Time to Reign In the Mods

[+Cache Heads]

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.

Point well taken. I think you're right, my problem was more with the wording than the issue. I'm all for fair forum moderation-- I just know how it is to be an under appreciated moderator and I also know that being consistent isn't always possible. My guess is that the mods here do their best to be fair and consistent-- but sometimes they might make decisions we don't agree with and that is their right as reps of the site. With that said, I understand how discussions like this can be healthy and I commend the mods in question for allowing it to continue!

Edited September 27, 2007 by Cache Heads

[+TrailGators]

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 think "Constitutional rights as Americans" is a big stretch. I think the OP had a valid point. We all know him to be intelligent, inciteful and not afraid to speak up. I appreciate people like that and they add far more the forums than they subtract. Anyhow, I think it would help if the mods posted something like "one more off-topic post and this thread will be closed." It is very hard to tell just how close to the line that a thread is to being closed. The fence is very wide on some threads and very narrow on others. Finally, I appreciate what the mods do and I think for the most part they do a good job at it, but the point of this thread was to provide some feedback on our thoughts on threads being closed. So that is what I'm doing. Edited September 27, 2007 by TrailGators

[+FireRef]

An interesting note on this topic:

 

I have been suspended twice - once for stating that I was going to comply with a policy, and once for calling the reviewers "lazy" - in both cases, I feel the moderators abused their power.

 

I contacted the address above - received a reply from Michael, stating that the reviewers were within their rights and I was wrong. He also, along with the original reviewers, sent form letters, saying things like "During your 3 day suspension, reflect on the following policies as they relate to your posts - (insert link to guidelines here)".

 

I asked to email or speak to his supervisor, which included a number of phone calls to Groundspeak's offices. I was told the person I needed to speak to, Jen, was not available, was in meetings, was out of town, etc. I was told she would return my call when she had time. Originally I was told 2 weeks (which was in regards to a 3 day suspension). Then, when I complained about the second one, which was about a week after the first one, I was told it would be 2-3 weeks from then.

 

There is no way this is a reasonable amount of time to receive a contact back from customer service from a site which I am paying something to (regardless of how much or little I'm paying)

 

As of this letter, almost a month later, I did receive an email back from her in regards to my complaints about the moderators abusing their authority. She stated that since I requested to speak by phone, we needed to find a common time for her to call. That common time wasn't until today (several days later). I am expecting a call today or tomorrow from her.

 

We will see how far this goes. However, if you are trying to get a response from GS when you do complain, it is likely to take more than an excessive amount of time.

 

Considering the suspensions I got, I was extremely surprised to find this topic that had gone into the second page and that the moderators hadn't already shut down. I am hoping to be extremely surprised by the response from Jen when I speak to her, in that they actually might address the issue. Problem is, the suspensions have been served without so much as any kind of recourse for them. Judge, jury, and executioner, and an appeals process that basically doesn't get back to you until after the punishment is handed out and finished. Something is definitely wrong here.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I saw the "lazy" comments made and thought they were harsh at best...no surprise to me you were suspended there FireRef (but that is MHO). GS should try to do a better job of working through complaints though, waiting until the punishment has been handed down and served is bad. Not sure why you needed to talk with Jen on the phone though, that probably did add to the delay.

 

I also think it a bit underhanded to report a thread because you feel it has gone it's course, don't like it etc...not your call. If you don't like it, go somewhere else! Now, if it IS abusing policy (bad language, disrespectful etc) good to be reported.

[+TrailGators]

I saw the "lazy" comments made and thought they were harsh at best...no surprise to me you were suspended there FireRef (but that is MHO). GS should try to do a better job of working through complaints though, waiting until the punishment has been handed down and served is bad. Not sure why you needed to talk with Jen on the phone though, that probably did add to the delay.

 

I also think it a bit underhanded to report a thread because you feel it has gone it's course, don't like it etc...not your call. If you don't like it, go somewhere else! Now, if it IS abusing policy (bad language, disrespectful etc) good to be reported.

 

Good points. I don't remember seeing those the "lazy" comments, but I know that you can't attack people. That is clearly an attack. Unfortunately, that type of approach completely undermines any valid point. One bit of advice from someone that battles having a shorter fuse, is to wait an hour before responding. It really helps lower the blood temperature. Also after you do it you realize how ineffective it would have been to respond the way you would have responded. I also recommend using the user ignore feature in the control panel. Quiggle recently showed me that cool feature and it has helped me avoid further confrontations with my nemesis. If everyone did this it would help keep threads going longer and make the mods jobs a lot easier. Edited September 27, 2007 by TrailGators

[+thedeadpirate]

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 wouldn't say that is entirely accurate. Though only a few have stepped forward to mention some concerns, that does not mean that others do not share those concerns. Some just choose not to express their concerns for one reason or another.

 

I do feel that sometimes threads are shut down prematurely and without good explanation. I also feel that there is a huge difference between the person who started a thread asking that the mods shut it down and someone who has simply grown tired of the thread asking for it to be shut down.

 

However, on the whole, I am satisfied enough with the way things are run that I haven't seen a need to openly complain.

 

That does not, however, preclude my having unspoken concerns.

 

So though the masses may not necessarily need calming, TPTB certainly would not want to summarily begin treating the boards as if we have no input. For even though these forums are run by a private company, they only thrive through the participation of its members.

[+StarBrand]

I was trying to stay out of this but........

Just for the sake of some balance here - I have to mention that.......

 

I think the mods do a wonderful job of keeping things civil and on track.

 

I see no problem.

 

My opinion.

