Mods Closing Topics

[+mtn-man]

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.

I'm too cranky to win that award. Stupid award. Who thought that up anyway. Probably Quiggle. I know how she is. I don't need no stinkin' awards anyway.

 

Man, *so* tempting to close this topic. I'm not cranky enough though. Starbucks. Maybe an extra shot of espresso in my macchiato tomorrow. Watch out.

[Team Misguided]

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.

I'm too cranky to win that award. Stupid award. Who thought that up anyway. Probably Quiggle. I know how she is. I don't need no stinkin' awards anyway.

 

Man, *so* tempting to close this topic. I'm not cranky enough though. Starbucks. Maybe an extra shot of espresso in my macchiato tomorrow. Watch out.

 

Just remember, you've got the puppymonster and all Quiggle has is some well scattered body parts.

[+simpjkee]

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?

 

no.

 

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

 

I don't think so.

[+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.

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

 

Please continue.

 

The "distractions" only add to the thread. I invite anyone who wants to post something in this thread to feel free.

[+simpjkee]

Please leave my thread open so that all who would like to share have the opportunity too. Thanks mods.

[Keystone]

Here are some tips on dealing with moderators, taken from my acceptance speech at the awards show which briansnat mentioned, and which we in the "business" affectionately call the "Moddys:"

 

1. Saying "please leave my thread open" increases the odds that a thread will be closed.

2. Saying "don't move my thread" increases the odds that a thread will be moved. Even if it's on-topic to where it's posted, I may move the thread to the Belgium forum, just because I can.

3. Don't pick on Quiggle. This moderating work is making her fall apart. She used to have all her pieces parts attached. She used to be a he.

4. The worst time to flame someone is in the morning before mtn-man and Keystone have had their Starbucks fix.

 

I would keep typing, but I just realized I haven't had my Starbucks fix. Bye.

[+BlueDeuce]

eh, nevermind ... too easy.

Edited July 28, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+Quiggle]

The "distractions" only add to the thread. I invite anyone who wants to post something in this thread to feel free.

Please re-read the Forum Guidelines which cover such "distractions"--distractions which can ultimately lead to your thread being closed if said distractions can't be dealt with in any other way (or if the topic has outlived its usefullness--this one is getting close, though I do tend to think it's already past that).

 

Hope that helps you realize why the distractions you requested can actually put your topic on the fast track to .

[+Knight2000]

The "distractions" only add to the thread. I invite anyone who wants to post something in this thread to feel free.

Please re-read the Forum Guidelines which cover such "distractions"--distractions which can ultimately lead to your thread being closed if said distractions can't be dealt with in any other way (or if the topic has outlived its usefullness--this one is getting close, though I do tend to think it's already past that).

 

Hope that helps you realize why the distractions you requested can actually put your topic on the fast track to .

Then i am guessing that the guidelines are flawed and not the mods.

 

Starting a new thread simply because one took a different related direction seems kind of asinine. Threads have a natural transition. One topic relates to another in some way.

 

Mods say start another thread- well most people really don't want to go through the trouble. And then when that does happen sometime the OP gets jumped all over. Besides, sometimes that new statement or question is out of context because, well, the context is in another thread.

 

If someone came in this thread and started talking about organizing a CITO event or making a specialized cache container- fine. Stop/warn/delete their posts but don't close the thread. Don't stop the discussion because a few people went in a way that the mods don't like.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

The "distractions" only add to the thread. I invite anyone who wants to post something in this thread to feel free.

Please re-read the Forum Guidelines which cover such "distractions"--distractions which can ultimately lead to your thread being closed if said distractions can't be dealt with in any other way (or if the topic has outlived its usefullness--this one is getting close, though I do tend to think it's already past that).

 

Hope that helps you realize why the distractions you requested can actually put your topic on the fast track to .

I must agree with Quiggle. As I have stated a number of times before, I am a strong advocate for a reasonable amount of "topic stray" or "topic deviation" in a thread, as such are inevitable, and also because they often bring new life to a thread. However, I tend to roll my eyes and groan when topics on these forums go off in odd and highly argumentative tangents and continue veering hopelessly in that direction; it is like watching a train wreck. BTW, I think that this current topic has been beaten to death really badly; it is getting tiresome seeing a few insistent people who want less moderation -- or not moderation at all -- trying to beat a dead horse even further.

