When people try to mis represent the facts or try to change history they will be called out.

Serena, I can’t see where this is true in the linked post, especially not in your quotes. Both are a lengthy and stupid introduction into a single paragraph with a simple thesis in each. And while the first is true (it takes some time to get into the code, so shorttime involvement could be hard to realize), the second is at least one explaination why CS stays closed source. This may be wrong, but nevertheless it’s from a special point of view a valide strategy.* In conclusion paying coders and exclude them from politics/non-tech decisions is also a strategy to avoid mixing technic and content (and yes, Uffie: capitalism is slavery).

Of course: My idea of my favourite network is different from Ulf’s (and CS). All this corporate strategy stuff sound really weird to me when I think about a _social_ network based on hospitality exchange. But my idea of discussion is also trying to listen/read and understand my opponents. Hopefully I learn from it. This also helps to make my diffent point of view better founded.

Just pointing fingers and context- & contentless quotes doesn’t help.
midsch

*Disclaimer: Before my resign from volunteering I talked to Ulf about open/closed source once and especially why security issues could stop opening the code immediately. So I may be the quoted “OCS’er”. But noone was asking for opening the code to public without checking security and I told him so as well.

Because of all of that I’ve been claiming for years now that our coders should NOT be voluntary workers but paid ones! Who sign this darn NDA (or whatever it’s called) and do for CS what they are told.

Do what you are TOLD. That is not longer volunteerism or a paid employee but more like slavery!! Also has ULf even read the NDA?Does he know from where it was copied?Does he care about what is in the NDA more than bier ?

ALSO from what I’ve been told (I never verified that information nor could I do that as I don’t know shit about coding…)

http://www.couchsurfing.com/group_read.html?gid=429&post=840124#post857134

And then (and here I go out on a limb even more than above – as I don’t really know 100% what I’m talking about…)

When people try to mis represent the facts or try to change history they will be called out.

I know it’s hard to read Ulf’s posts because of length, weird examples and polemic ranting. And maybe he gets drunk more than he should from time to time. BUT: if you’d try to read the linked post, you’ll find a possible explaination why the LT is using it’s actual volunteer policy. And in my opinion a more probable explaination than some conspiracy stuff (here).

Simplified Ulf seems to be OK with a (voluntary paid) CS-webservice, that opens all kind of oppertunities as host, guest or meeting attendee. He doesn’t seem to care how it works as long as it works (well for him). Take it or leave it as a user and/or volunteer.

You don’t agree with this kind of concept? I do neither, but still it’s a somehow working concept for Ulf and CS corp. Even if _I_ don’t think it’s the right policy (and also don’t agree with Ulf’s opinion on other things), I’d appreciate to calm down, do a better job on analysing, rating & commenting and try to learn from it. If we can’t change CS, we may do something else. Something better or more suitable for ourselves (not necessarily for Ulf). I’m not the only one here who lost hope for CS, but some good ideas for the future of this site and why it’s still useful to stay tuned: http://www.opencouchsurfing.org/2008/03/26/channeling-our-energy/#comment-9495

PS: Sorry, for picking this comment in special, it’s true for more stuff here (and I don’t think about the trolls). Somehow the personal bitching is becoming too much for me right now, especially when there is nothing to get out of it. Maybe I’m too sensitive, but that’s they way it is.

I guess both sides have learned from all that went wrong in Montreal and in NZ.

What went wrong? Does ULf even know ? Ulf has never helped except at getting drunk and going for pajama parties.He uses couchsurfing!! like he used that girls pic on his profile.

It’s just that the problem for the one side is that they have no power within CS and can’t do anything to change things the way they’d like them to be – except for trying to do so with campaigns or sites like OCS.

What he tried to do here is make it look like the volunteers wanted power!! This is so naive.Either he does not know the issue or is using this tripe to confuse the issues. It was NEVER about power. Heather and dani had said this would not be about one man after the crash. Does Ulf remember that in his drunk head(I love the video where he was so drunk he forget the station where he needed to get down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVC9FU9lX54 . Casey was the guy at both collectives . He quite in MTL after he deleted the database.Heather made up for caseys void by sending out a goodbye letter and signed it on behalf of casey.At NZ kasper created the wiki with caseys permission everything was done with caseys permission . So this power trick wont work ULF.

It’s quite understandable that this feeling of powerlessness makes them rather angry – especially when at the same time the LT actually can impose on all of us their ideas which are the result of having drawn their own lessons from what went wrong.