[+FireRef]

I do not feel that the "lazy" comment was, in any way, an attack. It was a simple statement of a fact. The reviewer mentioned that they spent excessive amounts of time on the cache types I was saying should be returned, and that they much preferred having them gone, since they didn't need to spend that large amount of time on those.

 

If you have a term which means choosing the easy way out, rather than putting extra time and effort into something to maintain it, what other term would you use?

[+Kealia]

An interesting note on this topic:

 

I have been suspended twice - once for stating that I was going to comply with a policy, and once for calling the reviewers "lazy" - in both cases, I feel the moderators abused their power.

<snip>

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they weren't purposely ignoring you or putting you off. Really, do you think that single person on these boards gets that much attention? Perhaps they were traveling, working on the site issues, upgrades, etc. and quite frnakly didn't have time yet to discuss this..?

 

 

I also think it a bit underhanded to report a thread because you feel it has gone it's course, don't like it etc...not your call. If you don't like it, go somewhere else! Now, if it IS abusing policy (bad language, disrespectful etc) good to be reported.

 

 

From what I've seen and heard, using the "Report" button doesn't automatically get a thread closed. It sends a notification to the moderator(s) to alert them that somebody *thinks* it should be closed. If the moderator agrees, then it gets closed. If not, the thread continues on. Can you imagine if everybody that didn't like the way a converstaion was going was allowed to get a thread closed by reporting it?

 

 

I do not feel that the "lazy" comment was, in any way, an attack. It was a simple statement of a fact. The reviewer mentioned that they spent excessive amounts of time on the cache types I was saying should be returned, and that they much preferred having them gone, since they didn't need to spend that large amount of time on those.

 

If you have a term which means choosing the easy way out, rather than putting extra time and effort into something to maintain it, what other term would you use?

 

 

It was a blanket attack by calling the moderators lazy. If you read the guideliines, it's clearly stated that:

 

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.

.

 

 

Seems to me that you could have worded your complaint within this fashion and stayed within the guidelines.

 

 

Do I see threads closed that I'd like to stay open? Sure.

 

Do I lose sleep over it? nope. Not my site, not my rules.

[+FireRef]

Please make sure to read the posts before you reply, and make sure you don't paraphrase what I said into something I didn't say.

 

I was talking about reviewers, not moderators, with the comment. (although there is some overlap, not relevant here)

 

I supported it with a statement from a specific reviewer.

 

My statement was in reference to a specific action (shutting down a type of cache), not all actions of reviewers, and what I consider to be the basic reason for the decision.

 

Also... I believe any company should have the ability to respond to customer service complaints in a timely fashion. A simple response from another moderator who just says "they were right", with no willingness to listen or discuss the issue, and simply putting links to broad guidelines that could be interpreted in a large number of ways depending on who you are, is not in the best interests is discourse and dialogue. A month to respond to a customer service complaint is not appropriate under any circumstances - any other company, I would have probably cancelled my account and gone with someone else for the same or a similar service. As gc.com is the predominant listing site, that isn't really an option.

 

I would hope that any business would treat their customers with a little more concern, especially ones who contribute to that business.

[+StarBrand]

Please make sure to read the posts before you reply, and make sure you don't paraphrase what I said into something I didn't say.

 

I was talking about reviewers, not moderators, with the comment. (although there is some overlap, not relevant here)

 

I supported it with a statement from a specific reviewer.

 

My statement was in reference to a specific action (shutting down a type of cache), not all actions of reviewers, and what I consider to be the basic reason for the decision.

 

Also... I believe any company should have the ability to respond to customer service complaints in a timely fashion. A simple response from another moderator who just says "they were right", with no willingness to listen or discuss the issue, and simply putting links to broad guidelines that could be interpreted in a large number of ways depending on who you are, is not in the best interests is discourse and dialogue. A month to respond to a customer service complaint is not appropriate under any circumstances - any other company, I would have probably cancelled my account and gone with someone else for the same or a similar service. As gc.com is the predominant listing site, that isn't really an option.

 

I would hope that any business would treat their customers with a little more concern, especially ones who contribute to that business.

WOW!!

 

I just have to respond to this with a number of points.

• Michael is an official at HQ - not just another mod - (in fact he signed an email to me with: Community Relations Specialist) - so you did get customer service
  
• you did get a response - you just didn't like it
  
• the guidelines were written in broad terminology to allow room for interprtation
  
• at least 1 (2 including me) member in this very thread sees your violation so it is reasonable to assume a mod saw something wrong too
  

The "punishment" is over - why not just move on. I suspect from your posts you will not be happy unless you get to speak to Jemery himself AND Jeremy then agrees with your position.

Edited September 27, 2007 by StarBrand

[+FireRef]

WOW!!

 

I just have to respond to this with a number of points.

• Michael is an official at HQ - not just another mod
  
• you did get a response - you just didn't like it
  
• the guidelines were written in broad terminology to allow room for interprtation
  
• at least 1 (2 including me) member in this very thread sees your violation so it is reasonable to assume a mod saw something wrong too
  

The "punishment" is over - why not just move on. I suspect from your posts you will not be happy unless you get to speak to Jemery himself AND Jeremy then agrees with your position.

 

1) That is not clear - he responded as another moderator. I can put titles after my name anytime I want.

2) I indicated that I was unsatisfied with his response, which mainly consisted of "read the guidelines", here's a link, and nothing else, and that I wanted to speak to his supervisor. That was who I was directed to.

3) Problem - since the moderators have that much latitude, some who stretch the rules get smacked, and others get away with it. Rules are worthless if they aren't enforced consistently.

4) I'm sure lots of people see it as a violation - lazy is not a four letter word. If everything that everyone said that someone disagreed with or thought was bad or wrong was handed a suspension, no one would be allowed to post.

