The rigged "community pricing" system...

Page 2 of 3 (51 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 50 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 819
Lew Worthington | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jun 27 2020 8:15 PM

Yeah, I don't see any problem at all with CP. It seems like a great option. And if I don't think it's worth the bid, I don't bid.

Posts 4921
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jun 28 2020 2:43 AM

Bradley Grainger (Faithlife):
Let's say the production cost is $30,000

MY point, is that if FL was in the habit of setting a $1 MAX bid and letting that percolate for a week or two, I think people would get into the habit of bidding on CPs on a regular basis. I'm not exactly sure how and at what point you might have to bump it up to $2 or $3 dollars, but I do think everyone would be surprised, if not shocked, at how many folks decided to regularly bid on dirt cheap resources. I don't know where $30K stands in terms of average CP costs, but if people were given a chance to bid just $1 and that was the ONLY possible bid, you could probably get 30,000 folks to pony up that buck. This tactic also would be greasing human psychology rather than poking it with a stick. Going back 15-20 years (pretty much since CPs started, whenever that was), I have complained about the bidding process FL employs because it fundamentally ASSUMES bidding dynamics that ignore basic human psychology. FL did implement my suggestion that the outrageously oppressive "Your bid will fail" should be replaced with "Your bid may not succeed". But there are any number of other inherent structures in the CP process that essentially RUN CUSTOMERS OFF rather than encourage maximum customer engagement.

I know this...Bob said very early in the CP process that he didn't care what the closing price was--it could be 1 person bidding $30K, or 30K people bidding $1--he just wanted to cover the expenses. If that is still true, THEN FL IS BUNGLING CP BADLY.

EVERY SINGLE CP SHOULD BE INTRODUCED AT $1 AS THE ONLY AVAILABLE BIDDING LEVEL FOR AT LEAST ONE WEEK TO ONE MONTH. If FL made this new policy a regularly advertised *ATTRACTION!!* on the home page, I seriously doubt it would take long before almost every CP was closing in record time...at one dollar a pop. If the resource doesn't close in the first month, bump the bid to $2 FOR THOSE WHO BID FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, then do the same for subsequent months, giving customers who bid less the option of bumping their bids to $2 or $3 if they want to hasten the project. JUST TRY IT AND SEE.

Posts 42
scooter | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jun 28 2020 3:33 AM

David Paul:
EVERY SINGLE CP SHOULD BE INTRODUCED AT $1 AS THE ONLY AVAILABLE BIDDING LEVEL FOR AT LEAST ONE WEEK TO ONE MONTH. If FL made this new policy a regularly advertised *ATTRACTION!!* on the home page, it seriously doubt it would take long before almost every CP was closing in record time...at one dollar a pop. If the resource doesn't close in the first month, bump the bid to $2 FOR THOSE WHO BID FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, then do the same for subsequent months, giving customers who bid less the option of bumping their bids to $2 or $3 if they want to hasten the project. JUST TRY IT AND SEE.

FL, please consider David's idea.  Try it on a half dozen resources, and see how the bidding bounces.

Perk CP up; give it some juice; let the bidders loose.  CP is dusty, musty, and fusty, which leaves me feeling crusty.

FL: action or no?

Posts 44
Jason Harris | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 8:48 AM

Bradley Grainger (Faithlife):
I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding what you're saying.

Let's say the production cost is $30,000 and by the time the bidding closes, there are 2,345 bids. (Not enough to cover it at $12, but enough at $13.) Are you saying that Faithlife should calculate the intercept point and charge everyone $12.79 so that production costs are precisely covered and no more?

If so, that might be more "fair", but that's not how community pricing is advertised. From https://www.logos.com/communitypricing/about, "Everyone who bids at or above the winning bid will pay the winning bid amount."

No. I'm saying that in that scenario, you are perfectly justified in charging the $13. But not $14 or $15. Which is what is happening. You are not rounding up to the nearest dollar. You are rounding up to the nearest $3. Or the nearest $5. In the screenshotted case, $12 would have almost certainly crossed the line, but because the intervals were arbitrarily set at $3 intervals ($10 bids or $13 bids), the price was rounded to the nearest $3, not the nearest $1.

You're correct that faithlife has now changed the fine print to cover themselves technically... sort of. Originally, it was overtly stated that the lowest price that covered the cost would win. Now you say the lowest "bid" which allows you to arbitrarily round up by as much as $4.99 (If the cost is covered at $10.01 but the bid intervals are $5, you guys charge $15, not $10 and not $11). Again, while the fine print technically covers you sort of, it violates the logic of what community pricing is supposed to be and what users are led to think it is.

