I for one..........

[SlytherinAlex]

 

Grow up and stop acting like children. If you don't like the rules and regulations then clear off ,set up your own listing site and see how you get on.

Alex's Law.

[+careygang]

Well it was easy to foresee, why should volunteers put up with the childish antics of the sludge at the bottom of the gene pool. Unfortunately 'act your age and not your shoe size in the phrase that come to mind in some of the comments on this UK Forum.

 

When will it end? I have used the forum almost as a news Media on UK caching since moving out to the USA with my job; quite frankly I am ashamed of my fellow Britons with their behaviour. Bickering infants seem to have taken over.

[+the pooks]

Athough I am not from the UK, I found this thread interesting and would like to comment.

 

I found this thread was constructive. It was non conforming in the sense that it started as a support thread for reviewers, swayed all over the place and ended up with moderators resigning (which is most unfortunate), but:

 

It gave some people the opportunity to churn their ideas until they were satisfied. It does not matter whether it carries on into hundreds of posts - anybody can choose to stop following the thread when they want to.

 

I agree with Alex that "if you don't like it go somewhere else" is not a constructive response. People should be allowed to have opinions about the site that they like and don't like. The owners of the site still have the final say on whether they want to heed to the opinions or not. They might have very valid reasons why they do not want to adopt a suggestion or not and they do not have to respond in these forums either. In a similar fashion a moderator or reviewer does not have to come and defend their actions on the forum, but that does not mean that posters should not post their opinions. Posting an opinion (or criticism) is not the same as finding something so unacceptable that you are not prepared to live with it.

 

I agree that the thread got personal and impolite at times. One needs to remember that although this is a long thread, there were only a few people who entered the debate and even fewer who others thought impolite. It is not the attitude of the community as a whole and should be seen as such.

 

Two positive results:

* The Sharpeville cache issue was discussed/chewed on until nobody had anything more to add.

* The issue about OP's being able to close a thread was raised and had a positive outcome.

 

There might be private correspondence that I am not aware of, but it came as a real surprise that the forum moderators resigned. I did not perceive this discussion as an attack on the moderators.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Another very sensible and measured post: thanks, Pooks.

[Alan White]

A thoughtful post. Thanks.

 

I agree with Alex that "if you don't like it go somewhere else" is not a constructive response. People should be allowed to have opinions about the site that they like and don't like.

Absolutely. Comments which don't further the discussion simply serve to try to derail it.

 

Two positive results:

* The Sharpeville cache issue was discussed/chewed on until nobody had anything more to add.

* The issue about OP's being able to close a thread was raised and had a positive outcome.

I don't agree with your assessment that those are positive .

 

There may be nothing more to add on the Sharpeville issue (simply because no-one who knows will say) but we still don't know what the problem was and therefore we can be sure that it will arise again.

 

We can also be sure that mandarin's desire to help UK cachers and run the forum as the members would like in one tiny respect has been overturned by Groundspeak.

[+careygang]

The whole Sharpeville thing was unnecessary, since the OP was in contact with the reviewers about it at the time. I don't know the OP, but looking in from the outside it came accross as an action that was designed to

 

A Flame the situation

B try to influence the Reviewers

C Just a stupid thing to do.

 

Now I may be wrong in this but it was a bit like the government or another big organisation leaking something to the press whilst talks were still going on, in an attempt to steer something in a particular direction.

 

Now if I'm wrong, I don't really care, the fact is that is how it appeared and appearances are more significant than facts in this sort of thing.

 

If I'd have been the mod/reviewer I'd have closed that post as being inappropriate whilst other talks were in progress.

 

Had it been opened after talks had been abandoned, that would have been a different matter.

[+dino-irl]

If you ever believe you have been unfairly treated then this section of the guidelines deals with it:

Another of the things I wish would stop happening around here is every issue being answered by a reviewer with a quote from the guidelines. When it's the guidelines which are under discussion quoting the guidelines really isn't very helpful.

Sorry Alan but I find that response laughable How can we discuss the guidelines without actually referring to them? Everything a reviewer does is controlled and must be within the posted guidelines so I don't see how I can answer some of your questions without actually referring to them. Also I tend not to just post guidelines and leave it at that. I try and explain them too. In fact I think that post was only the second time I actually quoted the guidelines in the last week or so.

 

I assume that by your selective quoting of my post you are happy that the other points are settled?

[+Simply Paul]

Can anyone see why a simple cache that mentions a 1985 memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre is regarded as soliciting whereas caches based around war memorials seem OK.