 

As for the "punishment" being over, consider someone who is jailed in error for several years - they are released. The person isn't entitled to be upset, or continue to pursue some form of remedy? (and it is not a valid argument to say that these are two separate things - I was "jailed" from posting - obviously they are different levels of issues, but take it for any punishment which is handed down for improper reasons - the person who was punished has every right to complain and seek correction of the situation.)

Edited September 27, 2007 by FireRef

[+Mopar]

As for the "punishment" being over, consider someone who is jailed in error for several years - they are released. The person isn't entitled to be upset, or continue to pursue some form of remedy? (and it is not a valid argument to say that these are two separate things - I was "jailed" from posting - obviously they are different levels of issues, but take it for any punishment which is handed down for improper reasons - the person who was punished has every right to complain and seek correction of the situation.)

You equate not being allowed to post on someone else's private website a few days to being wrongfully jailed for several years? Hello! McFly! A more accurate analogy would be someone telling you that you are not allowed inside their home for a few days because they didn't like the way you talked to another guest at their last party.

It's a discussion forum.

About a game.

A game involving hiding film canisters in parking lots little boxes of junk stuff in the woods.

 

Lighten up, Francis!

[+Lil Devil]

[+Kealia]

Agreed. Leave the hyperbole out of the response and I may be able to have a discussion with you about it.

 

 

The over-the-top exageration just leads me to believe that I can't believe what you are saying or that you have no foundation.

 

 

I don't want to turn this into an attack on one person specifically, but since you brought the example up, I responded.

 

 

Also, be clear about something - you pay to use the GC.com site and it's features, not the foums. Anybody can use these forums so it's not like you lost something you paid for.

 

 

You broke the rules, you got "punished".

 

You requested escalation and got it.

 

You didn't like the response. You continued to escalate and weren't happy that it took time for a senior member of a company to get back to you.

 

 

Bottom line: There appears to be a system of checks and balances and escalation. I agree that when people don't like the way something is going they have the right (and sometimes the obligation) to challenge it. When that challenge is responded to, then you have two choices:

 

1) Realize you took it as far as it's going to go and accept it

 

2) Leave

 

 

Not to sound harsh, but I think those are your choices. I don't see any issues with out of control mods or reviewers, sorry.

[+TrailGators]

As for the "punishment" being over, consider someone who is jailed in error for several years - they are released. The person isn't entitled to be upset, or continue to pursue some form of remedy? (and it is not a valid argument to say that these are two separate things - I was "jailed" from posting - obviously they are different levels of issues, but take it for any punishment which is handed down for improper reasons - the person who was punished has every right to complain and seek correction of the situation.)

You equate not being allowed to post on someone else's private website a few days to being wrongfully jailed for several years? Hello! McFly! A more accurate analogy would be someone telling you that you are not allowed inside their home for a few days because they didn't like the way you talked to another guest at their last party.

It's a discussion forum.

About a game.

A game involving hiding film canisters in parking lots little boxes of junk stuff in the woods.

 

Lighten up, Francis!

<-----The laughy dude had to come out for one off-topic post cause that was funny.

[+mtn-man]

OK, let's see if we can get back to the original discussion from RK's original post.

 

Let me explain what was going on in the CB topic a bit more and then relate it to what the mods do in general. This topic isn't about an individual or an individual topic, but the CB topic is a good illustration.

 

The CB topic ended up four pages long. One reason the mods were trying to get people to start other topics regarding the tangent subjects was because of the importance of the main part of the topic -- the ban. If someone just came into the forums and wanted to know about the ban and what was being done about it, that topic went in so many directions that it was hard to find the salient posts. If you split out the actual posts relating to the ban and what was being done about it, you would probably get one page. People reading it would be able to follow the chain of events.

 

* Someone posted a note about the ban.

* People wondered what to do.

* I posted that Groundspeak was contacting a representative from CB and to be patient.

* Posts came in asking if there was any news.

* Michael posted that his representative said no to caches. He also said he wasn't done yet and was discussing it with them still.

 

That in itself would have been a good topic. It is informational. More importantly, by keeping the discussion focused, others who come to the forums that have heard about this issue can get a clear and concise understanding of what is going on. The way it ended up, it was confusing at best. We were asking for people to start other topics to discuss the side issues so the main focus of the topic would not be lost and so the important facts regarding the issue were easy to follow. This is the heart of why we ask people to stay on topic. Despite asking several times, no one ever started a new topic regarding the tangent subjects. To me, that is key. We felt we were being ignored despite repeated requests. The tangent subjects are indeed very important, which is why we repeatedly asked that they be moved to another topic. It never happened.

 

Sure, some tangent issues in some topics are fine. Sure, some fun and sidebar humor is fine. It is fun to do that and mods do it. It is like me poking fun at Vinny recently. Sure we can have fun and we as mods like to see it and even sometimes participate in it. We also like to keep the focus sometimes when we feel the issue warrants it. All we ask is that you respect these requests when they are presented. We are not perfect by any means. I have most certainly made mistakes in the forums. I will make more. The question might be do we do more good than harm. I hope so.

[+sbell111]

OK, let's see if we can get back to the original discussion from RK's original post.

 

Let me explain what was going on in the CB topic a bit more and then relate it to what the mods do in general. This topic isn't about an individual or an individual topic, but the CB topic is a good illustration.

 

The CB topic ended up four pages long. One reason the mods were trying to get people to start other topics regarding the tangent subjects was because of the importance of the main part of the topic -- the ban. If someone just came into the forums and wanted to know about the ban and what was being done about it, that topic went in so many directions that it was hard to find the salient posts. If you split out the actual posts relating to the ban and what was being done about it, you would probably get one page. People reading it would be able to follow the chain of events.

