Jump to content

Time to Reign In the Mods


Renegade Knight

Recommended Posts

I've seen a few threads get closed recently that were fine. By fine I mean discussing a geocaching issue in the geocaching forums without flames.

 

While the mods have the ability to shut down a thread because they feel all dicussion has played out, their feelings should not play into it.

 

Either the topic is valid or it's not.

Either the flames have broken out or not.

Either Godwins law has been invoked or not.

 

Alas by the rules while the thread should have been allowed to continue, the other rule that says "closed threads should not be reincarnated" pretty much kills off some perfectly good gecaching discussions.

 

Interestingly enough the last discussion was centered around how to lobby to change a policy. The beauty of that is that this same forum is the tool we have to lobby this site. So when did we change to a variation of "this discussion breaks no new ground so I'm closing this thread" That covers about everthing posted.

Link to comment

Complaints: If you have an issue with a specific post/topic on this board, please use the ‘report a post’ link in the lower right hand corner of the post. We will review the post and edit/delete if necessary. Any comments on the personnel of Groundspeak or one of the volunteers, please send an e-mail message to contact@Groundspeak.com.

 

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

Link to comment

I can see how that is frustrating to you.... but, as I tell people on the board I moderate, you are a visitor to a private site and fairness has no bearing here. You have no rights here-- you are at the whim of TPTB who, in turn, have the right to make the rules, break the rules, change the rules or simply ignore the rules. That's just the way it works on a privately run forum. :rolleyes:

 

Now, with the above said, it would certainly be nice if moderators would keep their own personal feelings out of whether or not they close or edit a thread.

Edited by Cache Heads
Link to comment

Updated version:

 

If you feel that you are not getting the level of service you should be from the reviewers or forum moderators simply e-mail; reviewers@geocaching.com with your concerns.

This e-mail address is only for reporting concerns regarding Cache reviewers and Forum Moderators.

Happy Geocaching

Link to comment

Debating Cracker Barrel corporate policy is an OT issue. Discussing your hide or your finds at Cracker Barrel might be on topic, but nothing meaningful was coming of the dozens of posts. Therefore, I hit the report button and asked that the thread go until new Geocaching Related info was available.

Link to comment
Debating Cracker Barrel corporate policy is an OT issue.

You're kidding, right? The corporate policy was the issue. What better place to discuss a geocaching topic, and corporate policies pertaining thereto, than a geocaching forum?

 

I agree with the OP. It seems a mod or two are throwing around some weight simply because they can.

Link to comment

This comes up every so often, as if these mods are out there with these big power trips, messing with the poor people in the forums. Mods are accountable to Groundspeak, and they're doing what they're supposed to. If you really think that a mod is going overboard, take it to Groundspeak, and stop tossing around generic unsubstantiated statements.

Link to comment

This comes up every so often, as if these mods are out there with these big power trips, messing with the poor people in the forums. Mods are accountable to Groundspeak, and they're doing what they're supposed to. If you really think that a mod is going overboard, take it to Groundspeak, and stop tossing around generic unsubstantiated statements.

 

It's worth pointing out, that I'm not talking power trips, that's a specific abuse and not a general policy. An abusive mod would have been reported directly. I have not seen that behavor in some time. However as a general policy it seems like the overal line on what's acceptable to discuss has moved away from allowing discussion that are perhaps broad, but relevant to geaching. In other words I don't think the policy enforcment is working like it's supposed to when valid dicussion is being shut down.

 

Cracker Barrel being the most recent case. That thread was closed but the discussion was a good one, the topic was relevant, no lines were crossed. The posted reason for closing the threas was "wheel spinning". If you think that's proves your case for unsubstantiated, well, sorry.

 

Lastly one reason to bring it up in a forum format is so that everone can discuss it. If I'm off my rocker that will show up. Besides the topic is about forum discussions. How could you not discuss it. I'm not one of the "poor people" you talk about, but your mocking tone does not become you.

Link to comment

Debating Cracker Barrel corporate policy is an OT issue. Discussing your hide or your finds at Cracker Barrel might be on topic, but nothing meaningful was coming of the dozens of posts. Therefore, I hit the report button and asked that the thread go until new Geocaching Related info was available.

 

Debating anything at all related to aching is on topic. Off topic is disucssing things not related to caching. Discussing McDonalds at WalMarts woudl be off topci. Discussing that Walmart is a source of waterproof pens is on topic.

Link to comment
Debating Cracker Barrel corporate policy is an OT issue.

