Jump to content

Time to Reign In the Mods

Renegade Knight

By Renegade Knight
in Website

Followers 3

Recommended Posts

sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
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 believe that you hit on a good solution. Spinning out geocaching-related side topics to their own threads would allow the original threads to continue unencumbered as well as allow the side issues to be discussed. It also allows the mods to retain the ability to brick completely off-topic posters.
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted (edited)
I believe that you hit on a good solution. Spinning out geocaching-related side topics to their own threads would allow the original threads to continue unencumbered as well as allow the side issues to be discussed. It also allows the mods to retain the ability to brick completely off-topic posters.
Yep, splitting out a thread from the Cracker Barrel discussion worked out real well. Yes, indeed.

 

Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

I bolded the relevant part of my post. I truly believe that a different result will be obtained from spinning out a geocaching-related issue to the 'geocaching topics' area than dumping an issue to off-topic.

 

I bet that you probably agree with me on this.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Keystone

Keystone

Posted
Posted

No, I don't agree, because of my experience over the years with moderating these forums. Splitting topics off involuntarily has almost universally resulted in flames from the person who started the tangent. This is true regardless of the subject matter.

 

Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted (edited)

No, I don't agree, because of my experience over the years with moderating these forums. Splitting topics off involuntarily has almost universally resulted in flames from the person who started the tangent. This is true regardless of the subject matter.

 

Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

Here's how I live my personal and professional lives:

 

Every day, I try to make the right decisions. Sometimes, those decisions result in some angst. As long as I made the best decision based on the information available to me, I can defend my decision. If I later find that a better decision could have been made, I'll go in that direction next time and deal with those consequences.

 

Just because the best decision will cause some amount of angst is no reason for me to throw my hands up in the air and hit the kill switch. Instead, I keep making the best decisions possible and, as a wiser man put it, keep moving forward.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted

No, I don't agree, because of my experience over the years with moderating these forums. Splitting topics off involuntarily has almost universally resulted in flames from the person who started the tangent. This is true regardless of the subject matter.

 

Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

On thing that could be done, when splitting a tangent into its own thread is for the moderator to begin the new thread with a post explaining that this was split from another thread with a link back to the original thread. Keystone is right in noting that the person who started the tangent generally gets flamed for starting a new controversial topic. That person of course did not start a new topic, probably feeling that their controversial opinion would not seem so controversial in the context of the original thread. So having the first post of the split off thread come from the moderator with a explanation of why this split from the original thread may help insulate the person who started the tangent from some of the flames.

Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No, I don't agree, because of my experience over the years with moderating these forums. Splitting topics off involuntarily has almost universally resulted in flames from the person who started the tangent. This is true regardless of the subject matter.

 

Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

When that happens, you can take the path of less work, or do what you would rather do anyway.

 

Seriously. If I'm going to pay a price either way, I just do what I want, and smile later.

 

Naturally I'd suggest not splitting out topics unless it's such a hot topic you actually have two viable topics in one thread and it's getting confusing to track them both in the same thread.

Link to comment
TheManInStripes

+TheManInStripes

Posted
Posted (edited)

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.

 

Looks to me like OT = On Topic, so why'd you report this one? :ph34r:

Edited by TheManInStripes
Link to comment
TheManInStripes

+TheManInStripes

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Are you saying we have some fat mods around here?

Link to comment
TheManInStripes

+TheManInStripes

Posted
Posted

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.

In addition to pointing out the 2 typo's in the sentence I highlighted in red, the fact that many Wal-Mart's have McDonald's built into them now would make that discussion on topic.

Link to comment
TheManInStripes

+TheManInStripes

Posted
Posted

...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... :ph34r:

And of course, that food fight should take place with food from Cracker Barrel.

Link to comment
TheManInStripes

+TheManInStripes

Posted
Posted

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.)

Your statement which I highlighted in red is FALSE. :ph34r:

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

...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... :ph34r:

And of course, that food fight should take place with food from Cracker Barrel.

FoodFightAnimalHouse-185x141.jpg
Link to comment
TheManInStripes

+TheManInStripes

Posted
Posted

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!

 

Ya know Jenn, I just noticed that you're from Seattle, and I'm on my way there later this month. Can we do lunch?

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

Quiggle made it clear that this is what the original CB thread needed to discuss:

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. :ph34r:

 

So that answer made me confused as to why a spin-off thread was quickly closed:

I thought it was working well in this split out thread until you closed it. I'm pretty sure that thanking CB for letting us cache there all these years would have been considered to be off-topic in the original CB thread....

 

So shouldn't that spin-off thread have been allowed to exist, since it would have been considered to be off-topic with the original CB thread?

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted (edited)
We should try to get this thread back on track now. :)
Yes, we should. If I see people continuing to try to derail this thread I will be handing out some lengthy suspensions.
It would seem to me that it's comments like these by mods that generated the original idea for this thread.
I disagree. It is perfectly appropriate for a mod to attempt to bring a thread back on track. It is also appropriate for a mod to warn people that are intentionally trying to derail a thread.

 

This is quite different than mods attempting to artificially constrain a thread to a micro-subject or warning (or suspending) posters when those posters are not violating the guidelines.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...