|
|
Post by BlindWizard on Oct 20, 2006 12:41:33 GMT 1
I'm sorry to say I am considering stopping visiting this forum. This post is an attempt to get it back to how it was and meant to be.
Thanks to motters and others we had a forum that we could share knowledge, discussed problems, voice our discontent (when necessary) and generally have contact with others instead of working in isolation. The forum also had the possibility of being able to demonstrate to Hillarys how Advisors felt as a group and even a platform where they could respond explaining the rational behind a discussion, nipping rumors in the bud or just answer a technical query. Forgetting the big issues wouldn't have been nice if product managers could have logged in answering queries or discussing how our product offering could be improved.
Also we need a way to show our collective view point on the ways we are treated. Other industries have trade associations, unions (god forbid) There are 800 of us that's quite a voice
After an excellent start the forum has recently degraded into a place of negativity, insults and general unpleasantness both between advisors and between advisors and the company. This has resulted in the majority of Advisors not posting and many not even visiting the forum and the company just seeing as just a few advisors moaning.
There was a motto at the top of the forum "Hillarys Advisors now have a voice - A Forum for Hillarys Advisors run by Hillarys Advisors. Get your questions answered, pick up tips or just have a moan"
Can we get back the old forum ? Discuss..........
The key in my view is for members to be open to who they are, if someone is only willing to say things under the cloak of anonymity the comments can't really be justified - we should be willing to stand-up and be counted for what we believe in. (if anyone wants to hide and insult people, cut up a newspaper and put it in the post - don't use OUR forum.)
I think members (both advisors and company staff) could be validated by say a known Advisor vouching for them and by providing a proper email address. For the point of discussion I'll call these members "validated members". Whilst you want lively debate if validated members insult others then they could be barred after a warning.
If we did this we could introduce it in various ways:-
A) Make everybody re-register on this forum.
B) Have Sections in this forum that only validated members can access then we are not insisting on validation but those who want to can ignore the "open" sections and I would think they would die off. ( I belong to another industry's forum and we have a "trade section" that works like that and it works very well.)
C) Start a new forum
I'm in favour of B) at the moment but you might have a better idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by hereticus on Oct 20, 2006 13:25:52 GMT 1
BW....I'm with you on that, and I do like the idea of validating members so that someone somewhere knows who they are and can control any who get out of hand. We all have issues and this forum is the place to discuss them and, ideally, for the company to monitor opinion and respond as appropriate. I don't have any problem with what people are saying on this forum, only with the way they say it and the way they launch into personal attacks on other advisors and on specific management personnel. To do so from behind anonymity is both cowardly and juvenile.
|
|
|
|
Post by phugly on Oct 20, 2006 14:03:54 GMT 1
BW, this morning I was feeling the same as you. I feel that this forum has been hijacked by a few anonymous bigmouths. I think that validation should be the way to go. When his forum started I was proud to be part of it and to be a moderator but with the way it is going now my feelings are different, it is degenerating into a slanging match between everybody and I do not blame others for not wanting to join or participate . Motters started this forum with best intentions and must now be sick at the way it has turned out through no fault of his own.
The motto that used to be at the head of the forum was mine and I would like to get back to those ideals. I do not begrudge anyone the right to have a moan, but would prefer that it be done in a civil manner.
|
|
dolly
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by dolly on Oct 20, 2006 20:44:40 GMT 1
I also agree to validation. I for one admit i am often a negative writer, but at the same time i dont make personal attacks.
The sooner you do it and act the better. This way the quicker the damage can be rectified along with this forum's reputation. Personally i think its now the moderators only way as your threats of suspension to some of the "hotheads" has made no difference.
It says it all that 6 months ago we all wondered why so many people looking in didnt post, now our regular posters have turned their backs. I can think of several names that i havent seen post for months now. Yes some have left the company but not all.
The onus(unfairly due to the few spoilers) is on the moderators im afraid. While i respect and thankyou for your initial efforts in starting and running this forum it is down to you initially to get the new look forum up and running and to get the Hillarys managements ear. Yes at the moment they dont listen, but i for one having suffered "clawbacks" myself would not expect anyone to listen to recent comments.