Gold: Logos 8 | Bronze: Baptist, Reformed, Ordinariate | Starter: Messianic Jewish | Academic: Essentials

Posts 44
Jason Harris | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 9:12 AM

Bradley Grainger (Faithlife):
Sure, I can see that, but I don't believe we've communicated any obligation on Faithlife's part to resize the bid intervals to every $1 (or every $0.50, or every $0.10) in order to enable everyone to make the minimum possible bid.

That's exactly how you have marketed this product for many years now and to the present. The whole logic of community pricing, including the logic of the name "community pricing," is that the price will be the lowest price that covers the cost. Sure, like I said, you've adjusted the fine print so you're covered. But the average person reading it wouldn't know that "bid" is being used to justify charging as much as $4.99 more than cost per person. An additional income of up to $11,700+ in the scenario you gave of 2,345 bids, by the way. So no, it's not above board. And yes, that is exactly how this programme is represented.

Gold: Logos 8 | Bronze: Baptist, Reformed, Ordinariate | Starter: Messianic Jewish | Academic: Essentials

Posts 44
Jason Harris | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 9:19 AM

David Paul:
MY point, is that if FL was in the habit of setting a $1 MAX bid and letting that percolate for a week or two, I think people would get into the habit of bidding on CPs on a regular basis. I'm not exactly sure how and at what point you might have to bump it up to $2 or $3 dollars, but I do think everyone would be surprised, if not shocked, at how many folks decided to regularly bid on dirt cheap resources. I don't know where $30K stands in terms of average CP costs, but if people were given a chance to bid just $1 and that was the ONLY possible bid, you could probably get 30,000 folks to pony up that buck. This tactic also would be greasing human psychology rather than poking it with a stick. Going back 15-20 years (pretty much since CPs started, whenever that was), I have complained about the bidding process FL employs because it fundamentally ASSUMES bidding dynamics that ignore basic human psychology. FL did implement my suggestion that the outrageously oppressive "Your bid will fail" should be replaced with "Your bid may not succeed". But there are any number of other inherent structures in the CP process that essentially RUN CUSTOMERS OFF rather than encourage maximum customer engagement.

I know this...Bob said very early in the CP process that he didn't care what the closing price was--it could be 1 person bidding $30K, or 30K people bidding $1--he just wanted to cover the expenses. If that is still true, THEN FL IS BUNGLING CP BADLY.

EVERY SINGLE CP SHOULD BE INTRODUCED AT $1 AS THE ONLY AVAILABLE BIDDING LEVEL FOR AT LEAST ONE WEEK TO ONE MONTH. If FL made this new policy a regularly advertised *ATTRACTION!!* on the home page, I seriously doubt it would take long before almost every CP was closing in record time...at one dollar a pop. If the resource doesn't close in the first month, bump the bid to $2 FOR THOSE WHO BID FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, then do the same for subsequent months, giving customers who bid less the option of bumping their bids to $2 or $3 if they want to hasten the project. JUST TRY IT AND SEE.

That is brilliant. I think the problem would be that we'd just end up with a bunch of products in the production queue for years. Also, while Bob's statement was no doubt true at the time, it's bad business. If 30,000 bid $1 and get the product produced, that's 30,000 core customers who will never buy the product at retail or discount later and FL need that revenue source.

Gold: Logos 8 | Bronze: Baptist, Reformed, Ordinariate | Starter: Messianic Jewish | Academic: Essentials

Posts 44
Jason Harris | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 9:19 AM

David Wanat:
Alternatively, if those designing the system don’t have MBAs, they could be thinking “at this price point we need X people to bid, and at that price point we need Y bidders.”

Don’t assume that whatever goes against a preferred model must be guided by self-interest. That’s something to be proven, not assumed.

When someone with an MPA tells them it's wrong, perhaps acting in good faith requires listening and fixing it. I'm not asking for my "preferred model." I'm asking for a model that is above board and transparent. "I'm just an amateur" doesn't cut it in business. Less so for Christians in business. Faithlife has highly educated professionals in business, accounting, and coding on staff who could easily explain to them how to be above board on this. Over a decade, they've chosen to change the fine print instead. That's my concern.

PetahChristian:
I think the artificial limitation that Jason mentions (highlight mine) is that larger bid intervals exclude a slightly lesser bid that would also cross the line.