What ULf tries to do here is make it look like people were angry due to some kind of power struggle. The only struggle was the orgy stuggle .Casey ruled taking the couchsurfing credit card for a trance party leaving everyone without food. You were not there ULF you were probably drunk on some street.

ULf is a lost cause all his treads are NON factual tripe . I love ULF

Anyway Valeri, my sarcasm was, wow how could anyone imagine a fight would start when ulf came back. Not that I was shocked that it happened, that was my sarcasm. I was not shocked at all. not because I thought Ulf would start something but because both sides are good at annoying each other, so neither party are innocent. So no I was not shocked which is one of the reasons I choose not to be in BS.

>>As I said I was being sarcastic. I was saying I am shocked that Ulf could go back into Brainstorm and a fight could start instantly.

shocked.. that ULF could start a fight instantly?? Could entangle and derail threads? Could get people to quit reading or adding useful input by spamming people with multi-page posts?? Cmon, this was easily predictable!!

In short: I don’t believe in democracy – at least not here on CS!

In short he believes in imperialism or marxism ?

The consuls(Casey) serve as “kings;” the senate(LT/Admins/Ambassadors) as an aristocracy managing the state, the people in the assembly as the source of strength. nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/doyle/index.html

First of all because it’s simply not wanted by the overwhelming majority of all CS members! And it seems absolutely illogical to me to start democracy with ignoring the wishes of that huge majority…

I love the way ULF talked for everyone on couchsurfing.
majority rules with minority rights.
FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative (and vague) information

His ‘errors’ tend to be of selective omission and appear to be consistently crafted to support his arguments.
this tactic is more common in the field of law in which the objective is to win the argument rather than to find the truth.
skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-06-01.html

And I for once am very much against giving democratic power to most of those very, very few ones that actually want democracy on CS!
Just thinking about all the safety issues and how CS would probably turn into a Falcons’ and Fundamentalists’ BigBrotherWonderland if we’d actually let those decide things here who are most eagerly demanding democratic powers (instead of leaving this to the – so far… – rather laissez-faire LT) gives me the creep!

If an article or press release uses some of the methods
above, attribute it one point per method. In the end, you can
say that a given article has a “FUD Factor of 4″ or rated
“7 on the FUD scale”.

The first thing is recognizing FUD in all its forms. Awareness for
the average person is the tricky part. Consider the average person
that has an interest in the ever changing world of technology and
networking. They go day to day without the benefit of forums that
readily challenge these huge companies oozing FUD at every crevice.
attrition.org/~jericho/works/security/fud.html

That said, the dominant boor species today is the fundamentalist boor, and they are easy to distinguish from their fellow congregants (be clear on the point: not all fundamentalists or evangelicals are boors). They demand that all their points be considered with delicate precision, yet they make not even a meaningful pretense of honestly considering anyone else’s arguments. Each boor is convinced that the other side in any debate is somehow an agent of evil or, at best, a subhuman dupe.

They believe their opponents to be dishonest and consequently feel no moral imperitive to honesty themselves. They misrepresent facts, slander their opponents and act as if they feel not the slightest twinge of conscience.

Somewhere in the tortured psyche of the boor lies a sense of profound insecurity, which to me suggests something of their affinity for fundamentalism. Fundamentalism says that knowledge and achievement are nothing next to faithfulness and orthodoxy.

Either we exclude all dissenting voices (which only gives boors more legitimacy) or we allow boors to dominate discussions.

we must figure out who is a legitimate participant and who is a boor — or, as they’re known online, a troll. They will claim a seat at the head of the table, but they haven’t earned entrance to the room.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. And that’s where I want to start drawing lines.
conovermedia.blogspot.com/2005/03/boor-factor.html

okijibawa This is starting to sound like I am having a conversation with Dr Harpal Sing.

Ah so the tactic is do not ask for a clarification
* Make Your Opponent Look Ridiculous

* Appeal to Authority
* Appeal to Experience
* Appeal to Fear
* Appeal to Popular Passions
* Appeal to Tradition or Faith (“the tried & true”)
* Assume a Posture of Righteousness
* Attack the person (and not the argument)
* Beg the Question
* Call For Perfection (demand impossible conditions)
* Create a False Dilemma (the great either/or)
* Question Your Opponent’s Conclusions
* Create Misgivings: Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire
* Create A Straw Man
* Deny or Defend Your Inconsistencies
* Demonize His Side Sanitize Yours
* Evade Questions, Gracefully
* Flatter Your Audience
* Hedge What You Say
* Ignore the Evidence
* Ignore the Main Point
* Attack Evidence (that undermines your case)
* Insist Loudly on a Minor Point
* Make Much of Any Inconsistencies in Your Opponent’s Position
* Make Your Opponent Look Ridiculous
* Oversimplify the Issue

Never mind . I see the pattern.

