Mods Closing Topics

[+Rockin Roddy]

Exactly Clan...you pop in and snark, act all high and mighty then act as if you can't figure out why you get the response you get (really, I've come to expect you're silliness, I chalk it up to boredom or just being childish). You then cry about it taking up sooo many pages. Rude.

 

And even now you can't keep on topic which is the usual reason a thread gets locked...amazing! But the personal insults are your hallmark! You insult people so as most everyone knows it, but it's veiled just enough to not get you in trouble...AWESOME! Must make you proud to have that skill!

 

I agree with GHH, it IS rude to report someone's thread! Unless that person was being slanted or some major violation takes place, why must someone go and "tattle" about someone else's discussions? Surely (and I think I read this a few posts ago) the mods read much of what is written in these forums. If they are content, why must someone who is "tired" of the conversation report it?

[Clan Riffster]

But going off topic is one of the reasons these threads get locked down, right? And threads being locked down is the topic of this thread, right? It follows that being off topic is actually on topic, for this thread. And as a further bonus, I've managed an entire, fairly eloquent response without a single jab at your earlier silliness...... Oops.... Never mind.

[+simpjkee]

Thank you moderators for tireless thankless difficult "jobs". I appreciate it. However, I don't see why any thread should be closed unless the thread is out of hand (fighting, name calling, threats, bad language, naughty pictures, etc.) IMO as long as people are posting their thoughts then let the thread continue. Eventually people will move on from the thread and it will die naturally to page 30 of the forums. Until then, why kill it? As long as the posters are civil, let the posters decide what is posted.

[+Morgan's Marauders]

Thank you moderators for tireless thankless difficult "jobs". I appreciate it. However, I don't see why any thread should be closed unless the thread is out of hand (fighting, name calling, threats, bad language, naughty pictures, etc.) IMO as long as people are posting their thoughts then let the thread continue. Eventually people will move on from the thread and it will die naturally to page 30 of the forums. Until then, why kill it? As long as the posters are civil, let the posters decide what is posted.

 

Let the thread live!!!!!!!

[+sbell111]

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.

That hasn't been my experience.

[+simpjkee]

Thank you moderators for tireless thankless difficult "jobs". I appreciate it. However, I don't see why any thread should be closed unless the thread is out of hand (fighting, name calling, threats, bad language, naughty pictures, etc.) IMO as long as people are posting their thoughts then let the thread continue. Eventually people will move on from the thread and it will die naturally to page 30 of the forums. Until then, why kill it? As long as the posters are civil, let the posters decide what is posted.

 

Let the thread live!!!!!!!

 

if people post, it shall live

[Keystone]

Thank you moderators for tireless thankless difficult "jobs". I appreciate it. However, I don't see why any thread should be closed unless the thread is out of hand (fighting, name calling, threats, bad language, naughty pictures, etc.) IMO as long as people are posting their thoughts then let the thread continue. Eventually people will move on from the thread and it will die naturally to page 30 of the forums. Until then, why kill it? As long as the posters are civil, let the posters decide what is posted.

 

Let the thread live!!!!!!!

 

if people post, it shall live

If people want to post just for the sake of posting, I recommend that they go count cheese.

[+simpjkee]

Thank you moderators for tireless thankless difficult "jobs". I appreciate it. However, I don't see why any thread should be closed unless the thread is out of hand (fighting, name calling, threats, bad language, naughty pictures, etc.) IMO as long as people are posting their thoughts then let the thread continue. Eventually people will move on from the thread and it will die naturally to page 30 of the forums. Until then, why kill it? As long as the posters are civil, let the posters decide what is posted.

 

Let the thread live!!!!!!!

 

if people post, it shall live

If people want to post just for the sake of posting, I recommend that they go count cheese.

 

if all the posters from the trespassing thread went over to the cheese thread and discussed trespassing, would you close the cheese forum?

[Keystone]

Thank you moderators for tireless thankless difficult "jobs". I appreciate it. However, I don't see why any thread should be closed unless the thread is out of hand (fighting, name calling, threats, bad language, naughty pictures, etc.) IMO as long as people are posting their thoughts then let the thread continue. Eventually people will move on from the thread and it will die naturally to page 30 of the forums. Until then, why kill it? As long as the posters are civil, let the posters decide what is posted.

 

Let the thread live!!!!!!!

