Mods Closing Topics

[+simpjkee]

I've been on a few forums in my day and I don't get why the mods, here, jump in and close topics that don't need to be closed. If posters want to post in the topics, whats the big deal? Why close a topic that other people want to post in? I don't get it.

Edited July 26, 2007 by simpjkee

[Keystone]

Topics are closed when the discussion has gone hopelessly off topic and/or in violation of the posted forum guidelines. Often this is done in response to "Report this Post" messages from the community. By closing threads, moving threads to the correct forum, etc., it is the moderating team's goal to provide an organized and respectful place in which to ask questions or to have fun talking about geocaching.

 

I hope that this explanation is helpful.

[+simpjkee]

the explanation is helpful. however, i dont understand why a thread/topic that is continuously being posted in is being closed for no reason that you stated above. I tend to think that as long as people are posting in a thread then it should stay active.

 

For example, the tresspassing thread was full of excellent arguments, ideas, examples, and out of nowhere a mod decides to close it for no apparent reason. Quiggle seemed to think it was a thread going nowhere. I disagree. I think the posters had very valid points that deserved potential discussion. IMO, It's unfortunate that Quiggle is a premature closer.

 

We missed out.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Na Simp, that was going nowhere. I couldn't point out any other way what my point was, and I doubt anyone could make any further points that would benefit me as well! No minds were going to be changed by re-hashing it over and over again! Woulda been nice to make the 400 mark though!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

the explanation is helpful. however, i dont understand why a thread/topic that is continuously being posted in is being closed for no reason that you stated above. I tend to think that as long as people are posting in a thread then it should stay active.

 

For example, the tresspassing thread was full of excellent arguments, ideas, examples, and out of nowhere a mod decides to close it for no apparent reason. Quiggle seemed to think it was a thread going nowhere. I disagree. I think the posters had very valid points that deserved potential discussion. IMO, It's unfortunate that Quiggle is a premature closer.

 

We missed out.

Strange that you happened to pick that trespassing thread! Personally, I have been wondering for at least a week why people were still beating this topic of "trespassing in parks at night" to death and arguing over minutae, and had been wondering WHY some compassionate moderator had not yet mercifully put the thread to sleep in a mercy killing. And then, finally... the mercy killing was done, thankfully! BTW, since you mention your opinion that Quiggle is a "premature thread closer": my experience is quite the opposite: I find both Quiggle and Keystone to be among the most tolerant and accepting moderators when it comes to deciding when and if to close threads.

 

In any case, if you really and consistently do not like how the geocaching forums here are managed by the moderators, it is a very simple and easy matter for you to purchase a domain name, some cheap website hosting (i.e., a few bucks per month) and set up a geocaching forum yourself, and it would be a relatively easy matter to get the word out to the geo community that your geo forums will employ no moderation at all, and that people are free to write/say whatever they wish. There have been several non-GC geocaching forums on the web in the past which claimed to employ either different moderation standards or lesser moderation than on the GC forum, and several of those forums were quite "successful", in that they attracted quite a few geo posters from all over the world and survived or thrived for years.

 

BTW, as an aside, I noticed that you are located in Mesa, AZ: I was in the Tempe/Mesa/Tucson area for over a week last month with a buddy on a research field trip, collecting ore samples in the desert under the hot sun; that is a very beautiful area! I love the desert and the mountains! You are very lucky to live there!

Edited July 26, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[Keystone]

the explanation is helpful. however, i dont understand why a thread/topic that is continuously being posted in is being closed for no reason that you stated above. I tend to think that as long as people are posting in a thread then it should stay active.

 

For example, the tresspassing thread was full of excellent arguments, ideas, examples, and out of nowhere a mod decides to close it for no apparent reason. Quiggle seemed to think it was a thread going nowhere. I disagree. I think the posters had very valid points that deserved potential discussion. IMO, It's unfortunate that Quiggle is a premature closer.

 

We missed out.

