I think we can all *understand* the what and why of Jeffrey’s comments whether or not you agree or disagree with his point. And I think we ALL agree that even if some people don’t like it … that MBN can do whatever they want. No one ever implied otherwise, including Jeffrey.

So where this really goes pear-shaped IMO is when Jeffrey tried to get his request some visibility in order to start a dialogue. FMF made it abrubtly clear that he was not interested in dialogue or what anyone else thinks about his choices and by immediately removing the sidebar link to pfadvice sent the message “I will punish anyone who doesn’t like what I do” — I am not sure that was his ultimate intention, and it’s certainly his perogative to link to whomever he wishes….but it gets complicated because he appears to be the driving member of the MBN and it’s not always clear if he (or any member) is acting as an individual or acting as a representative of MBN.

I am very happy to see other members of the network at least join in the dialogue here, which by it’s very nature neutralizes the perception that discussion is not allowed. But by the very nature of MBN and how the web works each member now has more “power” even as an individual and on their own sites. And we all know (because Spidey taught us) that with power comes great responsibility ;P

Obviously different individuals wield this power in different ways in their efforts to benefit the community. But you all have to admit that the line between individuals and the network is blurry.

Aside from agreeing or disagreeing with every single point made in these comments I think that there are a lot of bloggers out there who may trust the motives of *individuals* that are members of the network and still not 100% trust the motives of the network as it’s own entity. I would hope that network members would have a curiousity about this lack of trust and make an effort to understand and dispell it, instead of using their own individual efforts as evidence that any network mistrust is “wrong” — it’s just two different things IMO.

The only reason I am hanging my ass out here naked is because I like and respect all of you guys and 1) I truly believe open dialogue will only improve any situation and 2) I honestly think most of us agree on the important stuff regardless of our differences of opinion (evidence is that this discussion seems quickly played out and then i had to go ruin it) and 3) I must bore the crap out of ALL of you because none of you link to my posts so I have little to lose [please make sure your sense of humor was in the ON position for number 3]

best to all of you… c

First off, all links on my site are in place, arranged alphabetically, as they always have been, and always will be. I link to sites that I read, and I periodically purge links when a site hasn’t been updated in awhile.

Second, with all this talk about selfishness, I would like to point that we all (MBN members, I mean) do weekly roundup posts, and pretty much all of us include a variety of sites when we do so. Speaking just for myself, I link to anything that really ‘rang my chimes’ at any of the sites that I regularly read. Don’t believe me? Go look. Yes, I link to people in the MBN in my roundup. But I also link to others whenever I run across something that I deem sufficiently link worthy. If you don’t get a link, does this mean that I don’t like you or your site? Nope. I have a limited amount of time, and there are far too many sites with too much content out there to keep up with.

So before we go any further with all this talk about selfishness and trying to keep traffic ‘just amongst ourselves’ I’d like to ask a question… Who else out there posts regular, unsolicited link love like this? If this isn’t acting in the best interest of the community, then I don’t know what is. When others actually step up to the plate and start sharing the love, then they’ll be in a position to talk about what’s best for the community.

In closing, I’d just like to echo Jim’s sentiments. Everyone just needs to lighten up. There is no conspiracy, witch hunt, or blacklist. Or at least none that I’m aware of. Who knows, maybe I’m next and I don’t even know it.

That’s all I have to say. Cheers, nickel

You (and those other commentors) seem very serious about blogging, a few grades more serious than me, and I apologize for not being at your level of intensity about these things. You’ve asked in the past if we’d like to exchange links with Saving Advice and PFAdvice. At Saving Advice, where you had more clout, you relegated blog links to a separate buried page and then expected the blogger to give you a sitewide blogroll link. I removed the link to Saving Advice from my site, mostly because I don’t use it, but I’ve kept PFAdvice because I feel you respect me enough here to put me on a blogroll (even if you did shorten the name so it only takes up one line) and not put me on an obscure page.

Ultimately, I started my blog to have fun and it’s grown into something I’m proud of. I don’t want to start getting mixed up any sort of drama that someone wants to generate and I apologize if I’ve slighted you in some way.

Doesn’t anyone else think we’re taking this a little too seriously?

I’ve always seen the Carnival as a community-owned thing. I basically just keep a place for the schedule and guidelines and a central organization location for submissions. When I formed the guidelines, I tried to make it community-friendly by encouraging acceptance of all submissions within reason and encouraging the host of the week to add his or her own flavor. This means the host can order the submissions by date received, by topic, by quality, or by any arbitrary method they want. I think it was the right thing to do, as evidenced by the other carnivals that sort of followed in the footsteps of CoPF to some extent.

Every once in a while, participants have emailed me with suggestions for a guideline (always empowering the community, not restricting) which I’ve added, so I’m happy to make more “official” changes.

I’m not really sure what’s appropriate and whats not for a carnival host (dont really have an opinion on it) but I think as long as he’s following the guideline of the carnival (stated by the person who started the carnival), then in my opinion it’s all good.

the carnival of personal finance was started by Flexo, and I dont see any rules on the amount of submission, their placement, etc. So maybe if there’s a problem he can update the hosting/posting guidelines.

The thing here is, I want to say Carnival of PF is Flexo’s carnival.. but that might not be a right since its a community effort that made it so large - but I mean he is the one that started it, set the guidelines, etc. Now of course the development of it is a community effort, so the community should have some say into its guideline too.. but as for how much, I’m not really sure.

anyway, not trying to put Flexo on the spot here, just making some observation.

There is no blog roll conspiracy among all the members. All the others still have me listed in their blog rolls and I assume they will continue to. Just wanted to clear up that point.

As far as open discussion, I don’t know, I think it just makes sense to try to resolve issues privately before public condemnation. I’m here, I’m answering questions and addressing concerns, even though it goes against good judgment. I probably won’t check back here every few hours like I have been.

I think this “blacklisting” thing is a little out of hand. You know, the web was created in a way that encourages linking, not bartering for links (”I’ll link to you if you link to me…”). Now my site doesn’t garner the most visits in the network, but I’m happy with my traffic. When I started CC, there was no FMF, no MBN, no Carnivals, and Instapundit never linked to me. If you write good content, it’ll put your blog ahead of most, and you’ll get noticed. There’s too much emphasis on who links to whom.

If you’ve (the general “you”) got a blog and selected the niche of personal finance just to try to make money and get hits, you’re probably on the wrong path. The best way to get noticed, I think, is to write great *personal* content (not that my content is great) and comment on other people’s blogs.

“My big thing is I don’t want to do anything that’s going to cause bad will within the community. Like I’ve said, I joined the network (and have lent my assistance to all the efforts) because I see it as a way of bringing more prestige to the whole community. If something’s not working, we’re going to review and revisit it. We’re all busy people and it’ll take some time to get all of our plans for the network off the ground. In the mean time, JLP does his Site of the Week, Jim does his PFBlogger Spotlights, and we all have our unique things that we (try to) bring to the community.”

Part of the problem is there is no OPEN dialog about this. You want everyone to email you and keep it in the dark. This is what makes the community angry the most. IF the MBN has a true aim of helping all PF blogs, then they should welcome an open discussion without retribution. While I have always had respect for you and your blogs in the past, I’m beginning to change my view.

I’d also like to thank Jeffery for having the courage to come out and say it. I wish I had the same courage, but also want to grow my blog as quickly as possible and don’t want to risk being blacklisted just becasue I don’t agree with MBN