You're kidding, right? The corporate policy was the issue. What better place to discuss a geocaching topic, and corporate policies pertaining thereto, than a geocaching forum?

 

I agree with the OP. It seems a mod or two are throwing around some weight simply because they can.

 

What does the Cracker Barrel policy say? Who wrote it? How will it affect current CB caches? How will it be enforeced? No one knows these answers. The whole thread was noting but speculation.

 

The fact that to this hour no one has been able to produce a copy of this policy should show you it likely does not exist.

Edited by wesleykey
Link to comment

This comes up every so often, as if these mods are out there with these big power trips, messing with the poor people in the forums. Mods are accountable to Groundspeak, and they're doing what they're supposed to. If you really think that a mod is going overboard, take it to Groundspeak, and stop tossing around generic unsubstantiated statements.

 

It's worth pointing out, that I'm not talking power trips, that's a specific abuse and not a general policy. An abusive mod would have been reported directly. I have not seen that behavor in some time. However as a general policy it seems like the overal line on what's acceptable to discuss has moved away from allowing discussion that are perhaps broad, but relevant to geaching. In other words I don't think the policy enforcment is working like it's supposed to when valid dicussion is being shut down.

 

Cracker Barrel being the most recent case. That thread was closed but the discussion was a good one, the topic was relevant, no lines were crossed. The posted reason for closing the threas was "wheel spinning". If you think that's proves your case for unsubstantiated, well, sorry.

 

Lastly one reason to bring it up in a forum format is so that everone can discuss it. If I'm off my rocker that will show up. Besides the topic is about forum discussions. How could you not discuss it. I'm not one of the "poor people" you talk about, but your mocking tone does not become you.

Hmmmm...I'll need to work on that then. The tone I was trying to go for was "didactic".

Link to comment

What does the Cracker Barrel policy say? Who wrote it? How will it affect current CB caches? How will it be enforeced? No one knows these answers. The whole thread was noting but speculation.

 

The fact that to this hour no one has been able to produce a copy of this policy should show you it likely does not exist.

 

You've got to be kidding? I think telling a Groundspeak official "no more caches on CB property" is good enough. There doesn't need to be an official document saying what is and isn't allowed.

Link to comment
I think telling a Groundspeak official "no more caches on CB property" is good enough.

 

No more would mean existing ones are grandfathered.

 

None at all would get current ones archived.

 

How about "none without proper permission"........

 

 

 

 

The endless speculation continues.........

Link to comment

I've seen a few threads get closed recently that were fine. By fine I mean discussing a geocaching issue in the geocaching forums without flames.

 

While the mods have the ability to shut down a thread because they feel all dicussion has played out, their feelings should not play into it.

 

 

Back on topic, I feel our mods do an excellent job. We should respect their opinions whether we share them or not.

Link to comment
Lastly one reason to bring it up in a forum format is so that everone can discuss it. If I'm off my rocker that will show up. Besides the topic is about forum discussions. How could you not discuss it. I'm not one of the "poor people" you talk about, but your mocking tone does not become you.
Honestly, your first post is not a discussion. It is clearly a complaint or an editorial. No where in the post did you ask for other's opinions. The follow-up post tells you how to lodge your complaint.
Link to comment

...No where in the post did you ask for other's opinions....

That's why I posted in the forums. Discussion follows.

 

Like most discussions not much of it is actually on topic.

 

Do you as a mod have an opinion on where you would like the line to be? More to the let disccussion flow side, or is your prefernece to nip it in the bud if it's just wheel spinning?

Link to comment

...No where in the post did you ask for other's opinions....

That's why I posted in the forums. Discussion follows.

 

Like most discussions not much of it is actually on topic.

 

Do you as a mod have an opinion on where you would like the line to be? More to the let disccussion flow side, or is your preference to nip it in the bud if it's just wheel spinning?

I think that topic hit a nerve of some kind. Either that or the mods were convinced it was going to end up in a big food fight. I agree that it was a great topic because it dovetails very well with the multitude of topics that discuss how most people never get permission. Yet here was a thread where we were clearly told that we no longer no have permission and now many people are fighting that. So it seems clear to me that someone saying "No" is not good enough. So what's the point of asking permission if you are not going to take "No" for an answer? Why should everyone have to explain it? But some people seem to want CB to prepare some official corporate document so we can officially know that we are not permitted to hide film cannisters in their parking lots. It's really silly if you step back a few paces and look at the big picture. But I agree that the topic should have been allowed to continue until a food fight broke out... :(
Link to comment

Since when is "wheel-spinning" a factor for any sort of action either here in the forums or at geocaching.com? Recently I counted 6 simultaneous threads on how the "caching along a route" feature is defective and/or causing problems of various sorts. Now there is some serious wheel-spinning with nothing new being added to what many of us already know. But the folks who post are entitled to some discussion anyway. Clearly the best way to stop the wheels from spinning in that case is through addressing of the issue; until that happens, the wheel-spinning will continue.