E.g., for the $3 bid interval, you may only be able to bid $10 (unsuccessful, not over line) or $13 (successful, over the line), when $12 would also have been over the line. He thinks it's rigged that people get charged $13, when $12 would also have been successful (if the bid interval had been $1 instead of $3).



Yup.

Vincent Chia:
I have been a Faithlife customer and Logos user for decades.

I continue to see Community Pricing as a privilege, not as an entitlement.

FL is a business after all. It needs to be profitable to be sustainable. They don't owe us anything.

Community Pricing is an opportunity for us to acquire the desired product at a much lower price. That, I think, ought to be a privilege.

It is neither, Vincent. It is a transaction. And transactions should be above board and transparent.

Of course it's a great thing that they offer community pricing. I agree. And I appreciate it greatly. But just because you're offering someone a great product at a great price doesn't mean you can act questionably. For instance, hidden charges or misleading descriptions are unethical regardless of how good the deal is (I'm not saying Logos is doing that here). So again, this comment just comes across as another Christians trying to shame me for not being more grateful instead of addressing the issue at hand. Christians need to stop trying to shame people they disagree with. Seriously, stop it.

Gold: Logos 8 | Bronze: Baptist, Reformed, Ordinariate | Starter: Messianic Jewish | Academic: Essentials

Posts 44
Jason Harris | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 9:21 AM

David Wanat:
Alternatively, if those designing the system don’t have MBAs, they could be thinking “at this price point we need X people to bid, and at that price point we need Y bidders.”

Don’t assume that whatever goes against a preferred model must be guided by self-interest. That’s something to be proven, not assumed.


When someone with an MPA tells them it's wrong, perhaps acting in good faith requires listening and fixing it. I'm not asking for my "preferred model." I'm asking for a model that is above board and transparent. "I'm just an amateur" doesn't cut it in business. Less so for Christians in business. Faithlife has highly educated professionals in business, accounting, and coding on staff who could easily explain to them how to be above board on this. Over a decade, they've chosen to change the fine print instead. That's my concern.

PetahChristian:
I think the artificial limitation that Jason mentions (highlight mine) is that larger bid intervals exclude a slightly lesser bid that would also cross the line.

E.g., for the $3 bid interval, you may only be able to bid $10 (unsuccessful, not over line) or $13 (successful, over the line), when $12 would also have been over the line. He thinks it's rigged that people get charged $13, when $12 would also have been successful (if the bid interval had been $1 instead of $3).


Yup.

Vincent Chia:
I have been a Faithlife customer and Logos user for decades.

I continue to see Community Pricing as a privilege, not as an entitlement.

FL is a business after all. It needs to be profitable to be sustainable. They don't owe us anything.

Community Pricing is an opportunity for us to acquire the desired product at a much lower price. That, I think, ought to be a privilege.


It is neither, Vincent. It is a transaction. And transactions should be above board and transparent.

Of course it's a great thing that they offer community pricing. I agree. And I appreciate it greatly. But just because you're offering someone a great product at a great price doesn't mean you can act questionably. For instance, hidden charges or misleading descriptions are unethical regardless of how good the deal is (I'm not saying Logos is doing that here). So again, this comment just comes across as another Christian trying to shame me for not being more grateful instead of addressing the issue at hand. Christians need to stop trying to shame people for raising concerns. It's a toxic culture.

Gold: Logos 8 | Bronze: Baptist, Reformed, Ordinariate | Starter: Messianic Jewish | Academic: Essentials

Posts 633
David Wanat | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 9:35 AM

Jason Harris:

David Wanat:
Alternatively, if those designing the system don’t have MBAs, they could be thinking “at this price point we need X people to bid, and at that price point we need Y bidders.”

Don’t assume that whatever goes against a preferred model must be guided by self-interest. That’s something to be proven, not assumed.


When someone with an MPA tells them it's wrong, perhaps acting in good faith requires listening and fixing it. I'm not asking for my "preferred model." I'm asking for a model that is above board and transparent. "I'm just an amateur" doesn't cut it in business. Less so for Christians in business. Faithlife has highly educated professionals in business, accounting, and coding on staff who could easily explain to them how to be above board on this. Over a decade, they've chosen to change the fine print instead. That's my concern.

And when somebody points out that a system might not be "rigged," but be operating under a different mode of thinking, perhaps that's a sign one should step back rhetoric?