 

Lastly, for those who really want far less moderation on their geocaching forums: Allow me to remind you, as I wrote earlier, that you are perfectly free to start an entirely unmoderated international geocaching forum; it would take only a few bucks (about eight) to purchase a domain name for a year, and a few bucks per month (from two to fifteen, depending upon your preferences) for website/forum hosting, plus a few hours of forum software (i.e., PHP, etc.) setup to do so. Then you could have your own completely unmoderated international geocaching forum, and, if you do it well, it could become very well known across the world within a few months. And, if you do not want to deal with the hassles of PHP, etc., there are a number of forum-hosting websites where all you need to do is pay a small monthly fee and then set up and open your forum in about three minutes. Alternatively, if the entire forum thing sounds like too much work for you, well, you could always start an unmoderated geocaching list group at Yahoo Groups!

 

Ohhh... What's that you say? You say that you do not want the hassle of having to set up your own forum, and you do not want to do it on your own dime, and you do not want the hassle of finding/attracting participants to your new start-up forum, and that you would much prefer to take advantage of the fully Groundspeak/GC-funded forums here, and of the established forum membership here, and that you would far rather just tell Groundspeak/GC how to run their forum so that it pleases you? Oh, I see... I've got it now!

 

Edited July 28, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+mtn-man]

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?

 

no.

 

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

 

I don't think so.

Perhaps you should actually read the forum guidelines. Maybe that's why you don't seem to get it.

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.

[+Quiggle]

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

 

I don't think so.

Perhaps you should actually read the forum guidelines. Maybe that's why you don't seem to get it.

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.

If you're unsure of why this is, I explained it here. It's unfortunate that these things happen--the forum guidelines are on top of every page. There are countless threads that remain open--to complain about the small amount that are closed seems counter-productive, IMO.

[Jamethiel]

Mods should close more topics. And they should give time outs to more people.

 

And I think Polls should be re-introduced so we can all vote on who gets time-outs.

 

Pretty Please?

[Keystone]

Fine, I'll give you a timeout for the potty language in your signature line.

 

Seriously, please fix that. Thanks.

[Jamethiel]

Fine, I'll give you a timeout for the potty language in your signature line.

 

Seriously, please fix that. Thanks.

 

Barista! Get that Mod another Frappuccino!

 

[+Trucker Lee]

 

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

The thread cited had wandered hopelessly off topic, and was no longer a discussion of tresspassing pros and cons, but morality and who knows what else. Threads, like life, have to have an end. It's nature!

 

I'll say "THANK YOU" here to the mods, for the work they do for the Geocaching community. Much obliged!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

 

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

The thread cited had wandered hopelessly off topic, and was no longer a discussion of tresspassing pros and cons, but morality and who knows what else. Threads, like life, have to have an end. It's nature!

 

I'll say "THANK YOU" here to the mods, for the work they do for the Geocaching community. Much obliged!

First, yes, I second the big "Thank you" to the moderators.

 

Now, you wrote "...trespassing pros and cons..." in your post above. Trespassing? I had thought that this thread was about the scourge of lame urban micros! Uh oh...

[+tozainamboku]

Stupid award. Who thought that up anyway. Probably Quiggle. I know how she is. I don't need no stinkin' awards anyway.

I thought the admin brick was the award

 

edit: I just realized that we were talking forum moderators not cache reviewers. Sorry for going off topic. My bad.

Edited July 28, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+KBI]

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.

I was lamenting the refusal of certain folks to actually debate instead of whine; to either defend their questionable claims or to stop making them. It is this frustrating cycle that seems to result in many threads being prematurely canned without any resolution to the issue at hand.

 

By mirror-imaging my post over to the other side of the recent “debate,” are you suggesting that I, KBI, have refused to debate in good faith?

 

Please show me where I have repeatedly ignored questions designed to clarify my position, as the Complainers have done, and as you now claim that I have done.

 

Please show me where I have demonstrated distaste for the preferences of others, as the Complainers have done, and as you now claim that I have done.

 

Please show me where any of the Complainers has made a reasonable effort to convince anyone of their ideals by responding to challenges to their arguments, as you claim they have done, instead of ultimately ignoring the challenges, as I have witnessed.

 

If you can conclusively and convincingly show that I have refused to debate honestly in any of those ways I will apologize to you, to the Mods, and to everyone else for any threads I have caused to be locked.