 

As to this forum being a private venue: that is simply not true. It is public. Anyone can access; anyone can get a username to use; anyone can post; anyone can start a thread. (Proper decorum is expected - that is not at issue here). I do expect on threads that I start, to be the person making the decision as to whether the thread is ready for closure. I was not aware of the issue in the original post in this thread, but I would agree that there is an expectation by us users that a discussion will be not be summarily cut off.

Link to comment

Debating Cracker Barrel corporate policy is an OT issue. Discussing your hide or your finds at Cracker Barrel might be on topic, but nothing meaningful was coming of the dozens of posts. Therefore, I hit the report button and asked that the thread go until new Geocaching Related info was available.

 

The Corporate policy was the issue since caches were being banned where they once were allowed.

 

"Hitting the Report Button" because you grew tired of the thread was not needed. All that you could have done was something I do when I grow weary of any thread....stop reading and go to another thread. Simple.

 

I feel the OP has a legitimate issue here, lets discuss it sanely and work it out.

 

Shirley~

Link to comment
Since when is "wheel-spinning" a factor for any sort of action either here in the forums or at geocaching.com? Recently I counted 6 simultaneous threads on how the "caching along a route" feature is defective and/or causing problems of various sorts. Now there is some serious wheel-spinning with nothing new being added to what many of us already know. But the folks who post are entitled to some discussion anyway. Clearly the best way to stop the wheels from spinning in that case is through addressing of the issue; until that happens, the wheel-spinning will continue.
There are very few topics that have never been discussed before. Ironically the topic that RK brought up was one of those that had never been brought up. Anyhow, now that that thread is gone, we can all go back and participate in the ubiquitous "What kind of GPS should I buy?" threads... :(
Link to comment

So since this appears to have been realated to Cracker Barrel, I am curious as to what exactly the obsesion is with them. And since the other topic has been closed obviously, I guess I will post this here. I have seen the Off Your Rocker series caches around, but so what? Is there some guy out there with a Cracker Barrel fetish or something that will not allow him to place caches anywhere else? Maybe we should be looking into the long term effects the geocaching addiction could have upon the human mind.....

Link to comment

There are very few topics that have never been discussed before. Ironically the topic that RK brought up was one of those that had never been brought up. Anyhow, now that that thread is gone, we can all go back and participate in the ubiquitous "What kind of GPS should I buy?" threads... :(

Actually the topic of whether the mods have bee too quick to lock a discussion on issues that are relevant to geocaching because they don't like the direction they are going has been brought up before. Probably, on at least one other occasion, concerning a thread on what we could do about XYZ Corporation or ABC Parks Department banning geocaches. I suspect that TPTB don't want to have the geocaching forums used to organize boycotts or letter writing campaigns, least this gives the appearance that Geocaching.com is supporting this kind of mass action, especially while Groundspeak is still pursing some other approach or trying to get more information. If this is the case, an addition to the Forum Guidelines indicating that the forums should not be used to organize a mass response to a threatened ban on geocaches at least until Groundspeak gives the go ahead would give the mods the necessary coverage to lock threads like this. Of course cachers might just be discussing where they personally are more or less likely to eat at Cracker Barrel based on their allowing caches or not and are not suggesting that we all boycott the restaurant. As always, we have to allow the mods to make the judgment call here.

Link to comment
...No where in the post did you ask for other's opinions....

That's why I posted in the forums. Discussion follows.

 

Like most discussions not much of it is actually on topic.

 

Do you as a mod have an opinion on where you would like the line to be? More to the let disccussion flow side, or is your prefernece to nip it in the bud if it's just wheel spinning?

Yes, I have an opinion regarding that. We as humans will see things differently. In most cases things here are black and white (spamming, respect issues, etc.). We do collectively decide where that line is when that line is somewhat hard to define. The mods discuss these things in the background so we can get on the same page and try to present a unified and consistent application of the forum guidelines.