 

if people post, it shall live

If people want to post just for the sake of posting, I recommend that they go count cheese.

 

if all the posters from the trespassing thread went over to the cheese thread and discussed trespassing, would you close the cheese forum?

I don't moderate the Off Topic forum, but if I did, the answer would be: "Yes, if the cheese counters joined in the trespassing debate, including the cheese counter who started the thread."

[+Quiggle]

I agree with GHH, it IS rude to report someone's thread! Unless that person was being slanted or some major violation takes place, why must someone go and "tattle" about someone else's discussions? Surely (and I think I read this a few posts ago) the mods read much of what is written in these forums. If they are content, why must someone who is "tired" of the conversation report it?

Moderators can NOT read every post and topic. Sometimes, in a case such as your post, it gets reported because it violates the forum guidelines. In this case we act upon it by issuing warnings, closing threads if warranted, etc.

 

I'll take this opportunity to remind you of the forum guidelines, posted at the top of each page, which state:

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Thanks for your cooperation,

 

Quiggle

[+Quiggle]

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.

It does sound like a misunderstanding.

 

Threads aren't automatically closed because someone reports them--I don't recall seeing anything that says they are but I might've missed it since I don't have the time to read all posts and threads. When someone reports a post/thread, it gets looked at. If there are issues with it we determine if it can be corrected. If so, we take action. If it can't, we take action. If there's nothing to worry about, it gets left alone. There are post reports that come through that do not get any action because there's no reason to take action*. In most cases there is--it's all situation dependent. Reporting a post/thread doesn't automatically get it closed.

 

Hope that helps clear up some confusion.

 

*There are some that will accidentally use the [REPORT] button rather than [REPLY], but that's a small portion of the ones that don't get acted on.

[+simpjkee]

Thank you moderators for tireless thankless difficult "jobs". I appreciate it. However, I don't see why any thread should be closed unless the thread is out of hand (fighting, name calling, threats, bad language, naughty pictures, etc.) IMO as long as people are posting their thoughts then let the thread continue. Eventually people will move on from the thread and it will die naturally to page 30 of the forums. Until then, why kill it? As long as the posters are civil, let the posters decide what is posted.

 

Let the thread live!!!!!!!

 

if people post, it shall live

If people want to post just for the sake of posting, I recommend that they go count cheese.

 

if all the posters from the trespassing thread went over to the cheese thread and discussed trespassing, would you close the cheese forum?

I don't moderate the Off Topic forum, but if I did, the answer would be: "Yes, if the cheese counters joined in the trespassing debate, including the cheese counter who started the thread."

 

the cheese people constantly talk off topic. nary a post is about cheese.

[+simpjkee]

I agree with GHH, it IS rude to report someone's thread! Unless that person was being slanted or some major violation takes place, why must someone go and "tattle" about someone else's discussions? Surely (and I think I read this a few posts ago) the mods read much of what is written in these forums. If they are content, why must someone who is "tired" of the conversation report it?

Moderators can NOT read every post and topic. Sometimes, in a case such as your post, it gets reported because it violates the forum guidelines. In this case we act upon it by issuing warnings, closing threads if warranted, etc.

 

I'll take this opportunity to remind you of the forum guidelines, posted at the top of each page, which state:

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Thanks for your cooperation,

 

Quiggle

 

BTW, i saw none of the above in the trespassing thread. and saw only a few cachers speaking of trespassing. then it was closed. I'm still wondering why.

Edited July 27, 2007 by simpjkee

[+simpjkee]

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.

It does sound like a misunderstanding.

 

If there's nothing to worry about, it gets left alone.

 

what was worrisome about the trespassing topic?

[+Mudfrog]

I come in here to read, and sometimes post, almost everyday and i have to agree with the original poster on his observation. It does seem that too many threads get closed down prematurely. I also agree with Flask in that Quiggle seems to be very fast on the trigger at times. Violating the posting guidelines is one thing but other than that, i can't see many other reasons for a thread to get closed.

 

Don't get me wrong, i definitely appreciate the fact that we have moderators to watch over things. But there is no reason to close a thread just because it is going no where, it is boring to some, or it is full of debate. A thread will go away on it's own when readers tire of it.

[Mushtang]

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.

It does sound like a misunderstanding.

 

If there's nothing to worry about, it gets left alone.

 

what was worrisome about the trespassing topic?