The thread was closed in response to "report this post" complaints. It was not closed "out of nowhere." It had wandered off topic and nothing new was being added to what had already been posted.

 

Please respect the work of the volunteer moderators who are asked to make judgement calls whenever someone reports a post. It is not "unfortunate" that Quiggle is a "premature closer." Rather, we are very fortunate to have a moderator with Quiggle's good judgement and willingness to serve.

 

If you have complaints about the actions of the moderating team, the best thing to do is to write to Groundspeak and ask them to look into the matter.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Pssst....I wondered the same thing V&S!

 

It was a fun run though!

 

THANKS for doing a great job moderating all! I'm sure it's a THANKLESS "job"...glad we have volunteers like yourselves!

[+sbell111]

I think that the mods do a pretty good job of keeping things from getting too out of hand around here. In my opinion, they could sometimes shut threads down a little quicker.

[Mushtang]

...and had been wondering WHY some compassionate moderator had not yet mercifully put the thread to sleep in a mercy killing. And then, finally... the mercy killing was done, thankfully!

I've never understood this line of reasoning. If you don't enjoy a thread and think that the debate has gone away from what you'd want to read, why open the thread and read it? This is very similar, in my eyes, of trying to get a cache archived just because you didn't enjoy hunting for it.

 

I have to agree with the OP that threads are sometimes closed during the good parts of debates. Folks that report posts simply because they're tired of reading them, or because they don't like the direction the conversation had turned, are hard for me to understand.

 

Obviously if terms are being violated, profanity is used, etc., then the thread should be moderated, but I think they're locked way too often.

[+Knight2000]

I have to agree with the OP that threads are sometimes closed during the good parts of debates. Folks that report posts simply because they're tired of reading them, or because they don't like the direction the conversation had turned, are hard for me to understand.

 

Obviously if terms are being violated, profanity is used, etc., then the thread should be moderated, but I think they're locked way too often.

I agree with the OP and Mushtang.

 

Just because someone can doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

[+StarBrand]

I'll have to go with the side that says some of these threads get way more tolerance than they deserve. Endless pages of the same tired arguments with no movement either way. Occasionally interspersed with way off topic comments and personal rudeness.

 

I think they need closed down sometimes just to let the topic settle down for some period of time before being brought up for another round.

 

Good Job Mods - you do keep us pretty civil.!!

[Mushtang]

I think they need closed down sometimes just to let the topic settle down...

Can you elaborate why?

 

For instance, I don't see the benefit to you to have a thread closed that you don't want to read. It keeps others from being able to enjoy a conversation they're in, but if you're not interested in keeping up with that conversation I can think of better ways for you to avoid reading it.

[+Knight2000]

I think they need closed down sometimes just to let the topic settle down...

Can you elaborate why?

 

For instance, I don't see the benefit to you to have a thread closed that you don't want to read. It keeps others from being able to enjoy a conversation they're in, but if you're not interested in keeping up with that conversation I can think of better ways for you to avoid reading it.

Elaborating would be off-topic. Start another thread.

 

I do not agree that a topic needs closed to let it settle. Either go there if interested or not. No one is forcing you to view a topic that you don't want to view.

 

It is pretty frustrating finding a topic related to what you are interested in and seeing that it is closed. Especially for going off-topic. Thats what threads do, they progress.

[+TrailGators]

I think some mods have quicker trigger fingers than others. I really appreciate it when a mod will chime in to let you know that the thread is hanging by a thread or needs to get back on course. At least that way people learn something. I don't think people are trying to violate anything, they just get caught up in the moment. However, one particular mod (I'm not going to name names) often pulls the trigger without any warning leaving people wondering why. As far as threads dragging on, people are free to bail whenever they get bored with a subject. I saw the trespassing thread going on and even though I had no interest in it, obviously a couple people were still talking so why not let them?

[+StarBrand]

I think they need closed down sometimes just to let the topic settle down...

