Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<So many points have been raised that I'm not going to address everything because I've said my thoughts on the subject, you've said yours and and people can make their own opinions. I'm not the type that can go back and forth on a discussion board in a debate (in person is another matter - that I love).>> I understand that, Doobie. Unfortunately, though, we're not all together. ... And some of us just want to understand what you want out of a 'kinder, gentler' LP.com when a serious discussion, that was quite adult, quite intelligent and I'm sure quite illuminating to many, suddenly was closed when basically not a peep had been heard from you (or any of the mods here) prior. Again, people from this site (Leemac) and others who have contributed here (Indigo, DLDug) and others were taking part as well. My overriding concern in this is quite honestly that some of your competitors (possibly friends as well) -- we'll leave TWDC itself out here -- are simply looking to silence strong and vocal voices that could harm their business interests. <<But I will on one point. I don't think the movie reviewer is a major difference. Seeing 2 or 3 movies a week gets very expensive. Getting access to early screenings and press junkets and even flown out to them is a great perk. Getting every DVD and Blu-Ray under the sun is a great perk. All of these can theoretically affect what someone writes.>> Doobie, I can tell you as someone who been involved in the process (on both ends) that you're flat out wrong. Reviewers do not get flown out to premieres. They see the films at their local screenings. If you are talking about celebrity reporters (someone who would be doing a piece on Larry the Cable Guy or Owen Wilson), then there are exceptions. But those are two different things. And I'm sorry, but I just wouldn't let anyone off the hook with a comment like that. There were bloggers flown in from across the Pond, put up for a week at the GF with spouses and children in tow, given food, tickets, special event invites, swag and then put on a cruise for two days ... some were even allowed to stay for the next cruise. The retail value of those items for one blogger is probably greater than what the average LPer brings home annually working full time. It's like comparing someone who 'wins' a local slot jackpot for $1,127.65 with someone who wins $92 million in the lottery. Film critics see screenings as part of their job. And no one is being bought off for a free ticket or even getting free DVDs, a common practice in the business to be sure (oh, and many companies require those 'freebies' to be given away when the reviews are done too!) I don't want to get sloppy here and I have to run shortly, but there's simply not a comparison to be made. The only thing they have in common is they both got something. You know, the homeless guy I passed on the beach last night got a free meal too at the shelter. I was taken out for a very nice, very pricey steak at the W Hotel. Both of us ate. Neither of us paid a cent to do so. Same experience? <<I also think you're holding "fansites" to an unfair standard. Most don't claim to be journalists. So what if they only want to write positive stuff and ignore the stuff they don't like. I disagree with the line "fansites are supposed to be independent." By definition they are independent - they're not owned by Disney, but they're still free to write whatever they want. Whatever makes them happy. Whatever makes their readers happy. I think specifically making the Company happy is so low on their list - it just naturally falls in line with the other two priorities for most sites. >> No, I'm really not. And when Social Media claims it is on equal footing with traditional (what I call REAL media) and wants the same privileges, perks, experiences etc, then I do think that some fairness should enter into their content. Everything at WDW is not MAGICal, some things are often very, very bad (be it service at a resort, food/show/entertainment quality, cleanliness in a park etc). There is no balance with most of the folks who have now become online 'Disney celebrities'. But that's not even the point. I'm not talking about the content provided on sites like this one, per se. That's your editorial purview/judgment and most of the time, I find it to be very fair and well done (would like to see more of Lindsay's amazing photography and less of the same F-land constructions photos that are stripped across multiple sites, but that's just a personal preference). I'm talking about the discussion board content. All kinds of alarms go off in my head when people start talking about 'there's too much' of this or 'things need to be balanced' ... in a real, healthy, open community that stuff all happens on its own organically. Nothing is forced. What it comes down to is I'm a big fan of Disney. I'm not a fan of censorship. Given the chance, censorship will ALWAYS lead you to a dark place. <<This is what frustrates