Jump to content

Bookmark lists, attributes, PQs, and pain...


ClayJar
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

You have written too much information. I think all you need to add if you must add a bookmark is what is above. That is my thought. This way it doesn't say anything more. Short and sweet is the best policy.
The problem I'd have with abbreviating it that much is that it doesn't tell scubacachers why they need to use the list. If you believe it's poorly written, I'm certainly not tied to that exact language, but there needs to be something to tell the scubacachers reading it what's going on.

 

(And what's going on is simply that there are all sorts of amazingly designed caches out there, but that fantastic creativity means that the atttribute is not as it appears. The description says absolutely nothing against that (and in fact, it applauds the creativity), but it has to explain at least briefly why scubacachers should be using the list and *not* using the attribute in their searching.)

Link to comment

Several formerly dissenting cachers have concurred with the plan, so I have put it in place. There are no longer any negative lists. Instead, there is a purely informative list which simply goes with the attribute to give scubacachers a link to the second list, which includes all "verified" scubacaches (and can be run as a PQ, etc).

 

Anyway, there you have it.

Link to comment

Several formerly dissenting cachers have concurred with the plan, so I have put it in place.

 

I applaud you for trying so hard to find a middle ground. It is not easy to do in almost every case and many people would have simply done as they wished without trying to find a method that appeals to as many as possible.

 

I do think that the end result is a good compromise.

 

Plus. My popcorn was gettingc stale. :)

Link to comment

Several formerly dissenting cachers have concurred with the plan, so I have put it in place. There are no longer any negative lists. Instead, there is a purely informative list which simply goes with the attribute to give scubacachers a link to the second list, which includes all "verified" scubacaches (and can be run as a PQ, etc).

 

Anyway, there you have it.

At the risk of being banned (based on previous note from Keystone), I wanted to take a moment and thank Clayjar for his efforts in resolving this situation. The new bookmark dedicated solely to scuba caches is a winner and the re-classification of the old bookmark looks good to. Thanks for taking the time to listen to feedback from others. :)

Link to comment

At the risk of being banned for going off topic, I would like to point out that the issue here wasn't so much ClayJar's bookmark list - as we see the sides were able to arrive at a compromise - but the actions the moderators took in quickly trying to silence one side (and that means the first banning that occurred in this thread) I understand that moderating is difficult and inexact. Determining whether something is a personnal attack or not is a tough judgement to make. The voices of dissent are often angry, and this can come accross a lack of respect for the other side. I would suggest to those that were banned or threaten with ban, that they do what I do when posting in these forums. I alway hit the "Preview Post" button to read what I wrote before hitting "Add Reply". I often reword what I typed and more often then not decide its not worth posting anything. I actually find that dissent is pretty well tolerated here if you choose your words carefully. :)

Link to comment

Quoting in full my post from the other site:

Through the course of this thread and the one on Geocaching.com, I made claims that I didn't ask for any bans or beg mods to ride to my rescue. While the letter of those statements may have been true in the most hair-splitting technical terms, the spirit of those statements was, in fact, a lie.

 

Sure, I did not knowingly ask for any bans, but I did click the report link which began the series of events leading to them. Without my actions, there would not have been the "interference" the blame for which I allowed to be placed on the Groundspeak mods. To intentionally cause people to believe that I was not involved and that the mods were the root was inexcusable.

 

History is littered with people who honestly believed their cause was just and their actions to that end were acceptable. Those people are often the most egregious violators of others human rights. I had always looked upon them as the scourge of humanity and believed that there was no way I could ever fall into that trap, and now, here I find myself. While I have not commited any atrocities as obvious as killing and maiming large numbers of people, I have perhaps permanently damaged friendships that I valued far above anything I may have gained.

 

I can only pray that someday they will find it in their hearts to forgive my blindness and stupidity, and perhaps one day be able to once again call me friend, but I'm afraid that day is likely a very long and painful way off.

 

People of this thread, I ask you to please turn your attention from the mods and put the blame on whom it truly belongs. It is *my* fault that there were bans, and if anyone deserves to be mocked and reviled, it is I. Certainly, I am a much more deserving target of derision than the mods, who did nothing that I did not precipitate both with my opening the thread and then reporting a post.

Link to comment

Thank you for your post, ClayJar. I'm just one of the moderators involved here, so I speak only for myself. Your post required character and courage, as I would expect from you.

 

I value honesty and respect in a forum discussion or elsewhere. I abhor dishonesty, deception and game playing in a forum discussion or elsewhere.

 

Having set the record straight with an honest post, you are now being too hard on yourself. There is no need for you to wait for a day that is a "long way off," as all is forgiven.

 

As a moderator, I highly value the confidentiality of the "report this post" tool. It would have been unethical of me to say who reported a particular post. So, I was effectively muzzled from defending my own role in the matter. Suffice it to say that a post was reported, the post was reviewed in light of the poster's prior record, and action was taken consistent with the guidelines which Groundspeak asks the moderators to follow. What happened after that was neither your choice nor mine.

 

I posted in another recent thread that moderating is an art, not a science. If we over-moderate a thread, we're criticized as censors. If we fail to stop personal attacks, we're criticized for allowing this to be a negative environment. I recognized long ago that it's a "can't win" situation, so I strap on my kevlar flak jacket and try to do my best to maintain community and decorum in these forums.

Link to comment

Give me a break, Mr. T. We aren't unaware of local forums, and the games that people play.

 

Back on topic, thank you to all involved for resolving your differences with the bookmarks in question.

 

I agree this has been resolved successfully, but regret it had to be taken care of on a non-GC.com board because many of the dissenters were temporarily banned here and thus silenced.

Link to comment

Your posting rights were *temporarily suspended* for three days after disregarding my request to you and your co-conspirators not to post further in the thread. That is the lowest-impact form of discipline that can possibly be applied, but you and your buddies chose to ignore it in order to further your game. The moderators were following your thread in the local forum pretty much from when Mr. Wisearse was suspended.

 

There is no need to continue the martyrdom game. It didn't work, and I have better things to do than to play along further. Closing thread since the underlying issue has been resolved.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...