 

 

 

Do I correctly conclude from the gist of your post, Too Tall John, that you include yourself among the folks who are unacceptably troubled by the existence of too many easy urban micros; that you choose to belittle the game play preferences of those "numbers hounds" who hide and find certain easy urban micros; that you find yourself unable to avoid, tolerate, or emotionally recover from encounters with such caches; and that you believe the existence of too many easy urban micros is somehow damaging the game of Geocaching?

 

If so, I invite you to do what none of the other Complainers has so far been willing (or able) to do: Convince me of the validity and soundness of your opinions. Convert me! Make me see things your way! Help me to abandon my defense of lameness, and to become a Complainer! Back your claims with so much logic and solid reasoning that I will be powerless to do anything other than agree with you! If you and I disagree on this, then at least one of us isn’t thinking clearly – right? If it’s me who is confused, then please help me! If I’m wrong, I don’t want to continue being wrong!

 

If you accept my challenge, however, you’ll need to do it in a new thread. The subject is off topic for this thread, and the latest “lame micros” thread has recently been locked.

 

I look forward to an honest, thorough and convincing debate effort from you, TTJ!

 

 

 

(My apologies to the Mods if the timing of this post sounds like dead-horse beating; I see that this thread is already beginning to age, but my job sometimes keeps me away from the Internet for days at a time, and this is the first chance I’ve had to respond to that post.)

[+Michael]

If we need an example of Firm hand moderation Groundspeak can bring CO Admin out of retirement.

 

I figure one week of that and those of you that thing these batch is to heavy handed will then love the current set of mods.

[+mtn-man]

Stupid award. Who thought that up anyway. Probably Quiggle. I know how she is. I don't need no stinkin' awards anyway.

I thought the admin brick was the award

 

edit: I just realized that we were talking forum moderators not cache reviewers. Sorry for going off topic. My bad.

Actually, the admin brick is indeed mentioned in the forum guidelines near the bottom. You were right on topic. Now that I think about it, maybe throwing admin bricks at the judges wasn't such a good idea. Stupid judges. What do they know. Not that I am bitter or anything. Not me. I don't need no stinkin' awards.

[+Too Tall John]

I was lamenting the refusal of certain folks to actually debate instead of whine; to either defend their questionable claims or to stop making them. It is this frustrating cycle that seems to result in many threads being prematurely canned without any resolution to the issue at hand.

 

By mirror-imaging my post over to the other side of the recent “debate,” are you suggesting that I, KBI, have refused to debate in good faith?

Nope, simply pointing out the fact that your statements were completely one sided & that there was a different perspective to be had. I have always enjoyed reading your well thought out posts, even when I disagree with you.

Do I correctly conclude from the gist of your post, Too Tall John, that you include yourself among the folks who are unacceptably troubled by the existence of too many easy urban micros; that you choose to belittle the game play preferences of those "numbers hounds" who hide and find certain easy urban micros; that you find yourself unable to avoid, tolerate, or emotionally recover from encounters with such caches; and that you believe the existence of too many easy urban micros is somehow damaging the game of Geocaching?

 

If so, I invite you to do what none of the other Complainers has so far been willing (or able) to do: Convince me of the validity and soundness of your opinions. Convert me! Make me see things your way! Help me to abandon my defense of lameness, and to become a Complainer! Back your claims with so much logic and solid reasoning that I will be powerless to do anything other than agree with you! If you and I disagree on this, then at least one of us isn’t thinking clearly – right? If it’s me who is confused, then please help me! If I’m wrong, I don’t want to continue being wrong!

Actually, to be honest, I have no real problem with micros at this time, as they are a small (pun intended) percentage of the caches in my area. The actual point of my rewrite was that your original post was extremely one sided in placing blame on who gets threads closed. There are people from both sides (I'm pointing no fingers) of the topic (micros) who use the "Neener-Neener, you're wrong because you're a poo-poo head" tactics. (Well, you get what I'm saying, right?) What I do think is going to damage the game is caches placed on private property without permission, which the Wal-Mart LPC seems to be a poster child for.

 

As to your challenge to "make you a 'complainer,'" I'd offer up that most of the 'defender' camp, who will hide behind the few who actually post well thought out rebuttals*, are 'complainers' themselves, but they just seem to complain about people who don't like micros.

If you accept my challenge, however, you’ll need to do it in a new thread. The subject is off topic for this thread, and the latest “lame micros” thread has recently been locked.