There seems to be an unwritten forum guideline about threads that beat dead horses. I've seen several threads closed only because the conversation seems to be stuck in a rut, and NOT because they violated any stated guidelines.

 

For instance, a thread was recently closed because it was "going nowhere" in the eyes of the mod that closed it, but was still interesting to the participants.

[+sbell111]

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.

It does sound like a misunderstanding.

 

If there's nothing to worry about, it gets left alone.

 

what was worrisome about the trespassing topic?

There seems to be an unwritten forum guideline about threads that beat dead horses. I've seen several threads closed only because the conversation seems to be stuck in a rut, and NOT because they violated any stated guidelines.

 

For instance, a thread was recently closed because it was "going nowhere" in the eyes of the mod that closed it, but was still interesting to the participants.

Of course, people also get 'time out' because they disagree with others, not because they are in violation of the guidelines.

[+simpjkee]

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.

It does sound like a misunderstanding.

 

If there's nothing to worry about, it gets left alone.

 

what was worrisome about the trespassing topic?

There seems to be an unwritten forum guideline about threads that beat dead horses. I've seen several threads closed only because the conversation seems to be stuck in a rut, and NOT because they violated any stated guidelines.

 

For instance, a thread was recently closed because it was "going nowhere" in the eyes of the mod that closed it, but was still interesting to the participants.

 

wether a person thinks the thread is stuck in a rut or not is beside the point. if there is a thread and people are willingly posting in it then why close the thread?

[+Deliveryguy428]

So in theory if a mod can close a thread for any reason they want why is this one still open?

[+BlueDeuce]

wether a person thinks the thread is stuck in a rut or not is beside the point. if there is a thread and people are willingly posting in it then why close the thread?

 

Perhaps it has to do when the thread turns into a chat room for a set group of posters.

[+sbell111]

wether a person thinks the thread is stuck in a rut or not is beside the point. if there is a thread and people are willingly posting in it then why close the thread?

 

Perhaps it has to do when the thread turns into a chat room for a set group of posters.

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

[+BlueDeuce]

wether a person thinks the thread is stuck in a rut or not is beside the point. if there is a thread and people are willingly posting in it then why close the thread?

 

Perhaps it has to do when the thread turns into a chat room for a set group of posters.

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

 

Don't know, just an observation.

[+Moose Mob]

wether a person thinks the thread is stuck in a rut or not is beside the point. if there is a thread and people are willingly posting in it then why close the thread?

 

Perhaps it has to do when the thread turns into a chat room for a set group of posters.

It seems we have a winner!

 

The forums are for everyone. When a group of people take control of the thread and turn it into their own private conversation, then it's time the thread was returned to all the cachers.

 

One of the most common complaints we get is that there are a few people that always have something to say about anything and everything and it's tough to hear others opinion when the threads are running amok.

[+Deliveryguy428]

from now on can we have a warning sign the thread needs to go back on topic???

 

I suggest this:

[+Moose Mob]

wether a person thinks the thread is stuck in a rut or not is beside the point. if there is a thread and people are willingly posting in it then why close the thread?

 

Perhaps it has to do when the thread turns into a chat room for a set group of posters.

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

If they are on topic, then it isn't a problem. It's when they are on tangents and getting nit picky is when it becomes a problem. If it goes too far then the thread gets shut down so the topic can start fresh on a later date.

[+Mudfrog]

wether a person thinks the thread is stuck in a rut or not is beside the point. if there is a thread and people are willingly posting in it then why close the thread?

 

Perhaps it has to do when the thread turns into a chat room for a set group of posters.

 

This still does not seem to be a good reason to close a thread. I don't really see it as being the fault of the two or three people who sometimes end up doing all the "chatting". They aren't trying to keep anyone else from posting. Others can ignore the thread, read the thread, and/or still post to the thread if they like.

[+Quiggle]

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

If they are on topic, then it isn't a problem. It's when they are on tangents and getting nit picky is when it becomes a problem. If it goes too far then the thread gets shut down so the topic can start fresh on a later date.

The new one often meets the same fate (and often by the same group of posters, though sometimes with a new set that has joined in). Moose Mob's earlier post hit it on the head--complaints about the same group of people turning the forums into their own private chat, whether it be friendly or non-friendly.