Nevermind, please don’t answer. You are not making sense. This is starting to sound like I am having a conversation with Dr Harpal Sing.

I think I am missing the point as to why Seb using an ESP (I assume you mean Extremely Positive) which is still a menu choice available to everyone when leaving a reference. When it is not available, I am assuming Seb will adapt and not use it. Of course, if you are talking about ESP – ExtraSensory Perception, I think Spyro has it, Rachel might, and Seb from I hear might as well.

I am not picking on you, but I did stumble across your posts this evening and many of them left me confused. I am just not sure what your point is in many of them. As for Spyro and Rachel discussing the Ref system, that may or may not be true. And from what I have read on the CS site a new version of it IS coming soon. But what does that have to do with a “founder” and a reference he left?

I believe in Mandie’s comment it is stated “from the moment we spoke on the phone…….for coming … to the collective” … It appears since Mandie is at the collective, and Deena also showed up, they did actually meet.

Combat Global Warming Reggae Festival in Pai, Thailand with Palmy and all the popular Thai bands

pai, thailand, global, warming, raggae, festival, band, bands, palmy, music, entertainment, event

http://paitown.com/Gallery/RMF.html

From MANDIE M
Pai, Thailand
Mar 3 Met in person
Extremely Positive

Deena is super fabulously nice! From the moment we spoke on the phone her general cheerfulness shone through…very easy going, positive outlook on life and a smile that could light up any room! Thank you so much for coming and brightening up the Collective

From Sebastien Le Tuan
San Jose, United States
Mar 12 Met in person
Extremely Positive

Deena is sweet, charming, and packs a big, insatiable appetite for Life and exploring the world. I really enjoyed spending those few days with her in Pai, talking about why we’re traveling in the first place, watching the starry sky during a power outage, and dancing with locals at the Pai Reggae Fest. I love her outlook on Life and I hope to join her someday on more unforgettable adventures.

For Sebastien Le Tuan
San Jose, United States
Mar 1 Met in person
Extremely Positive

All smiles and way too much fun = Seb. I had an absolute blast dancing all night at the Reggae Festival in Pai- trading hats and bonding with the locals. And when you’re not dancing and laughing with Seb, then you’re having interesting, intelligent conversations… he reminds me so much of my close friends from back home. I was so sad to leave Pai so soon, for it would have been nice to have more time to get to know you better…… but we have a world of time for dancing. Hope to see you, again, and thanks for all of your hard work at the Collective! You’re the best!

Maybe you don’t like my emotion but doesn’t mean I’m going to change my posting style. I will post as I see fit, when I see fit.

Look who is assuming. That is why it better not to lecture someone on stuff you cannot follow yourself. There is no maybe. i just pointed out when you post with anger your posts go offtopic and haywire (does not always but it does most time for more people.PS your=not directing the statement towards you)

About the penis envy and the rest of that, I didn’t pay attention because they are not brainstorming they are flaming. Plain and simple. Ulf says I am in an argument, if you are not interested in the Ulf Pickwick show don’t read on. It really doesn’T interest me beyond that.

I think you missed the whole point. And it is immaterial if you care or dont care about the flame war.
Let me requote

OR “penis envy” or “small penis syndrome” (This show how a moderator who has to keep a topic on track ,deliberately?(or maybe he is not so intelligent to know what he is doing) does this to the thread.
This shows how an immature poster tries to weasel himself out of a situation where his bluff is called. Also notice how many unnecessary lines where wasted.And this guy is a moderator funny!!

The main issue is a good moderator DOES not start a flame war, does not use 38 Ways To Win An Argument.A good moderator is an individual who diffuses flame wars

What are the ideal traits in a moderator? (sitepoint – Super Moderator Guide)
One thing you can do to identify a mature member is to closely evaluate how they react when faced with different forum situations. Do they get angry easily? Are their answers usually unbiased? Are they considerate of others’ ideas and opinions? If you answered yes to those questions, then you might have found a mature member who’d make a good moderator.

Also sorry about the paragraphs, I thought there were spaces in between. How do I edit that?

Ok can someone tell me how to edit my previous post to make it more helpful before I answer this post. I have to go out now and will answer later on tonight or tomorrow.