Can you elaborate why?

 

For instance, I don't see the benefit to you to have a thread closed that you don't want to read. It keeps others from being able to enjoy a conversation they're in, but if you're not interested in keeping up with that conversation I can think of better ways for you to avoid reading it.

Who says I didn't want to read it??

 

I do read many of these - they just go nowhere - I keep checking back to see if something is new - but there isn't anything. Same tired thoughts being restated in endless ways. The mods see the same thing - and close them down so the dust settles and everybody can take a step back and sort of re-evaluate before the topic is reborn anew. Simply an observation.

[+TrailGators]

I think they need closed down sometimes just to let the topic settle down...

Can you elaborate why?

 

For instance, I don't see the benefit to you to have a thread closed that you don't want to read. It keeps others from being able to enjoy a conversation they're in, but if you're not interested in keeping up with that conversation I can think of better ways for you to avoid reading it.

Who says I didn't want to read it??

 

I do read many of these - they just go nowhere - I keep checking back to see if something is new - but there isn't anything. Same tired thoughts being restated in endless ways. The mods see the same thing - and close them down so the dust settles and everybody can take a step back and sort of re-evaluate before the topic is reborn anew. Simply an observation.

I agree that some topics are like that. You have some newbies expressing opinions and some oldbies agreeing with them. Then a certain group always swoops in and turns a perfectly good thread into a UFC match. Then they wonder why it gets closed.... It's too bad the mods can't just boot just the people off a particular thread when they do that.....

[Mushtang]

I think they need closed down sometimes just to let the topic settle down...

Can you elaborate why?

 

For instance, I don't see the benefit to you to have a thread closed that you don't want to read. It keeps others from being able to enjoy a conversation they're in, but if you're not interested in keeping up with that conversation I can think of better ways for you to avoid reading it.

Who says I didn't want to read it??

 

I do read many of these - they just go nowhere - I keep checking back to see if something is new - but there isn't anything. Same tired thoughts being restated in endless ways. The mods see the same thing - and close them down so the dust settles and everybody can take a step back and sort of re-evaluate before the topic is reborn anew. Simply an observation.

Thanks for elaborating.

 

I admit that you never specifically said you didn't want to read these threads, but if you didn't enjoy the points being made and thought the thread needed to be closed, it didn't seem like you DID want to read it.

 

My point is, you've got one group of people in the conversation enjoying it, and another group that is not involved in the conversation that doesn't want to read it. Somehow the people from the second group have the power to remove the fun from the first group simply by reporting the thread and complaining that it should be locked. Why do this? Why not just stay out of the thread? That's what I don't understand.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

I am one of those people who is not compelled to read every thread that is posted here. Not even to see if it's something I MIGHT like. If the topic doesn't grab my attention, then I just don't go there.

 

For instance... never once was I intrigued by the Trespassing thread. I'm sure it was the same-old, same-old that's been going around for years.

 

Has anyone considered, from a moderator POV, that maybe the thread was a constant problem for them to moderate... generating many complaints and requiring an inordinate amount of time to be spent reading every post in a timely fashion to keep it from getting out of hand?

 

It also seems incredibly narrow minded to think that the only people who complained about this particular thread were people who didn't participate, or weren't enjoying it. Someone can participate AND enjoy a conversation and STILL complain about other participants.

 

Moderating as got to be one of the most thankless jobs around here... but this ain't no democracy and if you think this place would be better off without the mods... I think you're wrong.

 

 

michelle

[+Moose Mob]

Then there is the possibility that we are having a very bad day and we just want to irritate people.

 

Actually, threads typically get closed when a few people control the converstaion and start nit picking at each other's posts and thus distracting from the main topic.

 

Many moderators have been busy with summer activities and haven't had the chance to address those few people in detail. I think we have all realized that and we will be paying a lot more attention to these people and dealing with the overly vocal.