 

* Someone posted a note about the ban.

* People wondered what to do.

* I posted that Groundspeak was contacting a representative from CB and to be patient.

* Posts came in asking if there was any news.

* Michael posted that his representative said no to caches. He also said he wasn't done yet and was discussing it with them still.

 

That in itself would have been a good topic. It is informational. More importantly, by keeping the discussion focused, others who come to the forums that have heard about this issue can get a clear and concise understanding of what is going on. The way it ended up, it was confusing at best. We were asking for people to start other topics to discuss the side issues so the main focus of the topic would not be lost and so the important facts regarding the issue were easy to follow. This is the heart of why we ask people to stay on topic. Despite asking several times, no one ever started a new topic regarding the tangent subjects. To me, that is key. We felt we were being ignored despite repeated requests. The tangent subjects are indeed very important, which is why we repeatedly asked that they be moved to another topic. It never happened.

 

Sure, some tangent issues in some topics are fine. Sure, some fun and sidebar humor is fine. It is fun to do that and mods do it. It is like me poking fun at Vinny recently. Sure we can have fun and we as mods like to see it and even sometimes participate in it. We also like to keep the focus sometimes when we feel the issue warrants it. All we ask is that you respect these requests when they are presented. We are not perfect by any means. I have most certainly made mistakes in the forums. I will make more. The question might be do we do more good than harm. I hope so.

The Cracker Barrel thread is the perfectly example of miscommunication. As you've stated, the mods made several warnings to stay on topic. Those warnings advised to take any non-topic conversation to Off-Topic or PMs. However, TrailGators and I (and others) were on-topic, just not the bend on the topic that the mods wanted the thread to be on. Had it been clear that a new thread to discuss these issues in the 'Geocaching Topics' section would have been allowed, I'm certain that someone would have opened one. Instead, it appeared that the only other threads that were going to be allowed were to be in Off-Topic.

 

Also, you've stated twice in this thread that Michael posted that he was still working on the issue. As I mentioned before, Michael's post did not state this. He merely gave Cracker Barrel's somewhat dismissive response and stated that if he heard anything else that he would pass it allong. That's not the same as stating that he was still working on the issue and what his plan was.

 

A little bit of clear communication goes a long way.

Edited September 28, 2007 by sbell111

[+mtn-man]

However, TrailGators and I (and others) were on-topic, just not the bend on the topic that the mods wanted the thread to be on.

In your opinion you were on topic. Not in mine. Not in the opinion of the other mods. (Not in the opinion of some of your fellow forum readers either.) The reason is detailed in my post you quoted. The guidelines for the forums ask that you respect the opinions of the moderators. The guidelines for the forums also tell you how to handle a situation where you think the moderators are not correct. You chose to ignore the moderators request and to ignore the guidelines for the forums regarding moderators request and how to deal with those request if you feel they are wrong.

 

Also, you've stated twice in this thread that Michael posted that he was still working on the issue. As I mentioned before, Michael's post did not state this. He merely gave Cracker Barrel's somewhat dismissive response and stated that if he heard anything else that he would pass it allong. That's not the same as stating that he was still working on the issue and what his plan was.

He never got a chance to say what he was doing. After another page of posts within one day, the topic was closed. The sad thing is that people on page four were commenting and complaining about the side discussions and were hitting the "report this post" button. I think DoctorWho's was the best one of all. The moderators agreed with what these people were saying and "(made) it stop". We we doing our job. There is a methodolgy to follow if you feel we were not. The point is that the CB topics shows that if you follow these steps, you stand a better chance of a discussion not only staying open, but staying focused and easy to follow. If you don't, there are consequences that are explained in the guidelines.

 

I will say that a new topic in Geocaching Topics regarding "Now that CB has said we cannot have caches outside their store, what do we do now with the existing ones" is one that could stay in my opinion.

 

If it stayed on topic, that is.

[+sbell111]

However, TrailGators and I (and others) were on-topic, just not the bend on the topic that the mods wanted the thread to be on.

In your opinion you were on topic. Not in mine. Not in the opinion of the other mods. (Not in the opinion of some of your fellow forum readers either.) The reason is detailed in my post you quoted. The guidelines for the forums ask that you respect the opinions of the moderators. The guidelines for the forums also tell you how to handle a situation where you think the moderators are not correct. You chose to ignore the moderators request and to ignore the guidelines for the forums regarding moderators request and how to deal with those request if you feel they are wrong.

 

Also, you've stated twice in this thread that Michael posted that he was still working on the issue. As I mentioned before, Michael's post did not state this. He merely gave Cracker Barrel's somewhat dismissive response and stated that if he heard anything else that he would pass it allong. That's not the same as stating that he was still working on the issue and what his plan was.

He never got a chance to say what he was doing. After another page of posts within one day, the topic was closed. The sad thing is that people on page four were commenting and complaining about the side discussions and were hitting the "report this post" button. I think DoctorWho's was the best one of all. The moderators agreed with what these people were saying and "(made) it stop". We we doing our job. There is a methodolgy to follow if you feel we were not. The point is that the CB topics shows that if you follow these steps, you stand a better chance of a discussion not only staying open, but staying focused and easy to follow. If you don't, there are consequences that are explained in the guidelines.

 

I will say that a new topic in Geocaching Topics regarding "Now that CB has said we cannot have caches outside their store, what do we do now with the existing ones" is one that could stay in my opinion.

 

If it stayed on topic, that is.

Now that you got that off you chest, how do you feel about my post's point that clearer communication could have avoided most of the ugliness?