WIN 10 i7 9750H, RTX 2060, 16GB RAM

Ultimate: Verbum | Diamond: Orthodox  | Gold: Eastern Rite, Ordinariate, Anglican | Silver: Standard | Bronze: Lutheran | Starter: Baptist, Messianic, Methodist, Pentecostal, Reformed, SDA

Posts 10959
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 9:55 AM

Jason Harris:
So I am questioning it. It does cast a shadow on the integrity of the organisation. And if you think integrity is somehow scaled on how much money is at stake, maybe that's a bigger issue that you should perhaps address. Seriously, what is it with some people who have to try to shame anyone who raises an issue like this? Feel free to disagree, but don't try to shame people or imply they have a spiritual problem for raising an issue like this. Ok?

Next time we go up I-5 from Seattle, we'll scan for the shadow. Sorry, but a dollar is a dollar. By the way, the forum does have multiple Master of Accountancy grads, along with multiple everything else. Rather ecclectic bunch.

"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."

Posts 220
MWW | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 10:19 AM

Changing the conversation. So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Posts 10736
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 10:26 AM

MWW:

Changing the conversation. So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Depends on the available bid points Stick out tongue

Posts 44
Jason Harris | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jun 29 2020 9:09 PM

David Wanat:
And when somebody points out that a system might not be "rigged," but be operating under a different mode of thinking, perhaps that's a sign one should step back rhetoric?

Stop acting like we can just pick a "mode of thinking" that suits and insist people not question it. There is such a thing as an above board, honest, transparent mode of thinking. And Christians are obligated to find one.

The system is rigged.

This is only one of the ways it is rigged. Another way it is rigged is that the lowest possible bid is set very high. On many projects, the lowest bid is $20 or sometimes much more. You cannot claim to be letting the community decide the price based on bids when you only let them make high bids. That's rigging.

Are their motives wrong? I won't presume to know. But when a lot of people raise the issues again and again over a decade+ and the practice is changed, but only to fine-tune the fine print, it doesn't speak well of the motives.

Denise:
Next time we go up I-5 from Seattle, we'll scan for the shadow. Sorry, but a dollar is a dollar. By the way, the forum does have multiple Master of Accountancy grads, along with multiple everything else. Rather ecclectic bunch.

Not really following your logic here...? Seattle? Shadow? Multiple accountancy grads? I don't understand the meaning of a single sentence you wrote. Sorry. Perhaps you can clarify.

MWW:
Changing the conversation. So how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

You've got dismissive down to a fine art.

Gold: Logos 8 | Bronze: Baptist, Reformed, Ordinariate | Starter: Messianic Jewish | Academic: Essentials

Posts 348
Vincent Chia | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 30 2020 12:02 AM

Jason Harris:

Vincent Chia:
I have been a Faithlife customer and Logos user for decades.

I continue to see Community Pricing as a privilege, not as an entitlement.

FL is a business after all. It needs to be profitable to be sustainable. They don't owe us anything.

Community Pricing is an opportunity for us to acquire the desired product at a much lower price. That, I think, ought to be a privilege.


It is neither, Vincent. It is a transaction. And transactions should be above board and transparent.

Of course it's a great thing that they offer community pricing. I agree. And I appreciate it greatly. But just because you're offering someone a great product at a great price doesn't mean you can act questionably. For instance, hidden charges or misleading descriptions are unethical regardless of how good the deal is (I'm not saying Logos is doing that here). So again, this comment just comes across as another Christian trying to shame me for not being more grateful instead of addressing the issue at hand. Christians need to stop trying to shame people for raising concerns. It's a toxic culture.

Jason, there's no need to be touchy about this. Keep your victimization card. I was just voicing my opinion on the matter.

WIll I feel like you are trying to shame me if you didn't agree with my opinion/proposition? That's jumping the gun.

And what? "Toxic?" You gotta be kidding me.

If you don't like differing opinions, don't get into a forum discussion. My 2 cents.

Director

Elyon Family Clinic & Surgery Pte Ltd

Singapore

Posts 44
Jason Harris | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 30 2020 1:41 AM

Vincent Chia:
Jason, there's no need to be touchy about this. Keep your victimization card. I was just voicing my opinion on the matter.

WIll I feel like you are trying to shame me if you didn't agree with my opinion/proposition? That's jumping the gun.

And what? "Toxic?" You gotta be kidding me.

If you don't like differing opinions, don't get into a forum discussion. My 2 cents.

Your comment, in context, was having a go. So don't act like I'm being touchy when I call you on your passive aggressive approach. I don't know or care if you intended to belittle my concern by saying you are just grateful. You did belittle my concern by saying you are just grateful. And yes, that is toxic. It is toxic to subtly guilt people into shutting up about concerns and complaints. Whether you are doing it consciously or not.