 

Think of a new person coming in here to find some info on [insert topic here]. They do a search and end up in that thread only to find "I know you are but what am I?" type of bickering back and forth, or repeated posts trying to bump the thread to meet a certain goal (ie the 400th post). Those kind of threads should live a shorter life than those that actually add something to a discussion, not detract from it with pointless posting.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

[+sbell111]

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

If they are on topic, then it isn't a problem. It's when they are on tangents and getting nit picky is when it becomes a problem. If it goes too far then the thread gets shut down so the topic can start fresh on a later date.

The new one often meets the same fate (and often by the same group of posters, though sometimes with a new set that has joined in). Moose Mob's earlier post hit it on the head--complaints about the same group of people turning the forums into their own private chat, whether it be friendly or non-friendly.

 

Think of a new person coming in here to find some info on [insert topic here]. They do a search and end up in that thread only to find "I know you are but what am I?" type of bickering back and forth, or repeated posts trying to bump the thread to meet a certain goal (ie the 400th post). Those kind of threads should live a shorter life than those that actually add something to a discussion, not detract from it with pointless posting.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

If the thread remains on topic, would it not still be 'matters of interest to the general community'?

[+flask]

i wish to assert firmly that there is very little that is truly off-topic. sometimes ancillary discussions spring out of the original concept. they are not strictly on topic, but they do follow ideas adressed in the course of the on-topic discussion. sometimes these side conversations give new depth to the original intent of the thread. if people are interested in returning the thread to what is strictly on-topic, they do.

 

topic wander is often an excellent tool for teasing out new and interesting ideas.

 

it has to do with the Interconnectedness of All Things.

[+TrailGators]

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

If they are on topic, then it isn't a problem. It's when they are on tangents and getting nit picky is when it becomes a problem. If it goes too far then the thread gets shut down so the topic can start fresh on a later date.

The new one often meets the same fate (and often by the same group of posters, though sometimes with a new set that has joined in). Moose Mob's earlier post hit it on the head--complaints about the same group of people turning the forums into their own private chat, whether it be friendly or non-friendly.

 

Think of a new person coming in here to find some info on [insert topic here]. They do a search and end up in that thread only to find "I know you are but what am I?" type of bickering back and forth, or repeated posts trying to bump the thread to meet a certain goal (ie the 400th post). Those kind of threads should live a shorter life than those that actually add something to a discussion, not detract from it with pointless posting.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

So why not just boot the people that are constantly attacking others and name calling from the thread? I see a lot of very civil discussions turn south as soon as certain people enter a thread. The newbies vanish at that point. People should be free to voice their opinion and not be constantly challenged or badgered. So the solution isn't always closing the thread, it's sometimes giving those guys a timeout.

[+sbell111]

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

If they are on topic, then it isn't a problem. It's when they are on tangents and getting nit picky is when it becomes a problem. If it goes too far then the thread gets shut down so the topic can start fresh on a later date.

The new one often meets the same fate (and often by the same group of posters, though sometimes with a new set that has joined in). Moose Mob's earlier post hit it on the head--complaints about the same group of people turning the forums into their own private chat, whether it be friendly or non-friendly.

 

Think of a new person coming in here to find some info on [insert topic here]. They do a search and end up in that thread only to find "I know you are but what am I?" type of bickering back and forth, or repeated posts trying to bump the thread to meet a certain goal (ie the 400th post). Those kind of threads should live a shorter life than those that actually add something to a discussion, not detract from it with pointless posting.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

So why not just boot the people that are constantly attacking others and name calling from the thread? I see a lot of very civil discussions turn south as soon as certain people enter a thread. The newbies vanish at that point. People should be free to voice their opinion and not be constantly challenged or badgered. So the solution isn't always closing the thread, it's sometimes giving those guys a timeout.

Some would find irony in your post.

[+Knight2000]

I once asked what training mods have to do what they do as i was curious.

 

I was told if i wanted an answer i needed to start a new thread.

[+TrailGators]

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

If they are on topic, then it isn't a problem. It's when they are on tangents and getting nit picky is when it becomes a problem. If it goes too far then the thread gets shut down so the topic can start fresh on a later date.

The new one often meets the same fate (and often by the same group of posters, though sometimes with a new set that has joined in). Moose Mob's earlier post hit it on the head--complaints about the same group of people turning the forums into their own private chat, whether it be friendly or non-friendly.