Don’t assume you know the answers before they are given. That was one of the things I learned when I started as a teacher. Many students may ask the same questions and you may think you know what they are going to ask, as 20 other people have asked the same thing, but listen because your canned answer may not be right and when you give it, you look foolish. So next time, don’t assume the answers, wait for them.

What are you talking about ?What answers? Please quote the lines when you make an allegation.

The Extremists are people to fear in government and terrorism usually.

nuf said

How many people have been discontented by her tactics? I would like names? Figures
Have you proof donna played games, once again.
Why do you believe people are in these groups to give it credibility, do you have proof of this or just want to say it.

Do you follow the groups ?Did you ? Do scan all of donnas posts from the BS and BSr and then we can post quotes.

She just didn’t have time to look through the archives,
She is not ignoring people’s posts

Well, does Marcus often post in the BS group?

Is this related to my previous statement,”if” it is the it has been twisted out of context. OR is this a question out of the blue with no connection to the flow of posts here?

Also what makes you say they are miscommunicating? They are not, it is simply no communication. You can’t miscommunicate something when nothing is being said.

So is this the present tactic of the LT?
My post refers to donna not anyone else ,to whome does “they” refer ?

“What are you shocked about?”

As I said I was being sarcastic. I was saying I am shocked that Ulf could go back into Brainstorm and a fight could start instantly. That’s all. I was being sarcastic about the fact people said we could go back to bs and be productive again yet as soon as Ulf went back in a flame war started.

Don’t read too much into it. Seriously, if you are asking me questions, why are you writing answers for me first. Don’t assume you know the answers before they are given. That was one of the things I learned when I started as a teacher. Many students may ask the same questions and you may think you know what they are going to ask, as 20 other people have asked the same thing, but listen because your canned answer may not be right and when you give it, you look foolish. So next time, don’t assume the answers, wait for them.

About the penis envy and the rest of that, I didn’t pay attention because they are not brainstorming they are flaming. Plain and simple. Ulf says I am in an argument, if you are not interested in the Ulf Pickwick show don’t read on. It really doesn’T interest me beyond that.

Although I give credence to one thing. Pickwick always asks questions and gets pissed when nobody answers them, ie, Jim, Casey, Rach etc. but as Ulf pointed out, when you (since you are reading this) are asked straight out to name your sources for your proof behind the questions or answers you give, or statements you make, you refuse to give them. You do the same as Daz did here, you ask a question, making it seem as if you are enquiring, but then give an answer making it sound like fact, although it’s in a questioning tone. What you posted about Rach leaving the BS group for instance. She didn’t leave because of that, I remember talking to her about it once and she was saying how glad she was to finally leave that group and come to BSR and maybe get things productive again.

So Pickwick,, like the advice I tried to give to Daz, when you ask a question, please wait for an answer please. If you feel it is rhetorical, let it be so, don’t accuse people of things acting as if you know all the facts and then refusing to name your sources. I’ll go on to Daz’s first post now.

My favourite one is this: I take offence to being called “a pathological liar”, and Ulf says he doesn’t believe I’m really offended; I’m just pretending so that I can attack him. :-}

a nice big fight showing pictures of you and accusing you of things as soon as you did. i am shocked and appalled that could happen, i mean hasnt that place changed?

What are you shocked about?Ulf pressing someones(tina/his guest?) tits? Pressing someone ticks and captioning it as Molesting tina! that too on a site which says Couchsurfing is NOT a dating site.What do you no get?
Do you think it is acceptable? Can anyone else also molest tina now that ulf has molested her?Can everyone now post molesting pics not that ambassador Ulf Kleinings from Cologne had done it.

Also ULF have no point to help any discussion notice how he refers to his opponents genitals and sexuality in the BSR to AVOID facing the point. And this on a thread whose subject is “I think we’ve had two playgrounds long enough”.
Thirty – Eight Ways to Win an Argument
from Schopenhauer’s “The Art of Controversy”

3 Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it.
Attack something different than what was asserted.

OR “penis envy” or “small penis syndrome” (This show how a moderator who has to keep a topic on track ,deliberately?(or maybe he is not so intelligent to know what he is doing) does this to the thread.

“pathological liar”: Of course I apologize! For it was not quite correct. Or maybe it was – but then I didn’t KNOW, so I failed my own standards (hey – I could run for NY governor now!!!). Fact is that most of what you post is wrong. It’s simply untrue – and yet you keep trying to sell it as the truth to everyone. But that doesn’t necessarily make you a liar – for a liar knows what he’s doing…

This shows how an immature poster tries to weasel himself out of a situation where his bluff is called. Also notice how many unnecessary lines where wasted.And this guy is a moderator funny!!

