as77

It's always been okay with me. Deliberately derailing a topic is an effective way of expressing contempt for it. Ahhhhh...you're not going to call for more moderation in a topic about excessive moderation, are you? Because I would enjoy that way too much. What makes you think the guidelines don't apply to this thread? Besides, it's not exactly the criticisms of moderation that would require moderation in this thread.

That is probably true and can be proven with the server logs. However, I practically never look at the main page. I always start at www.geocaching.com/my

So now it's OK to derail the thread with off-topic messages? Guys, go take your beer glasses to the Off-Topic forum.

Yes, dude, it is mostly symbolic in the US, dude! Unlike First Amendment, whose actual text is this: (Yes, it's a parody.)

I think what people may be confusing the freedom of speech part of the First Amendment with is the "freedom of opinion and expression", which is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and says "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Of course, this still doesn't mean that forums cannot be moderated. But it means, for example, that the moderators cannot come to your house to confiscate your keyboard.

BTW I don't really mind your tone. But what I mind or don't doesn't matter, it's the guidelines that are supposed to regulate the communication here. What I wrote are not facts, it's just how I see the things. I may be wrong, just as anyone else, you included. I didn't think it was necessary to explicitly state this obvious fact (this time a fact indeed).

You know, by the time I could offer this as an excuse to a moderator I would have gotten my warning. Create a sockpuppet account and try to use this same tone with others as a ordinary user. It would be interesting to see how long you would go without getting a warning.

Sure, often this is the case. I just offered another factor that seems to play a role, all others being equal.

Ummm... don't you happen to be violating the forum guidelines? Where are the moderators now? You know, if I commented on someone else's thoughts like you just did, I would immediately get a warning and at least one week of moderation. You obviously won't. This is not a level playfield so I'm not going to debate you. I'm not sure it's good for your business that you participate in these forums. You are not exactly a customer relations person. But it's your company, you do as you wish.

I don't really see your point. If you find that there are two threads with the same topic (not in the same time) and one gets closed really fast while the other is let go for a long time, aren't you curious what the reason for this striking difference might be? If you aren't or if you think "it's just the way it is" is a satisfactory explanation, probably you don't have an enquiring mind. I think it's just natural for humans to look for patterns and explanations of the phenomena they encounter.

It's just an observation that might help explain why certain threads get closed quite fast and some very similar ones don't. This was the question Renegade Knight was wondering. I'll leave up to you what other conclusions you want or don't want to make.

Sure, especially if Jeremy posts that this topic should be closed, has no value, etc. But I have seen a number of topics that were sensitive from the beginning and everyone was sure it was going to get closed very fast. Then if Jeremy posts something actually related to the subject then it kinda legitimizes the thread and it doesn't get closed for a long time.

One observation is that if Jeremy posts to a thread the probability of it getting closed soon drops to a fraction of the previous value because the mods think he might want to add another comment later.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Well, if that's true that's good news. However, it seems to me that when a thread gets too inconvenient to Groundspeak, the mods usually have no difficulty finding a reason why it should be closed (along with a strong message to the point of "don't dare to reopen"). With threads having contents favorable to Groundspeak, they are a lot more lenient and they just let them go on even if it's filled with off-topic messages.

So, what's the big deal? *IF* that's the case, when he logs back onto the site, it will ask him to re-validate. To do that he will have to re-enter his email address. Not exactly the end of the world. Wasn't it you who said that if the e-mail address is not valid, it's not possible to re-validate? Anyway, it's no big deal, he doesn't have any finds so he can just open a new account if he wants.

I guess it's the bobbleheads you mentioned the other day?

Exactly. He didn't state he wanted to unjoin, he just asked how to do it in case he wanted.

"Recommended at night" is not the same as "Can only be found at night", which real night caches are.

I thought this was a family-friendly forum.