 

Think of a new person coming in here to find some info on [insert topic here]. They do a search and end up in that thread only to find "I know you are but what am I?" type of bickering back and forth, or repeated posts trying to bump the thread to meet a certain goal (ie the 400th post). Those kind of threads should live a shorter life than those that actually add something to a discussion, not detract from it with pointless posting.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

So why not just boot the people that are constantly attacking others and name calling from the thread? I see a lot of very civil discussions turn south as soon as certain people enter a thread. The newbies vanish at that point. People should be free to voice their opinion and not be constantly challenged or badgered. So the solution isn't always closing the thread, it's sometimes giving those guys a timeout.

Some would find irony in your post.

This is a great example of what I just talked about.

[+Walt Jabsco]

This thread has been reduced to rehashing the same topic over and over again and debating minutia. Please close it.

[+sbell111]

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

If they are on topic, then it isn't a problem. It's when they are on tangents and getting nit picky is when it becomes a problem. If it goes too far then the thread gets shut down so the topic can start fresh on a later date.

The new one often meets the same fate (and often by the same group of posters, though sometimes with a new set that has joined in). Moose Mob's earlier post hit it on the head--complaints about the same group of people turning the forums into their own private chat, whether it be friendly or non-friendly.

 

Think of a new person coming in here to find some info on [insert topic here]. They do a search and end up in that thread only to find "I know you are but what am I?" type of bickering back and forth, or repeated posts trying to bump the thread to meet a certain goal (ie the 400th post). Those kind of threads should live a shorter life than those that actually add something to a discussion, not detract from it with pointless posting.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

So why not just boot the people that are constantly attacking others and name calling from the thread? I see a lot of very civil discussions turn south as soon as certain people enter a thread. The newbies vanish at that point. People should be free to voice their opinion and not be constantly challenged or badgered. So the solution isn't always closing the thread, it's sometimes giving those guys a timeout.

Some would find irony in your post.

This is a great example of what I just talked about.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. In my opinion, you attack people more than anyonr in those threads. Therefore, I found it ironic that you made the post that you did.

[+sbell111]

This thread has been reduced to rehashing the same topic over and over again and debating minutia. Please close it.

Agreed.

[+Moose Mob]

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

If they are on topic, then it isn't a problem. It's when they are on tangents and getting nit picky is when it becomes a problem. If it goes too far then the thread gets shut down so the topic can start fresh on a later date.

The new one often meets the same fate (and often by the same group of posters, though sometimes with a new set that has joined in). Moose Mob's earlier post hit it on the head--complaints about the same group of people turning the forums into their own private chat, whether it be friendly or non-friendly.

 

Think of a new person coming in here to find some info on [insert topic here]. They do a search and end up in that thread only to find "I know you are but what am I?" type of bickering back and forth, or repeated posts trying to bump the thread to meet a certain goal (ie the 400th post). Those kind of threads should live a shorter life than those that actually add something to a discussion, not detract from it with pointless posting.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

So why not just boot the people that are constantly attacking others and name calling from the thread? I see a lot of very civil discussions turn south as soon as certain people enter a thread. The newbies vanish at that point. People should be free to voice their opinion and not be constantly challenged or badgered. So the solution isn't always closing the thread, it's sometimes giving those guys a timeout.

Some would find irony in your post.

This is a great example of what I just talked about.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. In my opinion, you attack people more than anyonr in those threads. Therefore, I found it ironic that you made the post that you did.

Distractions like this will be dealt with on an individual basis and in a decisive manner.

[+Knight2000]

If they're on topic, is that a problem?

If they are on topic, then it isn't a problem. It's when they are on tangents and getting nit picky is when it becomes a problem. If it goes too far then the thread gets shut down so the topic can start fresh on a later date.

The new one often meets the same fate (and often by the same group of posters, though sometimes with a new set that has joined in). Moose Mob's earlier post hit it on the head--complaints about the same group of people turning the forums into their own private chat, whether it be friendly or non-friendly.

 

Think of a new person coming in here to find some info on [insert topic here]. They do a search and end up in that thread only to find "I know you are but what am I?" type of bickering back and forth, or repeated posts trying to bump the thread to meet a certain goal (ie the 400th post). Those kind of threads should live a shorter life than those that actually add something to a discussion, not detract from it with pointless posting.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

So why not just boot the people that are constantly attacking others and name calling from the thread? I see a lot of very civil discussions turn south as soon as certain people enter a thread. The newbies vanish at that point. People should be free to voice their opinion and not be constantly challenged or badgered. So the solution isn't always closing the thread, it's sometimes giving those guys a timeout.