Recently Rach asked me to go through my records and find any old posts I could find about the reference system. I went back over a year in Amb groups, brainstorm, BSR QvQ groups and whatever I could find to dig up anything I could find about people talking about changing the reference system from extremelies and removing the references from the friend links.

Why did rach go ask a few people and not have a common discussion (this led to the discontent in the ambassador group where people wanted the “extremely positive” ref and it was remove and AFTER it is remove there is a poll?If you study threads in the Amb groups, brainstorm, BSR QvQ you will less than 1% of people give their feedback on those threads and there is a lot of noise on the threads (the best example is ulf a lot of copy paste ,no originality,too many flaming tactics,38 Ways To Win An Argument).

38 Ways To Win An Argument—Arthur Schopenhauer :- 17 If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction.Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent’s idea.

And if you see you post it does give the reader an impression that you were claiming that the references were changed due to the BSR .There were some tech guys like Jeff who were following the thread . Donna got all her buddies rachel and all the tech to join the BSR to show that “if” people post in the BSR their pleas WOULD be heard.Even you post is trying to argue that BSR is HEARD and BS is not. Let us not mince words.
Rach’s tactic of confiding in a few has caused discontent all over.
Also your last post does show why some peoples feedback is heard and most of the others are ignored .Even if the rest have a LOT of stuff they could contribute.
It also shows how emotional attachment to people can sometimes prevent people from putting their frank opinions forward.Ok so casey is a nice guy, rach is nice. This does not mean they are mis communicating and could change for the better with some nice FRANK feedback!!.It also does not mean donna did not play games because emotion and the urge to jump to the defense of her buddies made her lose track of the bigger picture.

I called you a greenhorn as you implied that the reference where worked on only due to the BSR,this was before you clarified rach contacting you etc. Also your posts are full with flustration and sometimes animosity which should be parked at the door (you do that here but on the BSR it does show)

I had animosity to BS because I was attacked so often about anything i said, i became worried about posting, and i grew depressed about cs reading the posts.

I do not remember a single post where you were personally attacked .But I could be wrong could you post a link to that thread?Also you never used to post more than a few lines,so it is weird you posts were attacked.

Another game at the BSA was the 3 mods to show that 1) Marcus who started BS endorsed BSR.Also show that there are so many tech team jeff, weston to show the new groups credibility. Too bad these guys never really made the group what it was supposed to be and remained silent spectators.Also this was used to indirectly ask members to LEAVE BS.

I maybe blunt as if I try to be all nice it would bury the facts.This does not imply i do not respect and appreciate your posts.

I can understand why I was called a Green horn by Daz, and thanks for saying I’m not Margeret, but he can think I am, it’s his perogative. As you said though, I do say it straight, I try not to mince words and I prefer to be spoken to directly, not talked about as if I am not here, nor will ever be.

I must say, you are one of the people I respect most in here, the posts I have read from you are very helpful and respectful. I will continue to come here on and off, Ulf sent me to this post in a funny email claiming I was trying to steal this thread from him.

I like posting in here but not on most threads, just a few I feel I have a proper opinion on. I have taken a few breaks from BS over time from all the noise. I also took a break from chat, as this was also the first place I had used a chat room, and started to take it way too seriously, to the point where I would spend almost all day online. I pulled back and put everything in perspective. That is one of the reasons I plan to go offline from all net use for 2 weeks when I am in India at the end of this month. It’s been a long time since I was offline for more than a few days. I hope it clears me up and reminds me not to be online so much anymore.

Anyway, this is a useless post so I will shut up now.

I think the key is to care…but not care emotionally about the conversations on BS or BRR or OCS. That is the hook that needs to be disengaged. I don’t know the CS founders personally so, for me, this is an interesting sociological experiment. For others…they know these people…they are friends with them….they trust them. It’s a different (more cult-like, Thomas?) engagement. The stakes are higher. for me, it’s entertainment; not so for others…and that needs to be respected to a higher degree.

You’re not a green horn Spyro. Anyone who posts honestly is great. and we appreciate your work in researching the reference debate…big thanks. Truthfully…anyone who posts their true feelings I think is worthy. I appreciate OCS for allowing this expression.

On a personal note, CS BS, OCS and related threads have proven to be “too much” for many people at some point or other, including myself. I find taking a break once in a while helps a lot. Also, over time, I’m finding it easier to separate content from emotion. Even in “difficult” posts, loaded with emotion and bad spelling, I often find something interesting. Funny enough, I find OCS much easier to argument on, simply because we lack much of the meta-discussion: the arguing about arguments. Closing or not closing a group seems to me like one of those incredibly unimportant and time-consuming discussion, just as forming the BSR group originally was. OCS has been “stable” in what is deemed acceptable because it is such a broad freedom. And, oddly enough, the signal to noise ratio is actually better than in BS for instance!

