Some might not be clear on what we want to achieve here and notably what we mean by "open networker". I am saying "we" since I feel the majority in this community share some views on the topic, but this thread will clarify...

The IDK answers clearly show for instance that differences exist.

Couldn't we think about a set of conditions to be admitted as a LION. Thoughts?

For those of open networking ilk, might I offer that "conditions" comes across as a restrictive and perhaps closed concept? How about Lion Principles / Aspirations instead? That way we encourage goals rather than dispute conditions. Thus, to the extent that stated pre-requisites to membership would improve things - and I'm uncertain as to what purpose is served - the vehicle chosen might not come across as incongruent w/ the group's apparent overarching purposes - which seem to boil down to freedom (and abundance) of mutually agreeable social connection. All that said, if the goals / principles are of themselves worthy and beneficial, it seems that participants would gravitate towards behavior they see as beneficial regardless of "the rules."

Francois E Aubert wrote:
Some might not be clear on what we want to achieve here and notably what we mean by "open networker". I am saying "we" since I feel the majority in this community share some views on the topic, but this thread will clarify...

The IDK answers clearly show for instance that differences exist.

Couldn't we think about a set of conditions to be admitted as a LION. Thoughts?

I am in favor of have a set of rules for LION membership. I am also in favor of one of those rules being that a LION will always accept an invitation from another LION. This is about OPEN networking, not being network gatekeepers. There is probably another group, at least on Yahoo, for those who take an elitist approach to open networking. Elitist open networking -- something of an oxymoron?

I dont think its just about joining to network, but its what you do with your membership that matters. I joined this group to strenghten my network, or what we call "sphere of influence" SOI, not so that I can say look at me I have 4000+ links. NO, that doesnt do anything, its about using those connections to strenghten business & generate referrals. I want to conntect with people, but I also want those people to help me in my business and for me to help them with theirs.

whats your thoughts . . .?

I have to agree with Matt, it is what you are doing with it that counts. Just having a big network is worthless if it is not doing anyhting to drive you forward in your goals/objectives, right? I use this networking tool to drive business and connections (which in turn should drive more business) as well as making lasting and useful contacts for the future.

I am a writer and computer guy, among other things. I, too, am here to maximize my business--hopefully in a genteel way. I am not interested in networking for no reason--and I'm not interested in "social" networks, though they're probably just dandy.

What did you think being a LION, ie Open Networker, meant and why on earth did you join. Maybe you're not a social networker or open to networking with just anyone but you are obviously psychologically flawed in that you feel that you must join organizations even when you know nothing about them.

Don't bother trying to network with me.

Dan,

I agree with you. If you are also a member of the Yahoo! group for LIONs, there is a discussion started by "Raza Jaffri" jaffri@gmail.com in which he admitted posting an IDK on another LION!

If we have one rule, it is that we do not IDK other LIONs, and probably not anyone, since LinkedIN uses the IDK to punish people.

Your thoughts?

Dan, and anyone else:

Gee, I haven't been "flamed" since back in the old Prodigy days. I certainly would never IDK anyone. I only meant I'm not interested in particular what anyone's hobbies are, just what they're working on. There's MySpace and Facebook for socializing, and they're just not my thing.

Please don't flame, it just escalates. I would ignore it--this will be my only reply on this matter--but I wanted to make clear I belong here and I'm playing by the rules.

No worries, and thanks.

Grayson,

In the early days of my LinkedIn involvement I lost the right to invite by being IDKed. Thing was that the person remembered me after the IDK. I had to convince LI that I wasn't out to harrass anyone into networking with me to finally get my membership rights restored.

I don't think I would IDK satan or Osama Bin Laudin. I find those that are obviously just trying to build numbers amusing but you never know what tomorrow may bring. Trying to control the number of links in a network is as bad as trying to inflate a network for no real reason or without thought.

I've followed the Jaffri thread. My mother always used to say that if you couldn't say anything nice don't say anything at all. I say, rather than harm someone with good intentions the "Archive" buttone is no harder to click on than the IDK button and they both achieve the same result.

Regards,
Dan Light