A suggestion to the mods

Evangelism marketing is an advanced form of word of mouth marketing (WOMM) in which companies develop customers who believe so strongly in a particular product or service that they freely try to convince others to buy and use it. The customers become voluntary advocates, actively spreading the word on behalf of the company.

Evangelism marketing is sometimes confused with affiliate marketing. However, while affiliate programs provide incentives in the form of money or products, evangelist customers spread their recommendations and recruit new customers out of pure belief, not for the receipt of goods or money. Rather, the goal of the customer evangelist is simply to provide benefit to other individuals.

As they act independently, evangelist customers often become key influencers. The fact that evangelists are not paid or associated with any company make their beliefs perceived by others as credible and trustworthy.

Evangelism literally comes from the three words of 'bringing good news' and the marketing term justly draws from the religious sense, as consumers are literally driven by their beliefs in a product or service, which they preach in an attempt to convert others.

Source:

Angelique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism_marketing

Note the the last paragraph.

I thought I was the only person who thought this word was being used more and more in a derogatory context on this board.  It doesn't bother me enough to ticket it, though.

Did anyone actually ticket it? 

Got some links showing where it's being used "more and more in a derogatory context on this board"?

The word was used connected to the term "positive only", which is a marketing concept and does not actually exist in real training. There is no such thing as "positive only". It is a marketing term.

The belief system which uses the marketing term "positive only" is a dog training one, not a religious one.

Oh well...I'm always up for a good word definition debate.

Angelique

The word was used connected to the term "positive only", which is a marketing concept and does not actually exist in real training.

 I don't know if anyone ticketed it, but I doubt they would say so publicly in any case.

Angelique

The word was used connected to the term "positive only", which is a marketing concept and does not actually exist in real training.

Angelique

Oh well...I'm always up for a good word definition debate.

Most of us are aware that "positive only" is a myth.  That is beside the point isn't it?

I don't think we get moderated or edited based on definitions of words.  I think we are moderated to make us be nice to each other, to keep the forum "family friendly" and to stop topics getting de-railed completely.  If a mod thinks you have over stepped the line to "not nice", "X-rated" or "off topic", then they will take some kind of action.  Word definitions don't really come into it. 

Whether evangelism is connected to marketing or training or religion is irrelevant really... mods are surely concerned about whether it is an inflammatory or unpleasant term, probably also guided by context of the entire post.

Sure it's relevant. Dog training is a multi-million dollar industry and highly competitive.

As beings of language, word definitions and context are important in communication, especially on the internet where you can't see someone's expressions, read their body language, or hear their tone of voice. Many words have more than one meaning and context in which they may be used. I've seen plenty of threads derailed over word definition debates on this board alone. But it's all good and mostly educational unless someone is looking for an excuse to find fault and conflict.

Here's another link which may be of interest: http://www.clickz.com/3626465

Angelique

Sure it's relevant. Dog training is a multi-million dollar industry and highly competitive.

So?  What bearing has that got on "being nice" to each other?  If you got edited, that's what the mods are concerned with.  The post wasn't edited for being OT, it was edited for  being inflammatory.  So how much the industry is worth is irrelevant.

When you say, "it could have been handled better" - in what way did you think it should have been handled?

I was edited and banned recently for X-rated comments.  THAT could have been handled better.  I don't know which or how many of my posts were edited because after they were edited, the entire thread was moved so that non-mod-people couldn't see it.

So.... the editing wasn't to protect innocent eyes, because the whole thread was moved, which did that anyway.  It couldn't have been to "punish me" for my naughty remarks, because it was totally ineffective in that regard... because the whole thread had died ANYWAY a week since and I could hardly remember what I wrote.  A bit like coming home to find your Nike's chewed up and telling Fido off for it, yes?

In that case, I would have preferred if the thread had been left where it was, with the offending remarks edited out.  At least then I could have got a gist what I was being banned for, and what behaviour not to repeat.  I would also have been assured of fairness, because I could see other people who made comments at least as risque as mine still online and posting at the time I was banned.   Yeah, that smarted a bit.  I know that the moderating WILL be subjective, to a point, but I got a distinct feel of favouritism there.