In any case, I hope you continue feeling welcome here and the same goes for Daz! Despite our misunderstandings and occasionally heated debate, I have the feeling we’re all still learning. And that’s what matters to me.

Daz, I read this and I reply, can you please have some decency and say this straight to me if you want to argue a point with me. We have been talking in a civil mannaer in here, and we have spoken with respect, so with all due respect, next time, if you think you can interpret something like this is some way talk to me, and don’t accuse me of something to the rest of the group if it is not in a questioning and looking for answers way.

Okay so, I never claimed that the references were only worked on in BSR, believe me I know it wasnt. Wanna know why? Recently Rach asked me to go through my records and find any old posts I could find about the reference system. I went back over a year in Amb groups, brainstorm, BSR QvQ groups and whatever I could find to dig up anything I could find about people talking about changing the refernce system from extremelies and removing the references from the friend links.

About me being a green horn, once again, I have only been using CS groups, they are the only online forums i have ever used, that doesnt mean I dont know anything. Sometimes you need an outsiders perspective on stuff, so maybe I am an outsider in online forums. I think it also helps I only have experience with online things in CS, cos I can only give my experience in this site and its like when i started teaching at berlitz, they liked that i hadnt done a training course before cos they could train me to teach as they wanted me to.

I had animosity to BS because I was attacked so often about anything i said, i became worried about posting, and i grew depressed about cs reading the posts. Honestly i felt like cs was going to the dogs. Then I would remember, i only felt like that when it came to me reading that group. When it came to being out and going to meetings all over europe i had a blast. So did i have animosity? Yes. cos it took some of my happy a way. One of the reasons I had to break up with the girl I am still in love with because i was not happy anymore.

I mean the only reason I came in here was cos i was attacked, and not addressed straight on. I was accused of something and then the accusation was rescinded by you when i called you on it. Once again, courtesy, come to me first please, i dont mind if its in this open forum, but say it like you are asking me.

I am not scared BSR will be closed, I know it wont, because cs policy is that we only close the groups when the moderators have agreed to and all the active members have agreed. Or if the group is dead, and nobody posts. Neither of these are true. so i am not worried it will close, i was stating a fact that only a few people were posting in favour of closing it, being ezeq, ulf and pickwick, plus someone else i think, but nobody from BSR who were the ones who opposed it in the beginning of the thread, and nobody who originally said they wanted the BSR in place cos BS was such a battlegroud. And ulf wasnt even suggesting closing it, he was suggesting leaving it open but asking BSR people if they wanted to rejoin BS.

I did not argue that the references only got loooked at in BSR, i was stating that the group was in fact looked at. simpole as that. Dont choose to dissect some of my words and leave the rest of the meaning please.

Since i said tone is hard to read on the net, i am reiterating this point, this is not and angry post, nor a negative one, i am stating the facts.

Thanks

I’ve seen the same problem in all types of new organisations, or family businesses: handing over to the second generation often goes wrong. In this context I also believe the importance of the so-called ‘crash’ is underestimated: It seems Casey destroyed the web site by mistake, and Couchsurfing was dead. He walked away, probably in a mixture of pain, anger, shame and depair. A whole lot of volunteers then came to the rescue and restarted it. (I notice Casey quite fairly only claims the founding of the initial project, and shows modesty in saying he “helped with” restarting it.)

This meant that the second generation didn’t grow into the task gradually, but was brought in practically overnight, and in huge numbers, working massive work loads. When they started to want a say in how things were done, by the sheer weight they now had, this must have been perceived as quite threatening, much more than it would have been within a normal growth pattern. Massive conflict began, with the aim to get rid of them. Unfortunately that has set the tone ever since, I feel.

Although I can’t honestly say I see it from where I am, there has to be something about Casey that initially won him a lot of hearts, and trust, and goodwill, and possibly still does. I’ve never met him and have never experienced that. From what I’ve seen online, and from what others tell me, I know that he’s not that hot as a programmer and database manager, he’s not a good change manager, he’s not a good project manager, and he’s not a good quality manager or controller.