Edited September 28, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Let me explain what was going on in the CB topic a bit more and then relate it to what the mods do in general. This topic isn't about an individual or an individual topic, but the CB topic is a good illustration.

 

The CB topic ended up four pages long. One reason the mods were trying to get people to start other topics regarding the tangent subjects was because of the importance of the main part of the topic -- the ban. If someone just came into the forums and wanted to know about the ban and what was being done about it, that topic went in so many directions that it was hard to find the salient posts. If you split out the actual posts relating to the ban and what was being done about it, you would probably get one page.

I think this is where on-topic gets hazy. To me and a lot of people on topic means relevant to the topic. It doesn't mean only discussing one facet of the topic. If some mod had clearly stated that we should only discuss the ban and what was being done about it then you would have to do is read Michael's post. This post was repeated 2-3 times because every attempt to discuss the ban ended with the reality of what Michael said. So what else was there to discuss besides the relevant side-topics?

[+Cache Heads]

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 think "Constitutional rights as Americans" is a big stretch. I think the OP had a valid point. We all know him to be intelligent, inciteful and not afraid to speak up..... <snip>

Sorry for the late response-- I just wanted to clear up the fact that while I disagreed with the tone and some of the intent of the original post, I in no way meant to insult the intelligence or integrity of the original poster. If it came over that way, I apologize.

[+mtn-man]

Now that you got that off you chest, how do you feel about my post's point that clearer communication could have avoided most of the ugliness?

I've said that we are not perfect. How much clearer do I need to be? Yes, mistakes were made on all sides. I am big enough to admit that the mods could have done a better job. How about you admitting that you might have made mistakes too? You come off sounding like you were perfect in the topic. Were you? Who created the ugliness you speak of?

 

Was it the mods that needed reining in (or some of the people posting)? Isn't that the question in this topic?

 

I think this is where on-topic gets hazy. To me and a lot of people on topic means relevant to the topic. It doesn't mean only discussing one facet of the topic. If some mod had clearly stated that we should only discuss the ban and what was being done about it then you would have to do is read Michael's post. This post was repeated 2-3 times because every attempt to discuss the ban ended with the reality of what Michael said. So what else was there to discuss besides the relevant side-topics?

Nothing. That is why we kept asking that people start other topics to discuss the relevant side topics. By your own words, they were "side topics". That is my point. What we should have done early on a mods was split the posts out and force the formation of a new topic. To me that is the mistake the mods made. Does that mean we need to be reined in?

 

By the way, I will be out until late tonight while working in Dallas. Please don't expect a fast response back from me today.

Edited September 28, 2007 by mtn-man

[+sbell111]

Now that you got that off you chest, how do you feel about my post's point that clearer communication could have avoided most of the ugliness?

I've said that we are not perfect. How much clearer do I need to be?

In the Cracker Barrel thread? Somewhat more clear, as I explained in post 68 of this thread.

 

The topic of that thread was that CB was no longer allowing caches. Discussion as to what to do about that was on-topic to that thread, in my opinion and the opinion of several others. The mods wanted the thread to be something else, but I'm still not sure what. The mods wanted all other discussion to be made in the off-topic forum, which would not be the place for it since the discussion would be geocaching related. Since it was not believed (at least by me) that another CB thread would be allowed in the general area, all discussion related to CB's decision was held in that thread.

 

There was also quite a bit of discussion that was basically people stating that they don't care because they didn't like those caches anyway. I was somewhat surprised that those off-topic comments weren't immediately curtailed, but c'est la vie.

Yes, mistakes were made on all sides. I am big enough to admit that the mods could have done a better job. How about you admitting that you might have made mistakes too? You come off sounding like you were perfect in the topic. Were you? Who created the ugliness you speak of?

I make mistakes all the time, but I'm not a moderator. Others don't have to live with my errors. Regarding the CB thread, I can only find two posts of mine that was clearly off-topic. On page one, I posted a laughing signal. On page 3, I replied to CR's attack. The bulk of my posts in the first few pages of that thread were to plead with people to follow your suggestion.

 

(You might also note that I asked if Michael was doing anything else regarding the issue more than a day before the thread was locked. Had someone mentioned that the issue was still being addressed, perhaps many of the posts in the last few pages of the thread would be different. Since there was no indication that Michael was (or is) still working on the issue, it was appropriate to discuss other options, in my opinion.)

Was it the mods that needed reining in (or some of the people posting)? Isn't that the question in this topic?

Yes and Yes. Edited September 28, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

I think this is where on-topic gets hazy. To me and a lot of people on topic means relevant to the topic. It doesn't mean only discussing one facet of the topic. If some mod had clearly stated that we should only discuss the ban and what was being done about it then you would have to do is read Michael's post. This post was repeated 2-3 times because every attempt to discuss the ban ended with the reality of what Michael said. So what else was there to discuss besides the relevant side-topics?

Nothing. That is why we kept asking that people start other topics to discuss the relevant side topics. By your own words, they were "side topics". That is my point. What we should have done early on a mods was split the posts out and force the formation of a new topic. To me that is the mistake the mods made. Does that mean we need to be reined in?

 

By the way, I will be out until late tonight while working in Dallas. Please don't expect a fast response back from me today.

I also said those side-topics were relevant. Since the original topic was basically answered by Michael the only place that thread could have proceeded without beating a dead horse was to discuss relevant related topics. I agree that if you guys had split the topic it would have helped make your point, which we missed. I don't think you should be reined in, but maybe you should be rained on... <j/k> Edited September 28, 2007 by TrailGators

[+thedeadpirate]

I make mistakes all the time, but I'm not a moderator. Others don't have to live with my errors.