[Mushtang]

I am one of those people who is not compelled to read every thread that is posted here. Not even to see if it's something I MIGHT like. If the topic doesn't grab my attention, then I just don't go there.

 

For instance... never once was I intrigued by the Trespassing thread. I'm sure it was the same-old, same-old that's been going around for years.

 

Has anyone considered, from a moderator POV, that maybe the thread was a constant problem for them to moderate... generating many complaints and requiring an inordinate amount of time to be spent reading every post in a timely fashion to keep it from getting out of hand?

 

It also seems incredibly narrow minded to think that the only people who complained about this particular thread were people who didn't participate, or weren't enjoying it. Someone can participate AND enjoy a conversation and STILL complain about other participants.

Well I suppose I'm narrow minded then. Even after you suggested this I cannot understand why someone that is enjoying the conversation would complain about it. It seems, by definition, that if they complained about it then they weren't enjoying it. And if it were just one aspect of the thread they wanted to complain about (a specific poster perhaps) then it seems more likely that the complainer is the narrow-minded one that can't accept another point of view. I've already mentioned that in cases where the terms were being violated (rudeness, name calling, etc) I would agree with the mods being called in, but not just because you disagreed with someone's argument.

 

Moderating as got to be one of the most thankless jobs around here... but this ain't no democracy and if you think this place would be better off without the mods... I think you're wrong.

I don't think it would be better without them, and I apologize if that was the way any of my posts here sounded. Suggesting that they sometimes close threads too quickly is not meant to suggest that I'd prefer they didn't exist.

[+sbell111]

I am one of those people who is not compelled to read every thread that is posted here. Not even to see if it's something I MIGHT like. If the topic doesn't grab my attention, then I just don't go there.

 

For instance... never once was I intrigued by the Trespassing thread. I'm sure it was the same-old, same-old that's been going around for years.

 

Has anyone considered, from a moderator POV, that maybe the thread was a constant problem for them to moderate... generating many complaints and requiring an inordinate amount of time to be spent reading every post in a timely fashion to keep it from getting out of hand?

 

It also seems incredibly narrow minded to think that the only people who complained about this particular thread were people who didn't participate, or weren't enjoying it. Someone can participate AND enjoy a conversation and STILL complain about other participants.

Well I suppose I'm narrow minded then. Even after you suggested this I cannot understand why someone that is enjoying the conversation would complain about it. It seems, by definition, that if they complained about it then they weren't enjoying it. And if it were just one aspect of the thread they wanted to complain about (a specific poster perhaps) then it seems more likely that the complainer is the narrow-minded one that can't accept another point of view. I've already mentioned that in cases where the terms were being violated (rudeness, name calling, etc) I would agree with the mods being called in, but not just because you disagreed with someone's argument.

 

Moderating as got to be one of the most thankless jobs around here... but this ain't no democracy and if you think this place would be better off without the mods... I think you're wrong.

I don't think it would be better without them, and I apologize if that was the way any of my posts here sounded. Suggesting that they sometimes close threads too quickly is not meant to suggest that I'd prefer they didn't exist.

I've hated threads, participated in them heavily, and begged for them to be closed pretty much all at the same time. I can see it happening.

[+cerberus1]

We're (as in all, not just CJ and I usually at fault.

 

Example : Noticed a discussion on how folks do dumb things in the woods. Going well, when a person says, "I won't wear cotton socks" and goes downhill from there - for two days. NOW you're trying to figure out what the original discussion was about, with all the rantings on a subject that had NOTHING to do with the original.

A new cacher wanted to say "hi" to all the folks in his area (N/E). In ONE day, it became a chat room on a subject that had nothing to do with saying, " Greetings. Good to have you aboard!"

 

Mods put a lot of time into this ( I believe with NO pay). Most are also our reviewers for caches, so they're very busy. Wouldn't it be nice to give 'em a break once in awhile and stay on the subject, AND be civil ?

 

Mods protect us from flaming, framing and spamming. I for one applaud them !