Seems to me I'm holding my own just fine in a forum discussion. =)

Gold: Logos 8 | Bronze: Baptist, Reformed, Ordinariate | Starter: Messianic Jewish | Academic: Essentials

Posts 4921
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 30 2020 4:39 AM

Jason Harris:
That is brilliant. I think the problem would be that we'd just end up with a bunch of products in the production queue for years.

There's only one way to find out, and that's give it a try...with a juicy CP, not something that's DOA.

Jason Harris:
Also, while Bob's statement was no doubt true at the time, it's bad business. If 30,000 bid $1 and get the product produced, that's 30,000 core customers who will never buy the product at retail or discount later and FL need that revenue source.

It's only bad business if what you describe is the goal. I don't remember exactly what he said, but Bob mentioned something about not looking to make a ton of money off of CPs, at least initially. His focus was more on adding tons of public domain titles to the Logos stable in a financially sustainable way. These resources are useful for padding base packages and have other business uses rather than just selling them as stand alone products. I think he was more concerned about increasing available titles over making maximum bank on CPs. That may have changed with time.

My point regarding ALL LOGOS TITLES is that FL should be absolutely maximizing the concept that e-books (especially Logos value-added hyperlinked books) are NOT THE SAME ANIMAL as hard copy books, and they should be marketed as wholesale commodities rather than premium individual resources. The searchable, hyperlinked nature of Logos products generates an inherent desire to own as many books as possible even if you may not read every book you purchase individually cover-to-cover. The goal is to maximize search returns and the larger one's library the better. In some ways, with certain publishers, Bob and FL have succeeded in that goal, but there are still many publishers who try to squeeze hardback prices out of ethereal digital resources.

Anyway, whether it's CPs or standard PrePubs, increasing the size of the overall Logos stable makes the whole FL product more appealing. But at some point, diminishing returns set in. I have many books I'd still like to get in Logos, but to be totally honest with myself, I know for a fact I will never read (in the sense of read through) most of what I buy. I'd have to read at least 5 books a day on average to get through what I already own, and that's not including the 2000 hard copy books I own, which I've been buying more of recently. That's also basing my math on dying at a ripe old age, as opposed to having the need to read anything at all curtailed by the return of Yeishuua`, which I expect is more likely. So, as I've always said, for me at least, VALUE--CRAZY GOOD VALUE--is the primary factor that will motivate all future purchases. To boil it all down, unless I'm getting crazy good value on CPs, I'm just not motivated. If they were a buck each, though...I'd probably make a change in my buying habits.

Posts 10959
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 30 2020 5:02 AM

Jason Harris:

Denise:
Next time we go up I-5 from Seattle, we'll scan for the shadow. Sorry, but a dollar is a dollar. By the way, the forum does have multiple Master of Accountancy grads, along with multiple everything else. Rather ecclectic bunch.

Not really following your logic here...? Seattle? Shadow? Multiple accountancy grads? I don't understand the meaning of a single sentence you wrote. Sorry. Perhaps you can clarify


Seattle: just south of Bellingham Washinton, where your 'shadowy' organization is HQ'd

Shadow: from all their (your questions) questionable practices

Masters in Accounting: your quote: "I'm raising the issue because it is a valid, real issue. I have a masters in accounting to back the claim. And I'm very, very happy to argue the maths or the ethics here as I have already done quite happily."

"I didn't know God made honky tonk angels."

Posts 1250
Myke Harbuck | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 30 2020 6:48 AM

Jason Harris:

Vincent Chia:
Jason, there's no need to be touchy about this. Keep your victimization card. I was just voicing my opinion on the matter.

WIll I feel like you are trying to shame me if you didn't agree with my opinion/proposition? That's jumping the gun.

And what? "Toxic?" You gotta be kidding me.

If you don't like differing opinions, don't get into a forum discussion. My 2 cents.

Your comment, in context, was having a go. So don't act like I'm being touchy when I call you on your passive aggressive approach. I don't know or care if you intended to belittle my concern by saying you are just grateful. You did belittle my concern by saying you are just grateful. And yes, that is toxic. It is toxic to subtly guilt people into shutting up about concerns and complaints. Whether you are doing it consciously or not.

Seems to me I'm holding my own just fine in a forum discussion. =)

Jason,

I hope you can see how your original argument, that may indeed have some validity, or at least some need for further discussion, has gotten lost in the mud of emotionalism, debate, and the need to have the 'last word.'