 

Later tonight when I have time I may go through the most recently closed topics and show why each should have been closed. It seems the only issue is the CB topic on a quick glance. If this is the case, you should have reported it directly to Groundspeak as is stated in the forum guidelines since in my opinion your editorial is about one single topic. If this is a trend in your opinion, then site examples and give links to these topics rather than just throwing out a general accusation leveled at all of the moderators.

 

To that end, there was a consensus of opinion regarding the CB topic. It was closed because the topic had spiraled off of the original topic, deluding the issue. The topic was regarding an email received from an individual store and there was concern about overall geocaching allowance policy. The question regarding a chain wide policy was put to the CB company by Groundspeak and the company responded to Groundspeak with "no more caches please". Groundspeak said they are still working on it and would post more information when it became available.

 

At that point, that particular topic was basically over.

 

During the course of the topic, several times it drifted and became a discussion other subjects and the mods asked that these tangent issues to be moved to new topics. The mods were ignored -- not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, not six times, not seven times, not eight times, but nine times!!! The tenth time a moderator stepped in the topic was closed. They decided to close the topic until more information was received because the repeated request to stay on topic was ignored. I don't see an issue with the mods, but rather with individuals who should have heeded the moderators request over and over to either take these off topic discussions to another topic or to email/PM. If people would have done what the moderators asked, there would be no problem.

 

Your editorial is baseless regarding the CB topic, which I have painfully illustrated. Like I say, I will be happy to recap other recently closed topics later.

Link to comment

Thanks mtn-man for your summary. See I was wrong. The thread wasn't closed because people wanted to discuss boycotts or letter writing (although the mods did seem to think it was off topic to discuss whether a boycott would effective). However the other examples did seem to indicate that people were discussing

  • The quality of Cracker Barrel food
  • Cracker Barrel's corporate policies or accusation made against the company unrelated to geocaching
  • Whether someone's sig line breaks the Firefox browser

Link to comment
Thanks mtn-man for your summary. See I was wrong. The thread wasn't closed because people wanted to discuss boycotts or letter writing (although the mods did seem to think it was off topic to discuss whether a boycott would effective). However the other examples did seem to indicate that people were discussing
  • The quality of Cracker Barrel food
  • Cracker Barrel's corporate policies or accusation made against the company unrelated to geocaching
  • Whether someone's sig line breaks the Firefox browser

You make an excellent point for me there. If the tangents would have just stayed along the lines of the boycott and how effective it would have been, it might have stayed open. There were just so many tangents, as you point out. That happens. We know it. Asking nine times is frustrating though.

Link to comment

There are very few topics that have never been discussed before. Ironically the topic that RK brought up was one of those that had never been brought up. Anyhow, now that that thread is gone, we can all go back and participate in the ubiquitous "What kind of GPS should I buy?" threads... :(

Actually the topic of whether the mods have bee too quick to lock a discussion on issues that are relevant to geocaching because they don't like the direction they are going has been brought up before. Probably, on at least one other occasion, concerning a thread on what we could do about XYZ Corporation or ABC Parks Department banning geocaches. I suspect that TPTB don't want to have the geocaching forums used to organize boycotts or letter writing campaigns, least this gives the appearance that Geocaching.com is supporting this kind of mass action, especially while Groundspeak is still pursing some other approach or trying to get more information. If this is the case, an addition to the Forum Guidelines indicating that the forums should not be used to organize a mass response to a threatened ban on geocaches at least until Groundspeak gives the go ahead would give the mods the necessary coverage to lock threads like this. Of course cachers might just be discussing where they personally are more or less likely to eat at Cracker Barrel based on their allowing caches or not and are not suggesting that we all boycott the restaurant. As always, we have to allow the mods to make the judgment call here.

If you read what I wrote, I was talking about the topic that the OP was unhappy about being closed. I was one of the ones discussing the reasons why a boycott was a poor idea. A forum is a great way to discuss opposing views. I have changed my mind on several occassions because of them. I was hoping that maybe I could sway people away from retaliating against CB. :huh:
Link to comment
During the course of the topic, several times it drifted and became a discussion other subjects and the mods asked that these tangent issues to be moved to new topics. The mods were ignored -- not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, not six times, not seven times, not eight times, but nine times!!! The tenth time a moderator stepped in the topic was closed. They decided to close the topic until more information was received because the repeated request to stay on topic was ignored. I don't see an issue with the mods, but rather with individuals who should have heeded the moderators request over and over to either take these off topic discussions to another topic or to email/PM. If people would have done what the moderators asked, there would be no problem.
I see a pattern where some side comment is often made and then the thread gets right back on course. It happens all the time in these threads. Everyone is guilty of doing this. Sometimes the banter has a purpose of lightening things up because the discussions can get heated. Anyhow, you kind of learn the pattern of how much banter is tolerable and how much isn't. For some reason, this thread was under much stricter scrutiny than the typical thread. I was guilty of two of those warnings and I apologize for that. So now that everyone knows that topic needs to stay on a very tight track can it be restarted? I will even help to keep in on the track! :(
Link to comment