me so much. I see so many people here who are convinced that people are affected in what they write but the perks they get from Disney and their desire to keep them. But here I am, someone who's been doing this for 12 years now, one of the first websites to be recognized by Disney, we've probably gotten more perks than anyone if you add it all up over the years, and not upsetting Disney just isn't a factor in what we do. It wasn't back when we were the only online website at events, and it's not now with Disney having a social media department and 50 blogs being at events. It just doesn't matter. I want to be on the positive because it makes me happy and it attracts the kind of readers I want to attract and frankly - IT'S DISNEY - and even if they double the price and stop maintaining for six months - yes, it's not as good as it used to be, but it's still Disney and chances are, I'll still love it. And if I don't, it's time to move on to something else I do love. I'm not giving opinion here, I'm not speculating, I'm telling you facts from someone who's actually in this business and I can't imagine I'm the only person who has this point of view. Sitting here typing this it's so easy to understand, and all the motivation ascribing is frustrating and perplexing (and yes - we've been accused of the same thing many times over the years).>> Doobie just because you may ethics, you may do things the right way doesn't preclude the chance that NOT everyone does equally. It's plainly obvious to many of us that some people have relationships with Disney that are improper. You may not want to hear it. You may not have the facts. You may just want to steer clear of the topic, which you did in the original thread. I know you were engaging in hyperbole with your comments above, but that's the type of thing that I believe the fan community wouldn't agree with you on in large measure. But it IS what TDO would love to hear. I cringed when I read that. Look, I love WDW too ... but, no, it wouldn't be OK with me if they doubled the price and stopped all maintenance for six months. And I don't believe, FWIW, that if that happened you would be OK with that. I just really don't know what more I can say on this right now ... I believe in holding Disney to its own standards and PR and the vast majority of the fan sites do not. I guess if your first visit to WDW was in 2002 and you now have a Disney-related 'business' and you haven't traveled to many places (or even the Disney Resorts worldwide) then you may indeed feel WDW has never been better. From that individual's perspective, that might be true. The thing is, though, there are millions and millions of us who have traveled extensively, who have been visiting WDW many times annually since the 70s or 80s, who have been to many of Disney's other resorts, who have traveled extensively worldwide ... and, well, that isn't our perspective. And while opinions shouldn't be discounted (someone put a disclaimer here about them all having value etc), perspective/experience/knowledge shouldn't be thrown out the window because it makes some people uncomfortable. If you needed brain surgery tomorrow, would you hire a doctor who has only been doing the live-saving procedure you need for a few years or someone who's been doing so for a few decades? This really ain't brain surgery ... ~GFC~
Originally Posted By ReelJustice <<The thing is, though, there are millions and millions of us who have traveled extensively, who have been visiting WDW many times annually since the 70s or 80s, who have been to many of Disney's other resorts, who have traveled extensively worldwide ... and, well, that isn't our perspective.>> Heck, you don't even need to have done all of that. As ChiMike, HokieSkipper, dsyhates, and yourself can attest, all you have to do is travel a few miles down the road to Universal Orlando.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>You can love the parks and still see the deterioration. The two are not mutually exclusive.<<< Well, that's what I mean. It's a shade of grey. Nothing is totally in one camp or the other. We can post opinion, but we can't name names. We can love Disney World, but we can throw out lists of it's flaws. I'm not saying you are wrong at all, I'm just saying that the majority of issues here are convoluted as an opinion can not be a cut and dry fact. But that's semantics, anyway. ;-)
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Companies do NOT need you to tell them what they are doing right. That's always pretty obvious. What they are getting wrong, the target they are missing is not always so obvious ... or they may not think people are even noticing or caring.<<< And there lies the REAL point of social media. To INTERACT with your fans, to gauge their interest, and to see what the people who are invested in your product want. NOT to perpetuate branding, to spread misinformation, and to "control the message" of the company. Social means exactly that... interaction and watching.