 

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but that statement is not true.

 

Everyone trying to keep up with discussions on these board do have to live with the constant bickering.

 

So to answer mtn-man, it's time for everyone to step back and consider how we ALL can make things better, myself included.

[+Renegade Knight]

... How about you admitting that you might have made mistakes too?...

Was it the mods that needed reining in (or some of the people posting)? Isn't that the question in this topic?...

 

My mistake was naming this topic when I was still annoyed that other good topics were closed when the relevant discussion was still vibrant. A couple of forum regulars are on forum vaction just now so I know the mods do rein them in.

 

This topic is about allowing those discussions to contiue, that all mods would allow (by allowing discussion) as a matter of site policy, or not.

 

After an off topic start, by even the mods, it's good to see the discussion is at least related.

[+TrailGators]

I make mistakes all the time, but I'm not a moderator. Others don't have to live with my errors.

 

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but that statement is not true.

 

Everyone trying to keep up with discussions on these board do have to live with the constant bickering.

 

So to answer mtn-man, it's time for everyone to step back and consider how we ALL can make things better, myself included.

I agree. Everyone's skin is a different thickness. So you have to be politically correct and walk on egg-shells all the time in order not to bother certain people. Mods are very good at this and that's why they pick them. However, this is not easy to do for people that are used to joking around and being completely open and honest. So I am working on this skill set myself. I hope to be able to stand on an egg shell without breaking it someday.

[+Too Tall John]

I just got an interesting email from Cracker Barrel....

So did I.

As one of the topics that spurred this one was closed with the promise to be reopened when more information was available, would either of these emails be something that should be shared?

[+cache_test_dummies]

I apologize for any part I may have played in the CB thread shutdown. I know for certain that I had at least one off topic post, possibly more.

 

As it turns out, I currently have in my possession a mtn-man Admin Brick Geocoin. I will now throw it at myself in a sincere act of contrition ...

 

Done.

 

[+TrailGators]

I apologize for any part I may have played in the CB thread shutdown. I know for certain that I had at least one off topic post, possibly more.

 

As it turns out, I currently have in my possession a mtn-man Admin Brick Geocoin. I will now throw it at myself in a sincere act of contrition ...

 

Done.

 

 

(cool coin by the way)

[+sbell111]

I make mistakes all the time, but I'm not a moderator. Others don't have to live with my errors.

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but that statement is not true.

 

Everyone trying to keep up with discussions on these board do have to live with the constant bickering.

 

So to answer mtn-man, it's time for everyone to step back and consider how we ALL can make things better, myself included.

I agree. Everyone's skin is a different thickness. So you have to be politically correct and walk on egg-shells all the time in order not to bother certain people. Mods are very good at this and that's why they pick them. However, this is not easy to do for people that are used to joking around and being completely open and honest. So I am working on this skill set myself. I hope to be able to stand on an egg shell without breaking it someday.

I think that one of the few things that we can agree on is the fact that some people are going to get upset simply because they don't agree with you. Therefore, I don't think we can ever completely avoid breaking some eggshells and still have a useful forum.

 

The important thing, in my opinion, is that we 1) try our best to communicate our message and 2) understand the guidelines and that the mods police the guidelines (and only the guidelines) fairly.

Edited September 28, 2007 by sbell111

[+MissJenn]

The moderators report to me, and I trust each of them to help the entire community have discussion forums that are useful, on-topic, relevant and family-friendly. They know these pages very well, and they know the people who post to them quite well. They have the background knowledge and the sensitivity needed to know when to keep a topic open and when to close it.

 

 

Sometimes, forum moderators make mistakes. Sometimes, community members think that the forum moderators made a mistake.

 

 

If you feel that you are not getting the level of service you expect from the forum moderators, e-mail me here privately with your concerns: reviewers@geocaching.com .

 

This e-mail address is for reporting concerns regarding cache reviewers and forum moderators.

 

Thanks!

[+tozainamboku]

I just got an interesting email from Cracker Barrel....

So did I.

As one of the topics that spurred this one was closed with the promise to be reopened when more information was available, would either of these emails be something that should be shared?

I think you missed the point of these posts. When Michael did not report on the reasons why Cracker Barrel may have changed their policy, some people began to speculate on this. Some people, not necessarily the moderators, felt that speculation was off topic to the thread. If you wish to speculate on the emails that some people claim to have gotten from Cracker Barrel, then you are certainly off-topic in this thread. But I believe the purpose of the posts you quoted was simply to illustrate that speculation might seem off-topic to some people.

 

It seems like we needed to have at least three different Cracker Barrel threads

1. Does anyone have more information on CB changing their policy on geocaches?
   
2. Does anybody want to speculate on why CB made this change?
   
3. What can geocachers do about this?
   

Some people in thread 1 didn't want thread 2 postings because someone could confuse speculation with fact. People in thread 1 may not have wanted to see thread 3 postings at least until the policy was confirmed.

 

My question is what would stop the moderators from locking threads 2 and 3 as being duplicates had they been started in order to keep thread 1 on-topic?

[+TrailGators]

The moderators report to me, and I trust each of them to help the entire community have discussion forums that are useful, on-topic, relevant and family-friendly. They know these pages very well, and they know the people who post to them quite well. They have the background knowledge and the sensitivity needed to know when to keep a topic open and when to close it.

 

Sometimes, forum moderators make mistakes. Sometimes, community members think that the forum moderators made a mistake.

 

If you feel that you are not getting the level of service you expect from the forum moderators, e-mail me here privately with your concerns: reviewers@geocaching.com .

 

This e-mail address is for reporting concerns regarding cache reviewers and forum moderators.

 

Thanks!

Thanks but I won't report any moderators until I quit being human and stop making mistakes myself. So we should all forgive, forget and move on.

[+Rockin Roddy]

About time I might add!

[Keystone]

Several posters, including mtn-man, have commented that the moderators could have split the off topic discussions off into one or more separate threads.

 

I am posting to remind everyone that I did just that, when I split out this thread into the Off Topic forum. That exercise did not go well, as illustrated in that thread and in a "protest thread" which followed.

 

So I'm back in the Cracker Barrel thread, saying to myself, "Self, splitting off a topic didn't work too well." So instead the moderators tried to do their job by posting within the thread.

 

Darned if you do, darned if you don't. Regardless of what action the moderators take, or do not take, there will be some who disagree with it. I accepted that a long time ago, which is why I'm still happy to be a forum moderator four years later.

[+TrailGators]

Several posters, including mtn-man, have commented that the moderators could have split the off topic discussions off into one or more separate threads.

 

I am posting to remind everyone that I did just that, when I split out this thread into the Off Topic forum. That exercise did not go well, as illustrated in that thread and in a "protest thread" which followed.

 

So I'm back in the Cracker Barrel thread, saying to myself, "Self, splitting off a topic didn't work too well." So instead the moderators tried to do their job by posting within the thread.

 

Darned if you do, darned if you don't. Regardless of what action the moderators take, or do not take, there will be some who disagree with it. I accepted that a long time ago, which is why I'm still happy to be a forum moderator four years later.

Here is an honest question: Why not just give the thread some latitude as long as the discussion is relevant to the OPs topic?

[Keystone]

My honest answer is that a *lot* of latitude was given, IMHO.

 

Unless you think things like troubleshooting the OP's forum signature line code, and whether Cracker Barrel has discriminatory hiring policies, is somehow relevant to geocaches on porches.

 

The mods closed the thread about a full day after the karma balance had shifted. We gave that extra day of latitude to see if the thread would turn itself around. It didn't. It's closed, at least for now.

[+GrizzlyJohn]

I think when I think of a discussion I think of something that is a living thing. Something that evolves, changes, adapts. And that is excatly what happened with the CB thread. Although it would seem that some people did not like what it turned into. Too bad, don't read it.

 

We were presented with an issue. Then there was some discussion on what the actual problem was or if there was a problem. Then we heard there may have been an answer. OK some people did not like that answer and thought to discuss what could be done about it. Others thought some of the ideas presented were not good ones and discussion about that should stop and called all of that off topic. It was a natural progression of the discussion. It was on topic. And saying you don't think it was does not make it so. It just means we disagree about that. But no other forum rules were broken as far as I could tell. Then let the discussion go. When people don't want to talk about it will drop to the next page. Again what do you care, don't read it. Oh that's right I forget that some people think that most of us can't make decisions for ourselves so they have to go the nanny route and get somebody to do something about it.

 

If I am reading some of the prior posts correct then when a question is asked and answered then everything after that is off topic. Really? What if one asks can a certain item do some particular task. The answer is no. But then people start to give other options, ways to do it, or maybe even suggesting that we as geocachers contact the company making the item and explain how many geocachers use their item and that it might be something for them to consider. Is that off topic? The OP only asked if something could be done with a particular item. They did not ask for any suggestions. It is a hazy line for sure, but again as long as other forum rules are being followed what is the problem? I guess it really depends if you agree with the suggestions or not.

 

There was some off topic discussion, no doubt about it. But the closing of the topic did not happen until almost all discussion was based on what to do about it. And also if anything was being done by gc.com, Michael's posting was really not clear that he was going to do anything about it other than let us know if he got more information. This was after there was an answer from CB.

[+TrailGators]

My honest answer is that a *lot* of latitude was given, IMHO.

 

Unless you think things like troubleshooting the OP's forum signature line code, and whether Cracker Barrel has discriminatory hiring policies, is somehow relevant to geocaches on porches.

 

The mods closed the thread about a full day after the karma balance had shifted. We gave that extra day of latitude to see if the thread would turn itself around. It didn't. It's closed, at least for now.

Those diversions were off-topic but I bet that if no mod had intervened the thread would have gotten itself back on course. I've seen threads where mods never post that veer on and off topic all the time. That's what I meant about latitude. So there was something odd with somebody's sig and we noticed for a few posts. I don't remember the hiring policy thing but I bet that would have worked itself out too.

 

Threads are like waves. Everytime there is a new idea the wave builds and as it's discussed it peaks and then it fades away. Then you wait for the next wave. In between waves there is dead time and that is when the little diversions occur. New people can catch the next wave by going to the latest posts and jumping in. The past waves are long gone because nobody is going to read four pages. So the present posts are where the action is and as long as people want to continue then what is the real harm? Do you like my surfing metaphor?

Edited September 29, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Quiggle]

Threads are like waves. Everytime there is a new idea the wave builds and as it's discussed it peaks and then it fades away. Then you wait for the next wave. In between waves there is dead time and that is when the little diversions occur. New people can catch the next wave by going to the latest posts and jumping in. The past waves are long gone because nobody is going to read four pages. So the present posts are where the action is and as long as people want to continue then what is the real harm? Do you like my surfing metaphor?

Cacher A has several OYR caches and they hear that they might have to archive them. Cacher B wants to hide one but hears they're no longer able to do so.

 

Both Cacher A and Cacher B come to the forums looking for answers. Do they need to archive their caches? Will policy change? Both have to read through page after page of useless (to the topic at hand) banter, wasting their time only to find out that some people won't eat at CB anymore and that some people still can't get along with others.

