To my mind, the ?ideal board? would be run ?by and for users?, as this one has been, but with significant input from the company. In other words, we have complete freedom to (responsibly) say what we want, and AC provides input and answers to questions, and gains positive PR, a source of free user support, and an additional public forum for disseminating information to users. Such a board has significant benefits to both the users and the company. I was pleased that in recent weeks we were functioning in exactly that way.
Apparently some of what appeared here was unacceptable and so the company wants to limit, to an unclear degree, what can be said. I say ?apparently? because, somewhat ironically, there has been no statement from Jon B or Trish, our new admin*, as to exactly what changes are planned. I assume that will be forthcoming. Perhaps this change is simply an administrative one; but when you remove the slogan ?by and for users?, and name an administrator who works for AC (rather than a user), it seems that a more fundamental change is afoot.
The assumption made by Dave and others above is that this change implies increased input by tech support and others at the company to add more ?official? answers to user issues. Hopefully that is true and is the trade-off in return for some limitation of our own freedom of expression.
*It was suggested that I edit this post to reflect the fact that Trish is actually a global moderator, not an administrator. That is true, but in reality the name of the title is less important than the associated privileges.
Last edited by JBS; 11/15/2011 8:54 AM.