There are two issues worth mentioning here: 1. The moderators are not elected by geocaching communities but selected by Groundspeak. Therefore, they are always loyal to Groundspeak and those company interests are more important to them than the interests of geocachers (those that are not loyal enough will sooner or later resign; we have seen this already). This results in closing/locking all the threads that contain discussion pointing out Groundspeak's mistakes or any information they find embarrassing. Also, moderators are reviewers, too, so any threads raising objections to reviewers' decisions are easily closed/locked by those reviewers that are affected. 2. Again, since the moderators are not elected by the cachers but appointed by Groundspeak, they are not rotated. It's always the same old guys for years and years who always think and act the same way and however disliked they are by many cachers they cannot be removed or retired. It's part of the reason why I cancelled my premium membership. Basically this is not a forum where you can have a free, uncensored discussion of Groundspeak's policies or specific, controversial events. There are other forums on the net where this can be done.

Well, I really appreciate the way you are handling the issue, and it's your cache and your decision, but I think you have become defensive and accepted compromises too soon. I don't think your sampling of the geocaching community is big enough and representative. No, I don't think your cache is a dismal failure. It's different. And that's good. Diversity is good. Your cache is like a piece of performing art, it's a way of self-expression. Don't feel bad about it. There are people who can appreciate it, even if you now feel it was a mistake. Even if it will not stay as it stands, it was worth it.

If you want to know how the community receives the cache, give it a month and look at the cache logs. What the forum users write in one day is inconclusive and irrelevant. I think each reviewer has a responsibility for his own decisions and I don't think it's a good idea if a group of reviewers can modify that decision the next day unless there is an obvious and clear violation of the guidelines/rules. You didn't tell us whether there was a consensus on the agenda issue. I for one disagree; not liking stats is no more an agenda than the existing caches mentioned by Mopar. I mean, it's a geocaching-related opinion. It's not that he campaigns for gay marriage.

What, you think the cache reviewers didn't discuss it once the uproar started? Same thing happened with the Tsumani caches. They were approved, because the reviewer thought they were ok. Someone complained, so the reviewers likely discussed it in private until a decision was made to archive them. How should I know if they discussed it or not? OK, so they discussed it. Why? Just because a few bobbleheads (© Jeremy) raised some objections in the forum doesn't mean the cache has to be reconsidered. Once it is approved, leave it alone for at least a month and then look at the cache logs to see what the reaction of the community is. What I'm saying is that I would appreciate reliable approver decisions that can be trusted. If an approval is never sure because it could be withdrawn the next day then we have an absurd situation where nothing is certain. When is a yes really a yes, when can a hider know for sure that his cache was indeed approved and it can stay? Never? You mentioned the Tsunami caches, so I will comment on that, too. Apparently several approvers were involved both from the UK/Australia and the US, extensively discussing those caches and in the end they decided that they would make an exception, bend the rules and approve these caches as special cases. It was a process that took several days and the outcome was an OK to these caches. The placers sat back in satisfaction that their fight finally succeeded. And then the next day a Groundspeak employee unexpectedly archives the caches. What is this? Then the whole earlier discussion and approval process was completely pointless? No decision can be trusted for even a day? That's not an environment that cachers wish for. What a cache owner wants is: say yes or say no to my cache but then stand by your decision and don't go back and forth on it on a daily basis. We have a similar situation in WH's case: he contacted an approver before placing his cache to find out if it would be approved. The answer was sure, go ahead, no problem, so he placed it and it was indeed approved, everything seemed fine until the next day when the decision is suddenly reversed. No wonder WH felt frustrated.

I don't see that. As has been pointed out, the fact that he expressed interest in how the cache is received does not mean that he reserved the right to withdraw the approval. That's correct, you should not. Think BEFORE you approve a cache. This is what is expected from you, it is your responsibility. I strongly doubt that. What you don't seem to have, however, is the respect for the cache hiders who suffer from your inconsistent behavior when you go back and forth on a cache, approving it on one day and archiving it on the next, just because you happened to change your personal opinion.