Now that's funny, no matter which side you're on!

I look forward to an honest, thorough and convincing debate effort from you, TTJ!

Like I said, my heart isn't in this one, sorry... How about we start a new topic on Comercial Property Caches and Trespassing! Oh, wait... the latest one didn't get locked yet, it just kinda died...

 

*In the phrase noted above, KBI is being hidden behind by less thoughtful posters, and should in no way be taken as me calling KBI a complainer.

[+simpjkee]

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?

 

no.

 

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

 

I don't think so.

Perhaps you should actually read the forum guidelines. Maybe that's why you don't seem to get it.

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.

 

I "get it". I just don't see it the same way.

[+simpjkee]

1. Saying "please leave my thread open" increases the odds that a thread will be closed.

 

lol, even if I was just being sarcastic?

[+Quiggle]

Let's keep the discussion to the topic at hand, and leave the lame micros and other hand-wringing to the other threads about those topics.

[+Too Tall John]

Let's keep the discussion to the topic at hand, and leave the lame micros and other hand-wringing to the other threads about those topics.

Sorry, wasn't trying to derail...

 

I guess the point I was trying to make (a little too subtly) had more to do with the biased views (both those made by KBI and the revisions I added) we all hold and how they can lead to people not listening to each other, which then leads to a circular argument. If I'd edited the actual topic used (micros) and turned it into something less angsty (like the pros and cons of fuzzy bunnies) I think it would have looked less like a hijacking. (Which, by the way, happen frequently enough that I see how it may have appeared to be so, so thanks for stopping us before it began!)

Edited July 29, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+mtn-man]

Getting back to the topic...

Perhaps you should actually read the forum guidelines. Maybe that's why you don't seem to get it.

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.

 

I "get it". I just don't see it the same way.

Then you don't get it, do you. If you did get it, then you would agree to disagree, would politely apologize to the moderators and would be asking us to close this topic and you would move on. That is obviously not the case. No, you don't get it. It is very simple.

 

We apply the guidelines the way Groundspeak asks us to in these forums.

 

As has been noted in this topic, feel free to do it any way you "see it" in your own forums. If you want to use these forums, then you agree to abide by the Terms of Use for the forums.

[+Mudfrog]

BTW, I think that this current topic has been beaten to death really badly; it is getting tiresome seeing a few insistent people who want less moderation -- or not moderation at all -- trying to beat a dead horse even further.

 

This is one of the things i don't understand. You may think that the topic has been beaten to death and of course it's fine for you to have this opinion. But my question is, if it really is this tiresome for you, then why don't you just stop reading it? I agree in that beating that dead horse doesn't float my boat either, but i certainly don't see a problem when others want to do it. Believe me, the thread will die naturally when it stops being entertaining and enjoyable. Meanwhile, it's not hurting a thing by being here!

[+simpjkee]

Getting back to the topic...

Perhaps you should actually read the forum guidelines. Maybe that's why you don't seem to get it.

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.

 

I "get it". I just don't see it the same way.

Then you don't get it, do you. If you did get it, then you would agree to disagree, would politely apologize to the moderators and would be asking us to close this topic and you would move on. That is obviously not the case. No, you don't get it. It is very simple.

 

We apply the guidelines the way Groundspeak asks us to in these forums.

 

As has been noted in this topic, feel free to do it any way you "see it" in your own forums. If you want to use these forums, then you agree to abide by the Terms of Use for the forums.

 

I "get it". I just don't see it the same way is agreeing to disagree. At least thats what I meant. I don't think I owe anyone an apology. I don't see why this thread necessitates closing. It's dying on its own. I want to use these forums and I dont think that I have not abided by the terms of use for the forums. (except one time back when i first started posting here. I was warned and haven't done it again"

[+simpjkee]

can we still be friends?

[+welch]

Does anyone know any good knock knock jokes?

[+simpjkee]

Knock Knock!

 

Who's there?

 

Luck.

 

Luck who?

 

Luck through the key hole and you'll find out.

[+simpjkee]

Knock Knock!

 

Who's There?

 

 

Hal.

 

Hal who?

 

Hal many knock knock jokes does it take to get a thread closed.

[Keystone]

And.... we're done!

 

Thanks for playing.

 

At the OP's request, I'm closing this thread.

 

We let Quiggle sleep in on weekends.