As to this forum being a private venue: that is simply not true. It is public. Anyone can access; anyone can get a username to use; anyone can post; anyone can start a thread. (Proper decorum is expected - that is not at issue here). I do expect on threads that I start, to be the person making the decision as to whether the thread is ready for closure. I was not aware of the issue in the original post in this thread, but I would agree that there is an expectation by us users that a discussion will be not be summarily cut off.

 

It is private in that it is privately paid for by Groundspeak. We are all guests here.

Link to comment

As to this forum being a private venue: that is simply not true. It is public. Anyone can access; anyone can get a username to use; anyone can post; anyone can start a thread. (Proper decorum is expected - that is not at issue here). I do expect on threads that I start, to be the person making the decision as to whether the thread is ready for closure. I was not aware of the issue in the original post in this thread, but I would agree that there is an expectation by us users that a discussion will be not be summarily cut off.

 

It is private in that it is privately paid for by Groundspeak. We are all guests here.

 

Isn't there a difference between being a "guest" and being a "member"? :(

Link to comment

Has anyone counted how many times this thread has gone off-topic yet?

I would note that the OP did not mention the Cracker Barrel issue at all in the first post. So that seemed to me right off to be off-topic. So I thought that was ironic. Then, of course, it became clear how that really was not off-topic, so do I now not-count that? Hmm. This is not so clear-cut at all.

 

But the real lesson here appears related to whether someone can shut down a thread for whatever reason. Can I, for instance, shut this thread down by taking it OT a few times? Shouldn't that be limited by how often Renegade Knight takes it OT. And since he is the OP, would his musings not be, de facto, counted as being OT?

 

As for how many times a thread needs to go OT before it will be shut down, I guess nine times is not enough, but apparently 10 times is. That's good to know. Does that number become smaller when someone uses this icon: :huh: ?

Link to comment

This thread is in the Geocaching.com website forum because it relates to the moderating team. Please do not discuss the substance covered already in the closed Cracker Barrel thread. This thread is for discussing the moderators' actions in closing the other threads.

 

BTW I am the moderator who closed the second thread. I was doing my job, something which I continue to be happy to do as a service to the geocaching community. Groundspeak trusts me to do that job well. They also recognize that I am not perfect. If I erred in closing the duplicate thread that followed on the heels of the first closed thread, I'm sure that I'll be informed of this.

 

Personal feelings do not enter into deciding to close a thread. I've closed many threads as a moderator which I'd love to keep open as a forum participant. And there are many threads which remain open that I really wish would go away. But they don't, since there is no forum guideline issue raised by them.

Link to comment
Thanks mtn-man for your summary. See I was wrong. The thread wasn't closed because people wanted to discuss boycotts or letter writing (although the mods did seem to think it was off topic to discuss whether a boycott would effective). However the other examples did seem to indicate that people were discussing
  • The quality of Cracker Barrel food
  • Cracker Barrel's corporate policies or accusation made against the company unrelated to geocaching
  • Whether someone's sig line breaks the Firefox browser

You make an excellent point for me there. If the tangents would have just stayed along the lines of the boycott and how effective it would have been, it might have stayed open. There were just so many tangents, as you point out. That happens. We know it. Asking nine times is frustrating though.

Not trying to be overly contrary here, but some of those warnings that you cited (the later ones) in your previous email were related to posts discussing boycotting the company and it's effectiveness.

 

ETA:

 

The topic was regarding an email received from an individual store and there was concern about overall geocaching allowance policy. The question regarding a chain wide policy was put to the CB company by Groundspeak and the company responded to Groundspeak with "no more caches please". Groundspeak said they are still working on it and would post more information when it became available.

 

At that point, that particular topic was basically over.