 

Why let that drag on into more and more pages when the thread can be closed until answers are able to be provided? If the rest of that discussion is so important, why not start another thread in the appropriate forum?

 

[+tozainamboku]

Threads are like waves. Everytime there is a new idea the wave builds and as it's discussed it peaks and then it fades away. Then you wait for the next wave. In between waves there is dead time and that is when the little diversions occur. New people can catch the next wave by going to the latest posts and jumping in. The past waves are long gone because nobody is going to read four pages. So the present posts are where the action is and as long as people want to continue then what is the real harm? Do you like my surfing metaphor?

Cacher A has several OYR caches and they hear that they might have to archive them. Cacher B wants to hide one but hears they're no longer able to do so.

 

Both Cacher A and Cacher B come to the forums looking for answers. Do they need to archive their caches? Will policy change? Both have to read through page after page of useless (to the topic at hand) banter, wasting their time only to find out that some people won't eat at CB anymore and that some people still can't get along with others.

 

Why let that drag on into more and more pages when the thread can be closed until answers are able to be provided? If the rest of that discussion is so important, why not start another thread in the appropriate forum?

 

I don't buy this. If the mods had really decided that the thread providing "official" information about CBs change in policy wasn't the place for "off-topic" discussions on whether we should all be writing protest letters to CB, start a boycott of the company, speculate on the reasons that the policy may have changed, and why some people's post didn't line up right; they could have pinned this topic and locked it so that only Groundspeak or a moderator could post "confirmed" information and allowed a second thread for open discussion about the change and what it means to geocachers.

[+TrailGators]

Threads are like waves. Everytime there is a new idea the wave builds and as it's discussed it peaks and then it fades away. Then you wait for the next wave. In between waves there is dead time and that is when the little diversions occur. New people can catch the next wave by going to the latest posts and jumping in. The past waves are long gone because nobody is going to read four pages. So the present posts are where the action is and as long as people want to continue then what is the real harm? Do you like my surfing metaphor?

Cacher A has several OYR caches and they hear that they might have to archive them. Cacher B wants to hide one but hears they're no longer able to do so.

 

Both Cacher A and Cacher B come to the forums looking for answers. Do they need to archive their caches? Will policy change? Both have to read through page after page of useless (to the topic at hand) banter, wasting their time only to find out that some people won't eat at CB anymore and that some people still can't get along with others.

 

Why let that drag on into more and more pages when the thread can be closed until answers are able to be provided? If the rest of that discussion is so important, why not start another thread in the appropriate forum?

 

Any bets as to whether one or both Cacher A and Cacher B will start a new thread asking that question? Anyhow, when that happens then someone will post a Markwell with Michaels's answer which was posted 3 times in that thread. Once people are given the facts then they know what they should do based on the guidelines. I also assume if there is some new information that a new thread would be started to share that. Anyhow, I understand now what you are trying to accomplish so I will try to a better job of watching what I post in the future.

[+mtn-man]

I don't buy this. <snip> ...they could have pinned this topic and locked it so that only Groundspeak or a moderator could post "confirmed" information and allowed a second thread for open discussion about the change and what it means to geocachers.

You know how pinned topics go though. People overlook them it seems. The pinned TESTING topic in the Getting Started forum is a good example. I suggested just splitting the side issues out. Do you think that would be a better way to deal with topics like that in the future?

 

That was a tough one, and I hope we can learn from it. Seems to be no good solution.

[+TrailGators]

I don't buy this. <snip> ...they could have pinned this topic and locked it so that only Groundspeak or a moderator could post "confirmed" information and allowed a second thread for open discussion about the change and what it means to geocachers.

You know how pinned topics go though. People overlook them it seems. The pinned TESTING topic in the Getting Started forum is a good example. I suggested just splitting the side issues out. Do you think that would be a better way to deal with topics like that in the future?

 

That was a tough one, and I hope we can learn from it. Seems to be no good solution.

I think pinning the essential part of it would be a good idea. Then the other thread(s) would be freer to explore the relevant issues. However, there are lots of cases where people change their policy and say "No more caches" and none of those threads are pinned. Those caches are respectfully removed from those areas until someone is able to successully negotiate. Edited September 30, 2007 by TrailGators

[+mtn-man]

However, there are lots of cases where people change their policy and say "No more caches" and none of those threads are pinned. Those caches are respectfully removed from those areas until someone is able to successully negotiate.

"You are correct sir."

[+TrailGators]

However, there are lots of cases where people change their policy and say "No more caches" and none of those threads are pinned. Those caches are respectfully removed from those areas until someone is able to successully negotiate.

"You are correct sir."

Thanks Ed!

 

"The worst gift is a fruitcake. There is only one fruitcake in the entire world, and people keep sending it to each other. " - Johnny Carson

[+geoSpartan]

ALL THE MODS

 

Great thread!! It took me most of the evening to read.

 

I'm new and naive... but the original thread poster has over 19,000 post and I haven't seen a moderator with anything close, so I'm not sure they know more about the people and workings on the forum.

 

Just my two cents, please attack me nicely.

[Keystone]

ALL THE MODS

 

Great thread!! It took me most of the evening to read.

 

I'm new and naive... but the original thread poster has over 19,000 post and I haven't seen a moderator with anything close, so I'm not sure they know more about the people and workings on the forum.

 

Just my two cents, please attack me nicely.

OK, I'll be nice. Your post would be offensive if it wasn't so funny.

 

I've been following these forums pretty much daily since 2002. I have thousands more posts under my player account. The same is true for the other moderators. You don't get asked to be a forum mod here unless you spend a lot of time here.

 

Knowledge and experience isn't measured by the quantity of posts, but rather by their quality.