 For the record, I believe that Angelique's comment, using the term "evangelical" was used in response to one of my posts, and I did NOT ticket anyone.  However, since she and another poster have been back on the board more actively of late, I have noticed more red ink.  Perhaps the hasty inking of that thread was an effort to keep the board from degenerating into the old "us versus them" situation that we have been so happy without.  I'm OK with the mods having red-inked me for mentioning where I'd like certain folks to retreat back to, but, frankly, life here has been peaceful for a while, and it would be nice to have it stay that way.  Even this thread seems like someone just wants to stir up trouble with a "suggestion" that should better have been delivered via PM. Right on, mods.

Awwww, I was snowed in at a friend's cabin with the pups for over three weeks with no computer or cable. Did ya miss me? (kidding)

From what I understand, this forum is open to all, whether they post regularly or not. This is noone's private "turf" and referencing other forums in a negative way has been discouraged by admin, so I will not respond to that comment.

Honestly, we are all responsible for our own red inkings and behavior and maybe we all need to get out and walk our dogs.

I appologise to those who were offended by my use of the word "evangelical".

Chuffy

I was edited and banned recently for X-rated comments. 

You were?! I find that a bit hard to grasp.

Looks like I missed some drama. Sorry you got in trouble.

In all honesty, there certainly were some times I have deserved a splash-o-red, but didn't get any. I guess it all evens out, LOL.

Mods, being only human, can only react in the way that a word hits them, or in a manner consistent with complaints.  It's pretty well impossible for one person to see each and every post on this busy forum so it's likely that there was a complaint, OR that the mod happened across the use of the word and reacted strongly, and in a manner that SHE deemed appropriate.

We've had these kinds of threads before, and they don't accomplish a darned thing but to stir up anger and resentments.  And, although I've lost track of all the rule changes, I *think* that we are supposed to address complaints of this sort directly to the mods or Admin and NOT make threads to b*tch about them?

Rule or not, it would seem to me that if you have an issue, it is always better to dule with it privately.  But, then, I'm an old fart and manners were all but beaten into me........

glenmar

And, although I've lost track of all the rule changes, I *think* that we are supposed to address complaints of this sort directly to the mods or Admin and NOT make threads to b*tch about them?

Rule or not, it would seem to me that if you have an issue, it is always better to dule with it privately.

I see where youa re coming from, but in that case - what's the point of this section? 

So, basically we are to assume that only posts that have a ticket are corrected by the mod or the accidental reading by a mod? If so, that is basically how most forums work. People just need to get into the habit of reporting instead of hoping it will be taken care of by itself. I am not the complainer per se, and I suspect many people are like that, but there are many who love to just ticket a post or thread.

Oh, believe me, there are members here who love to press the report button.  I am not usually one of them, and I think I may even have made about 8,000 posts here before I even realized that I could report someone LOL.  Probably been accused of it many times, actually did do it a few times, but prefer to just participate and let the dust settle wherever. 

Angelique, I must admit, I did not really miss you.  Not you personally, but I did not miss the discord.  I do not own this forum (and who was that comment directed at anyway???), nor do any of us, but the veiled references to evangelicals are directed at someone, and usually the positive trainers - in this instance I think you were out to ruffle feathers.  So, let's not pretend that you have no agenda when you are here.  That, in itself is not the issue.  I have an agenda - positive training.  Callie has an agenda - helpfulness with holistics.  Glenda has an agenda - being a tough old broad and caring for six great GSD's.  Sandra Slayton has an agenda - preventing dogs from dying from IMHA.  When you post after people to express an opinion, fine.  It's when you post to discredit them personally, rather than their idea, it's not fine.  And, so if you stick to saying why you think clicker training is inadequate, that's an opinion.  When you say that positive trainers are "evangelical", it's meant to denote extremism and is taken as disrespect, and that's where we all get into trouble, and what the mods, IMO, are trying to prevent from happening here yet again. 

I actually thought that the How are we doing section was for the retail side of things, but what do I know?

How are mods to know that there is an issue or a potential problem any where unless they happen to see it, OR someone reports it?  These are human beings, folks, not physic wonders.  Sometimes I will email a mod and suggest that they might want to keep an eye on something, rather than do an official ticket, but the end result is the same.  And they can NOT be everywhere.

Regardless, I still believe that it is not the best course of action to start a thread to gripe about the mods, when a complaint could better be addressed privately.

Just my opinion though, which evidently isn't worth much.