[+KBI]

I've been on a few forums in my day and I don't get why the mods, here, jump in and close topics that don't need to be closed. If posters want to post in the topics, whats the big deal? Why close a topic that other people want to post in? I don't get it.

Topics are closed when the discussion has gone hopelessly off topic

This is what I have witnessed in the recently locked threads that interested me:

 

(1) A new "I dislike lame micros" topic opens.

 

(2) The "Chronic Complainers" all jump in to the latest thread to reiterate their supreme and proper distaste for (1) easy urban micros, and (2) the preferences of those who enjoy hiding and/or finding such micros, (3) the oppressively impossible task of detecting, avoiding, or emotionally coping with the very existence of such micros.

 

(3) The so-called "Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame" speak up to challenge the kind of thinking that would lead anyone to look down upon anyone else’s rule-compliant preferences. They point out that a preference for the kind of easy, unexciting and repetitive cache hides which are conducive to running up one’s find count is just as valid as any other rule-compliant preference – and that the job of avoiding such hides, if one desires to avoid them, isn’t really all that oppressive.

 

(4) The Chronic Complainers respond to this logic with pretty much anything OTHER than logic: Obfuscation, silence, insults, silliness, name-calling and a variety of other fallacious rebuttals. The Complainers choose not to debate in good faith. They react to any challenge against their reasoning by making emotional or irrelevant noise while refusing to ever actually defend their reasoning.

 

(5) The Defenders get frustrated, optimistically repeating their questions and challenges.

 

(6) The Complainers repeat the cycle by refusing to debate.

 

(7) Yet another thread gets shut down when a moderator interprets one side's refusal to debate in good faith as an indication that the thread has gone “hopelessly of topic.”

 

Is this interpretation by the moderators accurate? Maybe so! If there are people among us who insist on complaining and belittling the way others play while simultaneously refusing to explain why such a stance makes sense; if there are people among us who constantly insist that their preference should be respected while simultaneously refusing to respect the preferences of others – in other words, if there are so many participants who refuse to debate in good faith – then maybe “hopelessly off topic” is an accurate description of such intentional derailing by the Complainers of the subject at hand,

 

Should the debate/refuse-to-debate cycle (numbers 6 and 7 above) be tolerated no matter what? Does this violate Free Speech protections? I would say no. Free Speech protections under the U.S. Constitution only protect Americans from an oppressive or silencing government; they do not apply to private concerns such as this.

 

If what the Moderators are going for is a real time adjustment of the tone, personality and fairness of the forums, then I support that goal. A quashing such intellectual bigotry as described above, while it would be absolutely wrong coming from an all-powerful government, is something I can actually support in this privately-funded arena.

[+TrailGators]

I think this thread needs to be closed now....

[+sbell111]

It's too bad the mods can't just boot just the people off a particular thread when they do that

[+StarBrand]

...... in this privately-funded arena.

Absolutely no bias in that particular post.

 

The debate over debate styles is one of the reasons that threads should (and do) get locked.

Edited July 26, 2007 by StarBrand

[+TrailGators]

It's too bad the mods can't just boot just the people off a particular thread when they do that

Hold you hat....

 

I agree.

[+Moose Mob]

Maybe we need a special room that you guys can play in and not bother everyone else.

[Mushtang]

It's too bad the mods can't just boot just the people off a particular thread when they do that

They may not have the ability to lock a person out of single threads like they can with the entire forums, but they certainly have the authority to mandate a specific person stay out of a specific thread on threat of being banned from the forums.

 

I've personally been tossed from two threads, and have been told if I post to either of them again I'll get a vacation from the forums. Unfortunately I don't think they're locked, and I'm sure if someone dug them out of the past I might accidentally post, not realizing it was one of my off limit threads.

[+TrailGators]

Maybe we need a special room that you guys can play in and not bother everyone else.

Maybe it could be a cage shaped like an octagon...