Everybody seems agreed that we need better communication. Me too. I think one key job in the management has to be Communications Manager, and the rule will have to be: you can’t do it unless you’ve done the necessary communication first, so you need to clear it with Communications. Like turning off the water in an appartment building: tell people first, after that you can do it! What we have instead is Matthew Brauer. His first attempts to communicate was to tell us, with an audible sigh, that he really was a very busy person and had better things to do. When that didn’t work, his plan B was to go and disappear, and not speak to us any more. Even Jim Stone “pleaded” with us at some point to leave Matthew alone, because he didn’t really have that much of a way with words, and was prone to say things that could be misinterpreted.

I read with great interest, Margaret, that you said Mandie is trying to establish a less personality and more policy driven style of communication, where channels stay when people leave. You obviously know more than I do, and are in touch with her, and I find that very encouraging. If that’s happening, I’ll be her slave for life. Ultimately we need somebody just like that in a key (paid) job.

Obviously Volunteer Coordinator is another key job. Volunteers are what makes us. Take 600 ambassadors working 10 hours/week each, even calculating that at minimum wages makes us a rich organisation, in all senses of the word. And it’s much more than those 600, and yes, I believe what we do here counts too (bearing in mind that there really should be a place ON the web site for this, and that’s where we would be, if there was). The time people spend for the common good of the community (even outside of hosting and meeting) makes us millionaires.

Now, does ANYBODY really know what Jim Stone does, and how he defines Volunteer Coordination? I sure don’t. When I talk to people who are professional volunteer coordinators, and ask them: “if you got a task, how would you go about it?” this is what I hear: They would first of all ask themselves what they could OFFER the volunteers they need for the job, in order to get them. Do they want to acquire language skills? Do they need documentation of practical work for their studies? Do they just want to make new friends? Do they want to learn word processing or accounting? Then they would talk about project management and quality control, like defining targets and staying on time. Doing good project management will usually allow them to have timely consultation with the community they serve. So I think we need a volunteer coordinator, with good skills in project and quality management, and that person should be Chief Executive Officer, if only because the volunteers are “the boss” really, and what counts most.

And of course we need a chief technology person, in an organisation where almost everything has to be translated into a web site. But I think that job is overrated. Pardon me, all my friends (and others) who are programmers. I have the greatest respect for you and your expertise, and we really need you to tell us what is feasable and what isn’t, and to give us a cost/benefit analysis, and tell us HOW to do it. And I think you need to have a veto on the management team to avoid things being decided that aren’t possible. And I don’t mind paying for good service. But I do NOT think that your opinion about policy, and what we want to do, is worth more than anybody else’s. I don’t think you should be the ones to call the shots. It just happens that way easily, in Internet based organisations, because the “techies” control the web site. I think that’s wrong. [Ducking already.]

What we do NOT need is marketing. We have sufficient growth, probably more than, to the point that we might need a “sustainability” debate. We do NOT need merchandising, or sponsorship deals (giving Donna cheap flights), or a large media exposure. We do NOT really need more income for what we do now, but we WILL have it, and we may want to think about what to do with it. I also think we have a potential for increasing that income enourmously, through public grants and private donations (huge numbers of people are completely willing, and able, to make donations, if they only knew what for). After all, Couchsurfing is very “sexy”, and appeals to people.

There is the beginning of a debate somewhere about teaming up with charities, giving to the local communities in countries we go to. Health care, education, clean water, sustaining forests, putting people on their own feet who want nothing more than being responsible for themselves. Let’s not just offset pollution caused by our travels: let’s assume responsibility for our planet, which we as devoted travellers ought to cherish more than others. Someone gives me free accommodation when I’m on the road for fun, so I give some of the money I saved to Doctors Without Borders, to give health care to those who are on the move in fear for their life.

That’s where I’d like to move. AFTER cleaning up this organisation’s act. Happy Easter, everybody!

big disclaimer: I have no idea if this is a true and valid explanation of events…I don’t know any of the parties involved and I wasn’t a CS member in the early days. But I think there is another way of analyzing the picture without resorting to either malice or stupidity.

I think that CS was started, literally, as a way for Casey to meet people: girls, friends, people with common interests, people to just hang out with in new cities. I imagine that he never intended it to become this big thing…or a particularly noble thing…in the beginning. I’ll bet that he and his friends had a total kick with it…that it was the just the coolest thing to watch everyone get excited and join up…and actually then meet each other in person. I can imagine that being so much fun. Especially because there really was no scrutiny or justification of it…no money changing hands, no elections, no board meetings, no corporate trappings…just interesting people who seemed to be drawn to each other via a great idea. wide open horizon.