Some would find irony in your post.

This is a great example of what I just talked about.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. In my opinion, you attack people more than anyonr in those threads. Therefore, I found it ironic that you made the post that you did.

Distractions like this will be dealt with on an individual basis and in a decisive manner.

Is it just me?

[+Moose Mob]

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.

OK - let's see if we can't do this again, but without the distractions.

 

Please continue.

[+flask]

(singsong on)

 

somebody missed a duplicate thre-ead.

 

(/singsong)

 

NA NA NA NA NAH

 

(i lied.)

[+chuckwagon101]

[quote name= .)

 

Let the thread live!!!!!!!

 

 

I say.....CUT THE THREAD IN TWO! GIVE UNTO THE OP THE ONE HALF....AND UNTO THE MODERATOR THE OTHER HALF!" .......Sol-Oh-Moan

[bogleman]

Nip it - nip it in the bud

 

Sometimes closing a thread for whatever reason is the most humane thing that could be done.

[Mushtang]

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.

OK - let's see if we can't do this again, but without the distractions.

 

Please continue.

These kinds of warnings are good, and very much appreciated by the people that are actually discussing the topic. I've seen them work well, and I've seen them ignored. When threads are closed after one of these, and folks aren't getting back to topic, you really can't be surprised.

 

It's the threads that are shut down, seemingly out of nowhere, that seem to be what the OP and others are confused about. Perhaps now that we've heard from some mods we'll better understand it when it does happen, and hopefully they'll better understand what we're seeing and won't mind giving more explaination when they do quick lock.

[+wesleykey]

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.

 

Are these awards real or did yopu make them up while seeking the award for 99,000 forum posts in a year?

 

Yalll need to go caching!! I've scored a FTF and hidden a cache just in the last 8 hours.

[+flask]

I've scored a FTF and hidden a cache just in the last 8 hours.

 

we're all very proud of you.

[+Mudfrog]

I've scored a FTF and hidden a cache just in the last 8 hours.

 

we're all very proud of you.

 

I know, i know, i'm not doing my part to keep this thread open but,,,,

That was good Flask!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I agree with GHH, it IS rude to report someone's thread! Unless that person was being slanted or some major violation takes place, why must someone go and "tattle" about someone else's discussions? Surely (and I think I read this a few posts ago) the mods read much of what is written in these forums. If they are content, why must someone who is "tired" of the conversation report it?

Moderators can NOT read every post and topic. Sometimes, in a case such as your post, it gets reported because it violates the forum guidelines. In this case we act upon it by issuing warnings, closing threads if warranted, etc.

 

I'll take this opportunity to remind you of the forum guidelines, posted at the top of each page, which state:

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Thanks for your cooperation,

 

Quiggle

 

Sorry Quiggle, that "read most of the forums" remark was referring to a Keystone post which says he reads every thread!

 

And I do apologize for acting out, some posters seem to bring out the very best in some of us!

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I'd like to say that when I saw the trespassing thread had been closed I seriously considered sending Quiggle a note of thanks, I'm really surprised it lasted that long. However I really dislike the thought that I may and probably did contribute to it, I always try to stay within guidelines and post politely, and if I violated any guidelines I'd really like to know how so I can avoid it in the future.

 

One thing I would also like though is a dedicated Chat Forum. In the other Forums I frequent the Off Topic Forums were split into a Chat Forum for serious but polite discussion of anything and a SPAM Forum. Our Off Topic Forum is 99% SPAM, it's a real chore trying to find a post fit to read there.

Thank you for the effort you put forth Mods, I do appreciate it.

[+briansnat]

I once asked what training mods have to do what they do as i was curious.

 

I was told if i wanted an answer i needed to start a new thread.

 

It's a correspondence course from the Columbia School of Forum Moderation. It takes 3 weeks and if you pass the test you get a framed certificate and a CSFM mousepad.

[+Cardinal Red]

I once asked what training mods have to do what they do as i was curious.

 

I was told if i wanted an answer i needed to start a new thread.

 

It's a correspondence course from the Columbia School of Forum Moderation. It takes 3 weeks and if you pass the test you get a framed certificate and a CSFM mousepad.

 

I thought that was a CSFM hamster pad.

And anyone that doesn't pass only gets the certificate.