Originally Posted By Doobie As I said, I'm not one to debate on boards - maybe we'll meet someday and can have real conversion about this. But I did want to talk about one topic. The censorship debate ... what I do here is not censorship. I'm not the government, everyone is free to write anywhere else they want or even start their own sites or blogs. I can't silence anyone, I only can keep them from speaking here. And as the person who funds this site and needs to make sure the content of it (including the discussion boards) allows me to continue to do that, I can do whatever I need to to make that happen. Yes - if the government dictated that every Disney fansite was required to accept only positive posts, that would be censorship and that would be bad. That every privately owned website can choose how it wants to moderate its own boards and every private citizen can choose what boards they want to participate in - that's freedom and that's wonderful. And for better or worse - I can lay down specific rules but their interpretation and enforcement will always be subjective. For example - in the ESPN thread there was a post I wasn't thrilled with. Unfortunately I saw it after other posts had already been added and there was other content in that post that was fine. The VP of Epcot (now Studios) being what I consider a Disney public figure, ultimately I let it go. We'll see there the topic goes - maybe it'll end being the right or the wrong decision, but those are the kinds of decisions moderators have to make. If everything was done according to the letter of the law, I think everyone would perceive it as very over-moderated. If nothing was moderated at all, you'd have Usenet and we know how that's doing now. So I and the other mods will make the calls, the readers and posters will either be ok with that or not. If not, they can feel free to raise objections both privately and publicly but ultimately the call and what stays and goes is mine and ultimately the call on whether to stay or go is yours. It's a wonderful system! Doobie.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I'm not saying you are wrong at all, I'm just saying that the majority of issues here are convoluted as an opinion can not be a cut and dry fact. But that's semantics, anyway. ;-)>> Sorry, but you're sadly mistaken. This is not an issue of opinion. This is dealing with facts through deductive reasoning. You either go to the parks or you don't. If you choose not to go, there are many factors at play in coming to that decision. Deterioration may or may not be one of those factors. You can love and adore the Disney parks but choose not to visit them. And again, that choice may or may not be decided by noticing the deterioration. How, exactly, is this opinion? Where do the semantics come into play? This is deductive reasoning, pure and simple. Fact: you either attend or you don't. Fact: you either notice the deterioration or you don't. Fact: you either allow the noticed deterioration to influence your decision to attend or you don't. Yes, it is cut and dry.
Originally Posted By leobloom << But I will on one point. I don't think the movie reviewer is a major difference. Seeing 2 or 3 movies a week gets very expensive. Getting access to early screenings and press junkets and even flown out to them is a great perk. Getting every DVD and Blu-Ray under the sun is a great perk. All of these can theoretically affect what someone writes. >> It's funny you mention it. The accusation of film critic bias has been popular with online movie critics like Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool. Sites like his get visits to film sets and the studios to see production art and in some cases get to see rough cuts of films. Not to mention the little promotions knick knacks that are sent to them. And Harry gets DVDs and Blu-Rays sent to him to review. And the point is Harry Knowles rarely ever gives a negative review. In fact, in some ways his "reviews" mirror what Spirit et al. have been describing with social media. His reviews are highly suspect, his ability to distinguish between a good film from a bad one is doubtful, and a lot of people who read his writings laugh at how predictable he is. In other words, the guy is the very opposite of what it means to be a professional. But I still suspect that there is, in general, more professionalism among the critics who work for traditional print sources. They may not be immune to bias, but I don't see Roger Ebert's opinion being influenced by a visit to a film's set. (I wonder if he would even accept the offer.) Just wanted to point out that the film critic example has it's own online/social media dimensions as well.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 This has really become not much fun. Think I will join vbdad in some time off.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<The VP of Epcot (now Studios) being what I consider a Disney public figure, ultimately I let it go. We'll see there the topic goes - maybe it'll end being the right or the wrong decision, but those are the kinds of decisions moderators have to make.>> Most of the time I agree with you, Doobie, but not about this. The Vice President of a Disney Park is an officer of the company. And this company in particular -- TWDC -- is publicly traded. Therefore, said officer is by definition a "public figure." If Disney were privately held, then I would tend to agree with you. But Disney is one of the most widely invested corporations on the NYSE. Any officer who represents any business unit of this company should be open to public scrutiny, as a condition of his/her employment with said company.