So, I'm not sure that you've served your purpose well here at all (I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you disagree with this statement). I get that you say this OP wasn't intended as a personal attack on the character of the organization, but that's exactly how many, myself included, have perceived it.

As such, perhaps you could have better worded your OP? Perhaps you could have just objectively stated your concerns and the math that supports those concerns? Injecting words like "integrity" and "rigged" into the OP drew the argument away from the math, whether you intended it to or not, and towards the issues of morality and intent.  In the future, consider a less inflammatory and polarizing way to express your concerns. Perhaps use less hyperbole and just stick to "the facts man" (Sgt Friday's words, not mine).

Another thing to consider. In addition to the OPs nonconstructive language, the incessant need to fire off retaliatory responses to every single opinion expressed in the replies is also counterproductive. You're simply adding more fuel to the fire, which, in turns, causes your main concern to get further lost in the mix. As I read this, it seems to me that before you've even finished reading replies, you're ready to fire off your own reply to them. Take a moment [breathe] to ponder not just what others are saying, but WHY they are saying it. Perhaps they are ALL wrong in their facts and their assumptions, and you are 1000% right. But, again, WHY are they saying what they are saying? Could it, again, point back to the way in which you framed your original post? Just something to think about.

I'm still a rookie here, even after 1000 posts and 10 years, but one thing I've learned from others in this forum is that the WAY you voice a concern or criticism is important. It makes the difference between people listening to you and wanting to stand with you to make a difference and people being alienated by you and indifferent to your cause simply because they don't like your rhetoric (irrespective of the accuracy of your facts).

Can you at least take just a moment and consider why you've offended some, and what might have been the results had you framed your concerns differently:

.

Title:

Perhaps "Concerns with Community Pricing" would have worked better

"Rigged" conveys only that you are emotional over the issue, and does more to cause loyal customers to defend FL rather than consider your concerns. Again, inflammatory language.

Whether you think so or not, you ARE attacking the character of the company when you say that something is "rigged." Oxford defines rigged as "to conduct something fraudulently to produce a result that is advantageous to a particular person." So your choice of words is a direct attack on the character of the organization and those that lead. I get that it wasn't your intent, but you're basically accusing them of fraud. That's not necessary, and actually violates the forum guidelines. You seem to me to be a highly intelligent guy, so I don't get the need to inject the inflammatory and accusatory language here.

OP

"It's not a transparent, or ethical, approach in my view."

"Logos, please address this. It's frustrating. But worse, it brings into doubt the integrity of Faithlife."

Note how omitting just a few words might lead to a more constructive conversation. Sure, it's not as satisfying emotionally when you're passionate about an issue or upset about what you perceive to be a serious injustice on FL's part, but in the end it's less constructive, as this thread well demonstrates.

.

.

I'm sure you ready to fire one off at me, and have likely already formulated your response before finishing this reply, but at least attempt to look at this from 30,000 feet and see what you might can learn here, instead of just what everyone else needs to learn from you. And remember that we are a "community" here [hence: community.logos.com]. As such, we have a responsibility to use rhetoric that is fair to all and that isn't insulting to others in the community. The position, "I'm sorry you are offended, but this needed to be said" really doesn't work well here, especially when there were much better ways to say what (perhaps) needed to be said.

Perhaps I am naive, but any posts that call into question the integrity of the FL organization, or that accuses them of a conspiracy (not you, other OPs), or that call their business practices "unChristian" (not you, other OPs), or that accuse them of "lying" because they didn't meet an obligation or misscommunicated something (not you, other OPs) only cause me to defend FL. Sure, they are not perfect. But we're operating on their servers, using their forums, and have the audience of their staff in these forums, so why should they be subjected to character assassinations or other unnecessary attacks? They shouldn't.

I hope you can step back, take a breath, and see how this could have been handled a little differently.

Blessings to you brother.  I do hope your CP concerns can be properly addressed to your satisfaction.

Myke Harbuck
Lead Pastor, www.ByronCity.Church
Adjunct Professor, Georgia Military College

Posts 849
Bill Anderson | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 30 2020 7:04 AM

Myke,

Thank you for your post here. It was greatly constructive in promoting ways we can more constructively dialogue with each other. 

Posts 2263
GaoLu | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Jun 30 2020 8:24 AM

Bill Anderson:

Myke,

Thank you for your post here. It was greatly constructive in promoting ways we can more constructively dialogue with each other. 

Yes

Page 2 of 3 (51 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS