give it a REST!!!
posted 8/1/2007 at 11:00 a.m. PT by Ronda Campbell
Honestly...it's no one's business who sent private emails to and fro - and to be specific - there is NO WAY to determine that either party has presented the TRUTH with regards to the actual email as it can be altered to reflect anything you wish.
Karen was banned because she is has a "HISTORY" of arguing with the lamp post. She is not graceful when disagreed with. Further, she acts even more inappropriately (in my opinion) as to CALL you to discuss the situation and tie you up on the phone for so long that the cows actually came home.
There have been multiple complaints from various people (I have almost the largest network of anyone on ERE) so I can tell that truthfully...I've talked with dozens of people who feel that her absence is a BLESSING. There are DOZENS of people who have remarked that they would have been interested in either posting a question or responding to a question, but Karen's constant playing the devil's advocate and constantly wanting to push the envelope has kept them from doing so.
Folks have said that they feel 'intimated' by her holier than thou rantings on ethics...when they aren't talking about ethics...they aren't asking about ethics...and what they are posting on doesn't represent anything ethical...yet Karen ALWAYS has to put her 2 cents in.
ERE just finally gave her her change and bid her farewell. And frankly I'm tired of the uproar over it. If you are so incensed and angry over what you feel is unfair - then revoke your membership. Go be a part of the NEVER ENDING so called "ethics support" gr
