If You Became an Ecademy Policy Maker, What Would You Change?
Would your first change be to prohibit people with a different view to yours? Would it be to ban obvious spammers or people telling you they have found you very attractive and want to connect with you with a view to romance? Perhaps you would ban all services and products which you personally found offensive and too commercial or blatant.
You might even ban people like me for being too positive or on the other hand ban others whom you consider too negative.
It would be a very difficult decision I believe, because certainly there is someone who has got under your impenetrable skin, or perhaps even up your nose.
Would you ban people who are complaining about the lack of quality content on blogs including their own of course, or would you only ban those who seem to "like" you for their own self- serving and self cherishing reasons as the Buddhists call them.
You might make the whole service free like Facebook hoping to eventually cash in on the exit strategy or you might even make it a stellar production limiting it to exclusive Stars, Black, Yellow or White.
On the other hand you could restrict input to a few words only so people can't misunderstand each other as they do and if they insult you only use a few expletives to do so.
Of all the people I have come across I would only ever ban those seeking romantic interests and only for one reason.
This way of meeting online romantically has certainly worked for a few but personally I believe as an art form, it takes too long and is an utter waste of time.
There will be thousands who disagree but I hope they have time on their hands or are at least lucky in love.
Of course if people do not mind a long and drawn out online romance which may lead to nothing but disappointment and heartache, then far be it for me to alter their perspective.
Please don't get me wrong as I am all for social median sites as a way to meet people openly, randomly and supportively.
However when it comes to romance my way is far more direct and immediate.
If I met someone online and found them irresistible I would get on a plane straight away and fly to see them.
It takes only three dates to get attached and usually you know within three dates if you are a little sensitive and whether you have a match.
I would never ban anyone with whom I have come in contact in the past two years as all these people have shown me something about myself of which I was previously unaware.
These sites have a way of self regulating and although some constraints must be put in place, who but the most wise among us would change anything or anyone other than themselves.
Would you ban anyone blatantly wanting to self-promote or sell you something or would you only ban those giving you meaningless testimonials? It would be a hard decision to formulate any specific set of rules but it must be done.
As someone who wrote to me the other day said, "when it comes to writing blogs it is a delicate affair and we sometimes get it wrong and sometimes right.
" If I wanted to ban someone for something I would at least first try to remember that whenever I was ready to criticize something or someone, I should first decide what I was going to give as a positive alternative to it.
If I didn't have a good alternative I'd try and be patient and wait.
Assuming I was alert enough I'd first decide about the positive program and then, keeping an eye on the positive program, criticize.
My feeling is, that if the percentage of the policies Ecademy makes is right, then it will flourish in whatever form, with or without the present membership but it will survive.
What would you change? Sam
You might even ban people like me for being too positive or on the other hand ban others whom you consider too negative.
It would be a very difficult decision I believe, because certainly there is someone who has got under your impenetrable skin, or perhaps even up your nose.
Would you ban people who are complaining about the lack of quality content on blogs including their own of course, or would you only ban those who seem to "like" you for their own self- serving and self cherishing reasons as the Buddhists call them.
You might make the whole service free like Facebook hoping to eventually cash in on the exit strategy or you might even make it a stellar production limiting it to exclusive Stars, Black, Yellow or White.
On the other hand you could restrict input to a few words only so people can't misunderstand each other as they do and if they insult you only use a few expletives to do so.
Of all the people I have come across I would only ever ban those seeking romantic interests and only for one reason.
This way of meeting online romantically has certainly worked for a few but personally I believe as an art form, it takes too long and is an utter waste of time.
There will be thousands who disagree but I hope they have time on their hands or are at least lucky in love.
Of course if people do not mind a long and drawn out online romance which may lead to nothing but disappointment and heartache, then far be it for me to alter their perspective.
Please don't get me wrong as I am all for social median sites as a way to meet people openly, randomly and supportively.
However when it comes to romance my way is far more direct and immediate.
If I met someone online and found them irresistible I would get on a plane straight away and fly to see them.
It takes only three dates to get attached and usually you know within three dates if you are a little sensitive and whether you have a match.
I would never ban anyone with whom I have come in contact in the past two years as all these people have shown me something about myself of which I was previously unaware.
These sites have a way of self regulating and although some constraints must be put in place, who but the most wise among us would change anything or anyone other than themselves.
Would you ban anyone blatantly wanting to self-promote or sell you something or would you only ban those giving you meaningless testimonials? It would be a hard decision to formulate any specific set of rules but it must be done.
As someone who wrote to me the other day said, "when it comes to writing blogs it is a delicate affair and we sometimes get it wrong and sometimes right.
" If I wanted to ban someone for something I would at least first try to remember that whenever I was ready to criticize something or someone, I should first decide what I was going to give as a positive alternative to it.
If I didn't have a good alternative I'd try and be patient and wait.
Assuming I was alert enough I'd first decide about the positive program and then, keeping an eye on the positive program, criticize.
My feeling is, that if the percentage of the policies Ecademy makes is right, then it will flourish in whatever form, with or without the present membership but it will survive.
What would you change? Sam