I am happy to help and support this forum and its staff in anyway , thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by RED on Oct 20, 2006 21:07:06 GMT 1
I also agree to validation. I for one admit i am often a negative writer, but at the same time i dont make personal attacks. The sooner you do it and act the better. This way the quicker the damage can be rectified along with this forum's reputation. Personally i think its now the moderators only way as your threats of suspension to some of the "hotheads" has made no difference. It says it all that 6 months ago we all wondered why so many people looking in didnt post, now our regular posters have turned their backs. I can think of several names that i havent seen post for months now. Yes some have left the company but not all. The onus(unfairly due to the few spoilers) is on the moderators im afraid. While i respect and thankyou for your initial efforts in starting and running this forum it is down to you initially to get the new look forum up and running and to get the Hillarys managements ear. Yes at the moment they dont listen, but i for one having suffered "clawbacks" myself would not expect anyone to listen to recent comments. I am happy to help and support this forum and its staff in anyway , thanks. I am afraid to say Management will not participate in this forum whether it has negativity or not. The reason for this is that they have their own ideas on setting up a website for advisor's. This is part of the long term plan for the new extra net they are currently working on. Whether constructive criticisms will be allowed I dont know, but every one on it will be known by their adviser name or number so any direct confrontation will be rare by virtue of the fact they will be know. Even if it were to occur it would be quickly deleted by H/O staff so it would more than likely be all sweetness and rosses. Get your rose tinted specs ready. Red |
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on Oct 20, 2006 21:16:09 GMT 1
Even if it were to occur it would be quickly deleted by H/O staff so it would more than likely be all sweetness and rosses. Red Red, did you really mean rosses, as in Ross K  |
|
|
|
Post by RED on Oct 20, 2006 21:22:33 GMT 1
Even if it were to occur it would be quickly deleted by H/O staff so it would more than likely be all sweetness and rosses. Red Red, did you really mean rosses, as in Ross K Ummmm, Roses Kenny, Dosen,t quite sound right somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by russell on Oct 20, 2006 21:26:39 GMT 1
 Red, did you really mean rosses, as in Ross K Ummmm, Roses Kenny, Dosen,t quite sound right somehow. Do you think this logging on once a week on friday gives them "target of the week" as in pick us off one by one I still think all new members should display details its the only way to stop so much sniping ,most of the new users are old names anyway some of them make it so obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by russell on Oct 20, 2006 21:51:55 GMT 1
I also agree to validation. I for one admit i am often a negative writer, but at the same time i dont make personal attacks. The sooner you do it and act the better. This way the quicker the damage can be rectified along with this forum's reputation. Personally i think its now the moderators only way as your threats of suspension to some of the "hotheads" has made no difference. It says it all that 6 months ago we all wondered why so many people looking in didnt post, now our regular posters have turned their backs. I can think of several names that i havent seen post for months now. Yes some have left the company but not all. The onus(unfairly due to the few spoilers) is on the moderators im afraid. While i respect and thankyou for your initial efforts in starting and running this forum it is down to you initially to get the new look forum up and running and to get the Hillarys managements ear. Yes at the moment they dont listen, but i for one having suffered "clawbacks" myself would not expect anyone to listen to recent comments. I am happy to help and support this forum and its staff in anyway , thanks. Dolly as I was involved in some of the discussions with h/o about their involvement in the forum I can tell you the 1 and almost only reason they dont contribute was the anonymity of most of our members .So if you are serious in what you say then you must come out and walk the walk with the rest of us that display our names |
|
|
|
Post by greenpesto on Oct 20, 2006 23:25:11 GMT 1
Red is correct.
Once Hillarys get their web-site up & running there'll be no room for freedom of speech.
Ban 'em all from here & lets say what we really mean!!!!
With the current suggestions about giving out details of who we are & the control over what we say that some of you are suggesting it'll be like George Orwells 'Animal Farm'.
Remember! All animals are equal ... it's just that some are MORE equal than others'!!!!
One or two members wanting control & want to tell everyone who we are, are also very matey with Mr. K.
Is that not correct?
I prefer freedom to express myself & to help others with advise on here when I can at the same time!
|
|
blindmansam
Full Member
P/T advisor (over 5 years)
Posts: 225
|
Post by blindmansam on Oct 21, 2006 1:09:28 GMT 1
Considering the proposed Hillary's Own Forum will be full of the joys of spring ( and spin! ) i must say that this forum should go Hillary's Free !
If required to re-register here with advisor details then i think Hillary's have clearly won , the battle and the war !
Think on that!
|
|
|
|
Post by saxman on Oct 21, 2006 1:19:12 GMT 1
One or two members wanting control & want to tell everyone who we are, are also very matey with Mr. K. That is avery good point, and well pointed out victor staying annon and protecting what little business i have left. |
|
|
|
Post by royt on Oct 21, 2006 7:38:40 GMT 1
So farewell ray...I will miss our weekly chats.......all of them problems you have sorted for me.....you showed such much interest in my business......mmmmm.....maybe my diary will get back to normal and i can try to recover from a meddling fsm that never had the decency to meet me.........Bring Back Dave Kent!!!!!sorry to hear about friday russ
|
|
|
|
Post by russell on Oct 21, 2006 8:56:45 GMT 1
One or two members wanting control & want to tell everyone who we are, are also very matey with Mr. K. That is avery good point, and well pointed out victor staying annon and protecting what little business i have left. I hope youre not suggesting im very matey with him if you are read my last 20 posts |
|
|
|
Post by Augustus on Oct 21, 2006 10:39:13 GMT 1
just my own opinion, but we can go down two roads. 1. we ban hillarys IP and stop all from accessing from HQ - this is ok, but people could still join and visit from home. 2. we suspend people who are issuing personal insults, and get back to what the forum is really for. I just want people to understand that if so, the forum would cease. One flick of the switch and then everybody is worse off ! I don't mind people from HQ being on the site or just looking. I also don't mind if people don't want to 'come out' either. But, if personal attacks persist from 'anon' users then they will be warned/suspended and then banned if needs be. I feel that it is unfair to sling mud at people ( whoever it is ) without having the balls to say it face to face. If we banned people from Hillarys then what's the point in having the forum at all ? I'm sure that HQ has taken on board some of the positive things to come out of this and moved with it. The feedback will always raise eyebrows too. I remember sending out an email a while back as to if people felt the forum should continue. ALL replies were positive. Ask yourself this :- do we still want it ? Am I contributing to the bad feeling on here ? What can I do the change things for the benefit of all these are questions I have asked myself over the last few weeks too. Result ? the forum still lives on. think about it................ P. |
|