Anyhow, back in the day, what? 10 years ago…remember when the internet seemed like the wild west? identity theft was not widely worried over…and you could post what you liked. I think sketchy people were out there, certainly…but most of the people on the web were young and computer saavy. Not everyone was hooked online as they are now….and having an email address was still kind of cool. I think that this was largely the atmosphere in which CS was born…one where a person could claim a lot of nonsense that wasn’t exactly true to the letter….but no one was really watching anyway so who cares as long as it’s fun. I think this scenario explains how someone who is not a crook, or an idiot, could describe the site as 501c3 when it really wasn’t. I dont’ mean this to be a pardon in any way…since, when this small lie was dug out of the archives, Casey could have come clean and said, ok you got me….and then offered his own explanation. He chose not to do that…and will be judged accordingly.

I only want to present another side that perhaps may render the situation understandable (forgivable? that’s up to you alone) and put it in the context of the time: historical internet time…and within the late adolescent development of a human being…stupid things we all did in our early 20′s.

Desai was a legitimate guru, and had an adoring and devoted following. In the eyes of his followers, he brought light into their lives and could do no wrong. The problem was, he began to believe them.

It’s a long story, but one of the most disturbing aspects is that he abused his power by having sexual relations with some of his female disciples, something that didn’t fit well with what he was publically advocating (celibacy), or with the fact that he was married.

But worse, when the abused women would later try to confront him, they were called crazy by the other followers (who believed the guru without question when he denied the womens’ testimony) and shunned. This wholesale betrayal lead, in some cases, to serious psychological problems requiring treatment.

The guru has since repented. A friend of mine, who believes that Desai was a well-intentioned man corrupted by power, recently mediated a meeting between the guru and some of the ex-disciples he had betrayed in an effort to heal the damage that was done, that they are still coping with more than 10 years later. Having such a meeting while the guru still held all the power, and before his spell was broken, would have been worse than useless.

“Whenever you have an individual who claims a direct pipeline with God and has no accountability, if you don’t have a [so-called] cult today, you will have one tomorrow (Geisler, 1991).”

I think it’s very beautiful, and sad.

My Scottish friend Blair once coined a variation, explaining someone’s acts: “Basically she’s just an insecure cow!” It features largely in my analysis of human behaviour, as Blair’s Insecure Cow Axiom!

At some point I thought the 501(c)(3) “cover up” was just about the delays and incompetence around it. Unfortunately, however, stupidity is no guarantee for the absence of malice.

And strangely enough it’s almost working. I’m beginning to ask myself: did Donna really campaign for people to boycott the old Brainstorm group, or am I just imagining that? And the people who told her she was going too far with that, did they just imagine it too? Stout denial of an undeniable fact can be the best strategy, especially when you have no other.

But then I also recall: Yes, I asked many times to see the corporate bye-laws, for instance, and some people probably got bored by reading that again and again, and some people probably got put off by the aggressive turn this often took. But, hello: I was right, remember!? Couchsurfing was incorporated as a charitable entity, and should have filed all that paperwork back in 2003, and it was all public information by law. So we all had an absolute right to see it, and were blown off unlawfully by our employee Matthew Brauer’s arrogant and sarcastic: “we’re not publishing every single document we have on file”.

Ulf now seems to be working on a revised history of Couchsurfing where all that never happened. It was just a bunch of people using the wrong tone, so it was understandable their questions were ignored, and they were left behind to play on their own. He’s a hard liner who probably will never learn, maybe because in his own life he has the same difficulty telling apart how he IS and how he WANTS to be. Maybe it’s because, as he once hinted, he has decided to trust Casey, and that’s that.

It brings me back to something I said elsewhere: what happens to all that betrayed trust? We’ve seen anger and bitterness; we’ve seen denial. But I often wonder what goes on in the heart of someone like Matthew Brauer, who was sent to blow off legitimate questions, and now looks as if he either was a fellow crook, or a fool who allowed himself to be made Casey’s poodle to do the dirty lying for him. Is it possible that he is entirely without misgivings towards Casey? And what about those people who were listed as directors for times when they weren’t, possibly ending up with some unwelcome personal liabilities, should something from those years be fishy? Are they perfectly fine with all that? How much of all that professed trust is (still) real?

When I think about it, the scenario that they all might have been crooks together ironically even seems better for all of us. That would be glass clear. The alternative, I believe, is that we are dealing with a regime of people who have very ill-defined and insincere relationships with each other, with lots of hidden and denied anger, which might erupt any second. It’s the result of abusing trust, and putting it where it doesn’t belong. That kind of strong emotional torrent would certainly explain a lot of the irrational behaviour we see.