It appears that the actual topic of the Cracker Barrel thread was the Cracker Barrel was no longer allowing caches. Discussions among geocachers as to what should be done regarding this change appear to be a natural progression from the OP's simple statement of fact. The discussion should not have been over simply because Michael stated that he would let us know if he heard anything new. Further, Michael's last post stated "You know as much as I do at the moment. If/when I hear more I will post it here." From that post, I was not clear that Michael was still 'working on it'. (I'm still not sure that he is.) Had he stated that he was continuing and what his intentions were, I would have remained in the 'let Michael handle it, for now' camp. Since it appeared, to me, that he was not going to pursue the issue, it was appropriate to use the thread to discuss other options, in my opinion. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

As to this forum being a private venue: that is simply not true. It is public. Anyone can access; anyone can get a username to use; anyone can post; anyone can start a thread.

But, that is a privilege-- not a right. The only reason it's true is because the people who run the board allow it. This is a public forum. But it is privately run by a privately owned organization on a privately owned server. Therefore, you are at the whim of TPTB. Simple as that.

 

Funny enough, none of those out-of-control mods have closed this thread....

Link to comment

As to this forum being a private venue: that is simply not true. It is public. Anyone can access; anyone can get a username to use; anyone can post; anyone can start a thread.

But, that is a privilege-- not a right. The only reason it's true is because the people who run the board allow it. This is a public forum. But it is privately run by a privately owned organization on a privately owned server. Therefore, you are at the whim of TPTB. Simple as that.

 

Funny enough, none of those out-of-control mods have closed this thread....

The entire public/private issue is a red herring, in my opinion. Obviously, it's in TPTB's interests to run the board as fairly as possible. The argument that it's their board to do so as they please, while true, does not serve to calm the masses.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
This thread is in the Geocaching.com website forum because it relates to the moderating team. Please do not discuss the substance covered already in the closed Cracker Barrel thread. This thread is for discussing the moderators' actions in closing the other threads.

The OP referenced the Cracker Barrrel issue in his post:

 

Interestingly enough the last discussion was centered around how to lobby to change a policy. The beauty of that is that this same forum is the tool we have to lobby this site. So when did we change to a variation of "this discussion breaks no new ground so I'm closing this thread" That covers about everthing posted.

So if the OP brought it up then how is it not relevant? I didn't see anyone debating that issue in this thread. But that sensitive subject could have been real reason the thread was closed. I think this was the OPs point. I'm sorry but I don't buy the off-topic reasons cited. If I had a nickel for every time these threads go off-topic for a couple of posts, I'd be a millionaire.

Link to comment

The entire public/private issue is a red herring, in my opinion. Obviously, it's in TPTB's interests to run the board as fairly as possible. The argument that it's their board to do so as they please, while true, does not serve to calm the masses.

Do the masses really need calming? Last time I checked, there were about 257,527 registered members on this board and 1 or 2 (maybe 3?) seem to have a problem. I agree that it's in everybody's best interest, including Groundspeak's, for the forum to be run as fairly as possible. But this topic is titled "Time to Reign (sic) in the Mods", which, IMHO, is an overly-assertive statement coming from a visitor on a privately run forum.

 

Maybe I'm hyper-sensitive as a moderator myself (on another board, of course), but I always find it hilarious when board members have a problem with rules being inconsistent or somehow seem to think their Constitutional rights as Americans apply on a privately run website. If people would understand that posting is a privilege and not a right, maybe they wouldn't get so upset when something gets edited, locked or deleted. That's why I brought up the issue.

Edited by Cache Heads
Link to comment

The entire public/private issue is a red herring, in my opinion. Obviously, it's in TPTB's interests to run the board as fairly as possible. The argument that it's their board to do so as they please, while true, does not serve to calm the masses.

Do the masses really need calming? Last time I checked, there were about 257,527 registered members on this board and 1 or 2 (maybe 3?) seem to have a problem. I agree that it's in everybody's best interest, including Groundspeak's, for the forum to be run as fairly as possible. But this topic is titled "Time to Reign (sic) in the Mods", which, IMHO, is an overly-assertive statement coming from a visitor on a privately run forum.

 

Maybe I'm hyper-sensitive as a moderator myself (on another board, of course), but I always find it hilarious when board members have a problem with rules being inconsistent or somehow seem to think their Constitutional rights as Americans apply on a privately run website. If people would understand that posting is a privilege and not a right, maybe they wouldn't get so upset when something gets edited, locked or deleted. That's why I brought up the issue.

I agree with much of your post. However, I do believe that it is fair to strive to eliminate inconsistencies. You may not care for the wording of my post or that of the OP, but that does not minimize the importance of the issue.

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