Edited July 26, 2007 by TrailGators

[Clan Riffster]

For example, the tresspassing thread was full of excellent arguments, ideas, examples, and out of nowhere a mod decides to close it for no apparent reason.

You might want to go back and read it again. After the first handful of posts, there was very little imaginative input. A good summary of the post is, one person ranting and raving for 8 pages, proclaiming heckfire and darnation to all the sinners in the world, and the rest of the community giggling behind their hands, occasionally making jabs. While I was proud to be among those folks making the jabs, the thread was going nowhere and needed to be shut down. Personally, my hat's off to Quiggle, as well as the other Mods who keep folks like me in line.

[+Rockin Roddy]

We knew you had no imaginative input and only trash...we put up with what we can't change!

 

BTW, if not for you and a few others throwing your silly trash into the conversation, the debate could have been fruitful AND a whole lot shorter...I never understand why some seem to want to jump into a conversation and just try to bring it down.

 

But let's get back to the topic on hand

[Keystone]

I've been reading every thread since becoming a forum moderator in August 2003. I am proud to say that it has not affected my sanity in any way. It's an honor to serve the community, and I do thank you all for the feedback, positive and otherwise.

 

[+Mule Ears]

KBI posts thoughtful, intelligent and insightful observations about the general course of forum debates and is utterly ignored. He made his point eloquently in his post, and then again by the silence that followed. Wow, the guy's good.

[+flask]

i'm pretty sure that quiggle is the single most premature closer/mover here. while one might admire the hard work and community spiritedness, of all the moderators, it is quiggle's judgement in closing threads i question most.

 

am i getting booted now?

 

it wouldn't be quiggle who does that. but the topic isn't "what's up with moderators who ban you?".

[Keystone]

Quiggle tends to wake up a bit earlier than some of the other moderators, and thus catches a lot of the overnight "report this post" messages before the rest of us even see them.

 

Had I woken up earlier this morning and read my messages, I would have been the mod with the quick trigger finger.

 

So flask, what I'd recommend that you do is figure out a way to keep Quiggle awake late at night, or a way to steal Quiggle's alarm clock, or to call me at 5:00 a.m. and say "have you checked your forum messages lately?"

[+flask]

it's not all that important, but it came up in the thread and where there is an opposing opinion, i think it ought to be included.

[+TrailGators]

Quiggle tends to wake up a bit earlier than some of the other moderators, and thus catches a lot of the overnight "report this post" messages before the rest of us even see them.

 

Had I woken up earlier this morning and read my messages, I would have been the mod with the quick trigger finger.

 

So flask, what I'd recommend that you do is figure out a way to keep Quiggle awake late at night, or a way to steal Quiggle's alarm clock, or to call me at 5:00 a.m. and say "have you checked your forum messages lately?"

My observation has been that you are more likely to boot someone from a thread rather than closing it. You even started a very entertaining "Survivor Traffic Island" when you could have closed that thread. I think those techniques go a longer way towards educating people as to where the fence is. It's like how Andy Taylor kept Mayberry peaceful. I think people appreciate that personal touch. So thanks Keystone! Edited July 27, 2007 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

Quiggle used to be a lot quicked on the trigger in closing threads, but I think now she has the balance just right. There are many threads that degrade after a the first few pages. Once the OPs question gets answered and most people have given they're opinions, a lot of threads degrade to the same handful of people repeating their opinion and attacking those of the other side, instead of listening to what the other has to say and trying to come to some compromise. It reminds me of dueling banjos (I found this version to keep Keystone happy). But these threads usually don't get locked until they go completely off topic or someone starts violating the forum guidelines with personal attacks. (Please note the dueling banjos reference has nothing to due with the region of the country that some of the people live in).