Originally Posted By Doobie I said I DO consider him a Disney public figure. I do permit his name to be used. I still moderate what can be said about him. The comment I'm referring to said he got his job because of his last name and good looks. That's a personal insult. That's not a discussion of what he's done, that's a discussion of him. Other stuff was said as well and I did let it go but that comment on its own is one, by the letter, would not be allowed. So I'm not sure we even disagree. Doobie.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Sorry, Doobie. I misunderstood what you wrote. I didn't know that it was the personal comment you were referring to in your post.
Originally Posted By Doobie No problem. And I'm sorry to the original poster for pointing that out. I normally would not like to do that but I felt in this case, with all the discussion, a specific example would be good. But I am sorry. Doobie.
Originally Posted By ChiMike Sjhym, if you are still out there I would strongly ask you to reconsider. I also agree that its not very fun around here right now. I think in the first 10 posts I suggested we just move on and not dwell on the process or politics of posting. I can only hope with d23 coming up that there will be interesting discussion around the corner.
Originally Posted By WDWVacationer <<I can only hope with d23 coming up that there will be interesting discussion around the corner.>> I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes, so I'll let the person I heard this from post what is likely to be announced (I know he posts here)But it's not exciting and it ain't much.
Originally Posted By lazyboy97o This whole big discussion is built on a logical falacy. Correlation does not prove causation. If you think think a website or blog has been "compromised" then vote with your screen and stop going. If you want a place to have a certain discussion, then it is rather easy to start your own website and/or discussion board. Any weight given to bloggers or podcasters is ga personal matter, just the same as when it comes to "real" media. A company blog is no more dangerous than a company magazine. So what if people can only respond in a certain manner? Who is seriously expecting anything else? They're comments, not a discussion board.
Originally Posted By WDWFigment <<<This whole big discussion is built on a logical falacy. Correlation does not prove causation. If you think think a website or blog has been "compromised" then vote with your screen and stop going. If you want a place to have a certain discussion, then it is rather easy to start your own website and/or discussion board. Any weight given to bloggers or podcasters is ga personal matter, just the same as when it comes to "real" media. A company blog is no more dangerous than a company magazine. So what if people can only respond in a certain manner? Who is seriously expecting anything else? They're comments, not a discussion board.>>> Agreed completely. Social media is not such when a corporation is using it. The sole purpose of these companies using social media is to promote their products. It's not in the interest of creating some sort of wonderful open dialogue between producers and consumers that results in a better product. The purposes motivating the use of social media by individuals are (typically) wholly different than those motivating companies. That doesn't make it a bad thing. It is what it is. The only way social media will "destroy society" as some seem to be implying is by shortening our collective attention spans and making us even more addicted to our electronic devices. Of course, people derided internet forums for the same thing at one time, and now they're being lauded for being the "better" type of interaction. I think Putnam hit the nail on the head with Bowling Alone, and social media is indicative of that, but I use all sorts of social media so I suppose I'm a hypocrite (and for the purposes of this conversation I suppose this is all neither here nor there). I'm glad Doobie came in and addressed this topic. While I am admittedly not nearly as critical as some of the folks here, I'd like to think I'm reasonably critical of TWDC, but for me, some of this was a little out there. I personally know a few of the people referenced by name in the other thread, and while I won't speak to their character or methods, their motivations are certainly not what many suggested. To be sure, some of these people view things with a heavy dose of pixie dust, but what do you expect? Not everyone is critical. People who are in the "business of Disney" are obviously likely to skew towards really liking Disney. Sometimes that means they'll have blinders on towards the faults of the company. Reading more into it might be fun fodder for forums, but that's about it, I think.
Originally Posted By WDWFigment ^^^I should probably expand on that first paragraph a bit. What I mean by that is that I think most people view social media when used by corporations as nothing more than flashy marketing or advertising. The aesthetics of billboards piss me off, but I'm not about to complain that the billboard doesn't involve the company advertising on the billboard interacting with consumers in a meaningful way. They are what they are: dumb advertisements.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>This is not an issue of opinion. This is dealing with facts through deductive reasoning.<<< I Know THAT part, I mean the whole issue of liking the parks, but finding fault. I find that area to be murky. That's all. I agree for the most part, however.