 

I wasn't following the no trespassing thread after about the first page so I don't really care that it was locked. But I started a thread last week that locked in less than one day because people began insulting the intelligence of those that had a different opinion then they had. I was about to switch sides in my own thread when it was locked because some other people couldn't stay within the guidelines. (At least this is what I think was the reason that thread was locked )

Edited July 27, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

These are the most tightly moderated forums I've ever seen, but it's moderated consistently and in the manner I think TPTB wants it. And TPTB have the right to dictate that.

 

The thread was closed in response to "report this post" complaints.

 

Now this is pretty annoying. People actually send PM's to moderators to close threads NOT because of inappropriate behavior but because they're just bored with it? Do people actually have time to write emails about geocaching forum threads that they don't prefer? How pathetic.

 

I have to say Mushtang is pretty consistent. In numerous other threads he defends "lame" caches primarily on the idea that "lame" is in the eye of the beholder. Many folks here defend folks rights to hide LPC as a sort of freedom of expression.

 

Shouldn't these same folks, in the same way Mushtang has, defend folks right to post in a forum? Aren't posts' wisdom in the eye of the beholder? I'm sure several folks with opinions on page 7 feel they have valid points, even if you don't.

 

I think it's pretty arrogant when folks complain about multiple pages of the same tired arguments. I think we should have at least as much respect for people's right to state their opinions here as we do for their right to post caches.

 

(of course this assumes posts are on-topic and not abusive.)

Edited July 27, 2007 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+chuckwagon101]

If the thread does not have something about McToys in it.....SHUT THAT SUCKER DOWN!

[+Too Tall John]

This is what I have witnessed in the recently locked threads that interested me:

 

(1) A new "I dislike lame micros" topic opens.

 

(2) The "Chronic Complainers" "Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame" all jump in to the latest thread to reiterate their supreme and proper distaste for (1) easy urban micros, anyone who says they don't like something they like and (2) the preferences of those who enjoy hiding and/or finding don't like such micros, (3) the oppressively impossible task of detecting, avoiding, or emotionally coping with the very existence of such any suggestion that it is harder to find a cache they will enjoy because of all the micros.

 

(3) The so-called "Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame""Chronic Complainers" speak up to challenge the kind of thinking that would lead anyone to look down upon anyone else’s rule-compliant preferences. They point out that a preference for the kind of easy, unexciting and repetitive challenging, rewarding, and creative cache hides which are conducive to running up one’s find count enjoying a unique experience is just as valid as any other rule-compliant preference – and that the job of avoiding such hides micro spew, if one desires to avoid them, isn’t really all that oppressive manages to filter out some caches that are actually creative and enjoyable.

 

(4) The Chronic Complainers Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame respond to this logic with pretty much anything OTHER than logic: Obfuscation, silence, insults, silliness, name-calling and a variety of other fallacious rebuttals. The Complainers SDoEL choose not to debate in good faith. They react to any challenge against their reasoning by making emotional or irrelevant noise while refusing to ever actually defend their reasoning.

 

(5) The SDoEL "Complainers" get frustrated, optimistically repeating their questions and challenges.

 

(6) The Complainers SDoEL repeat the cycle by refusing to debate.

 

(7) Yet another thread gets shut down when a moderator interprets one side's refusal to debate in good faith as an indication that the thread has gone “hopelessly off topic.”

 

Is this interpretation by the moderators accurate? Maybe so! It is now!

Interesting how a matter of perspective can change things around.

From the mods' perspective, here's the latest topic in their section of the forums:

Rehashing Angsty Topics: Why do they keep posting new topics after we close the old ones?

[+Too Tall John]

I must say, I like Quiggle's apparent sense of humor. It seemed that for the last few posts in the thread that apparently started this one, the sole purpose for discussion was to start a new page. The "Closing Topic" post was #399, 1 short...

 

I wouldn't call that premature, but well timed!

 

Edited July 27, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+TrailGators]

This is what I have witnessed in the recently locked threads that interested me:

 

(1) A new "I dislike lame micros" topic opens.

 

(2) The "Chronic Complainers" "Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame" all jump in to the latest thread to reiterate their supreme and proper distaste for (1) easy urban micros, anyone who says they don't like something they like and (2) the preferences of those who enjoy hiding and/or finding don't like such micros, (3) the oppressively impossible task of detecting, avoiding, or emotionally coping with the very existence of such any suggestion that it is harder to find a cache they will enjoy because of all the micros.

 

(3) The so-called "Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame""Chronic Complainers" speak up to challenge the kind of thinking that would lead anyone to look down upon anyone else's rule-compliant preferences. They point out that a preference for the kind of easy, unexciting and repetitive challenging, rewarding, and creative cache hides which are conducive to running up one's find count enjoying a unique experience is just as valid as any other rule-compliant preference – and that the job of avoiding such hides micro spew, if one desires to avoid them, isn't really all that oppressive manages to filter out some caches that are actually creative and enjoyable.

 

(4) The Chronic Complainers Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame respond to this logic with pretty much anything OTHER than logic: Obfuscation, silence, insults, silliness, name-calling and a variety of other fallacious rebuttals. The Complainers SDoEL choose not to debate in good faith. They react to any challenge against their reasoning by making emotional or irrelevant noise while refusing to ever actually defend their reasoning.

 

(5) The SDoEL "Complainers" get frustrated, optimistically repeating their questions and challenges.

 

(6) The Complainers SDoEL repeat the cycle by refusing to debate.

 

(7) Yet another thread gets shut down when a moderator interprets one side's refusal to debate in good faith as an indication that the thread has gone "hopelessly off topic."

 

Is this interpretation by the moderators accurate? Maybe so! It is now!

Interesting how a matter of perspective can change things around.

From the mods' perspective, here's the latest topic in their section of the forums:

Rehashing Angsty Topics: Why do they keep posting new topics after we close the old ones?

Thanks for fixing that post Too Tall! Where is "their thread?"

[+TrailGators]

I must say, I like Quiggle's style. It seemed that for the last few posts in the thread that apparently started this one, the sole purpose for discussion was to start a new page. The "Closing Topic" post was #399, 1 short...

 

So why is the Peanut Butter thread still going with 474 posts? That horse has been dead for a long time...

[+Too Tall John]

Where is "their thread?"

Well, my understanding from reading the posts is that there is a section of the forums where "they" can discuss stuff without the masses getting into the mess, available only to mods, kinda like "Off Topic" is only available to PM's. 'Course, it could be I've been taken in by a more subtle version of the "Platinum Membership" stories. Yes, I know those are true, but we gotta keep up appearences!

[+Too Tall John]

So why is the Peanut Butter thread still going with 474 posts? That horse has been dead for a long time...

Well, the thread's actually only at 473 as of a second ago. Maybe 474 will be Quiggle. That'd be funny...

 

Actually, if my timing theory is right, someone just needs to jump in the PB thread, say they want to "ride the dead horse" on into page 11, and it'll be closed no sooner than post 499.

[+TrailGators]

So why is the Peanut Butter thread still going with 474 posts? That horse has been dead for a long time...

Well, the thread's actually only at 473 as of a second ago. Maybe 474 will be Quiggle. That'd be funny...

 

Actually, if my timing theory is right, someone just needs to jump in the PB thread, say they want to "ride the dead horse" on into page 11, and it'll be closed no sooner than post 499.

Go look at the upper right corner of your last post on that thread. There is always one less reply than the total! Edited July 27, 2007 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

Quiggle used to be a lot quicked on the trigger in closing threads, but I think now she has the balance just right

 

Which is why Quiggle was a 5 time "Moderator of the Month" as voted by the National Association of Forum Moderators as well as winner of the coveted 2006 Moderator of the Year award.

 

Keystone is the only other Groundspeak forum moderator to win the annual award.

[Clan Riffster]

<ranting deleted for brevity>

Oops... Nothing left to comment on... Sorry!