 

I can't but our local reviewers seem to take exception to it.

 

Any thoughts anyone?

Or, if you take his post at face value:

D A genuine question from someone confused as to what the problem was.

That's the meaning I took from it, which is why I posted my initial thoughts. While using his situation 'as an example', he compared it to war memorials to keep it in a wider context. I did suggest to him his timing might not be the wisest too, but once the question is out there...

[+mongoose39uk]

Can anyone see why a simple cache that mentions a 1985 memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre is regarded as soliciting whereas caches based around war memorials seem OK.

 

I can't but our local reviewers seem to take exception to it.

 

Any thoughts anyone?

Or, if you take his post at face value:

D A genuine question from someone confused as to what the problem was.

That's the meaning I took from it, which is why I posted my initial thoughts. While using his situation 'as an example', he compared it to war memorials to keep it in a wider context. I did suggest to him his timing might not be the wisest too, but once the question is out there...

 

So is the answer for those who care to see it

[Alan White]

Sorry Alan but I find that response laughable How can we discuss the guidelines without actually referring to them?

Yeh, much later on I thought that that wasn't quite what I meant to say . However, referring to the guidelines and the wholesale quoting of them are very different. What I meant to say is that whenever a question is asked, comment made or, often, an archived log is posted by a reviewer, too often the bulk of the content is a verbose copy-n-paste from the guidelines as though that explains all. Usually it doesn't, but what it does do is make the reviewers seem like the worst caricature of in-triplicate civil servants who are only able to follow instructions and post extracts from the rulebook. Please note the word caricature and the emphasis on seem.

 

I assume that by your selective quoting of my post you are happy that the other points are settled?

Not at all. I just picked the point which I most wanted to respond to. But since you ask...

 

I commented on the Sharpeville issue in a recent post. I haven't anything further to add at this time.

 

You and I have discussed the issue of appeals elsewhere (GAGB, IIRC). We have different experiences.

 

I stand by what I said on confrontation. There's a line between reasoned debate and being confrontational. If you think you may be on the wrong side of it, you probably are .

[+Happy Humphrey]

The whole Sharpeville thing was unnecessary, since the OP was in contact with the reviewers about it at the time. I don't know the OP, but looking in from the outside it came accross as an action that was designed to

 

A Flame the situation

B try to influence the Reviewers

C Just a stupid thing to do.

 

Now I may be wrong in this but it was a bit like the government or another big organisation leaking something to the press whilst talks were still going on, in an attempt to steer something in a particular direction.

 

Now if I'm wrong, I don't really care, the fact is that is how it appeared and appearances are more significant than facts in this sort of thing.

 

If I'd have been the mod/reviewer I'd have closed that post as being inappropriate whilst other talks were in progress.

 

Had it been opened after talks had been abandoned, that would have been a different matter.

By bringing this up AGAIN, you're ably illustrating the difficulty. You're offering a controversial opinion, thus inviting further debate, and criticising the OP and the mods and reviewers. If it was unnecessary at the start, why go over it again now? And although this is clearly your 'take' on the OP, you present it as if it was self-evident, which comes over as arrogant (or at least, that's my 'take').

My opinion is ;

[+Simply Paul]

Can anyone see why a simple cache that mentions a 1985 memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre is regarded as soliciting whereas caches based around war memorials seem OK.

 

I can't but our local reviewers seem to take exception to it.

 

Any thoughts anyone?

Or, if you take his post at face value:

D A genuine question from someone confused as to what the problem was.

That's the meaning I took from it, which is why I posted my initial thoughts. While using his situation 'as an example', he compared it to war memorials to keep it in a wider context. I did suggest to him his timing might not be the wisest too, but once the question is out there...

So is the answer for those who care to see it

You know? You really know? You're not just teasing? For the love of gourd then, please tell us! Spell it out in nice, clear language! People who care what the difference is really want to know!

[+drdick&vick]

Well a small minority of the forum users have managed to drive the Moderators to resigning now now why not let this drop before the same group manage to drive the reviewers into doing the same, enough is enough.

 

I would hate to see them at the zoo bating all the captive animals.

[+drdick&vick]

Whoops double post, system playing up.

 

Still the same view though!!!

Edited November 6, 2008 by DrDick&Vick

[Alan White]

a small minority of the forum users have managed to drive the Moderators to resigning

No, Groundspeak has, once again, driven the moderators to resign because it doesn't want them to manage the forum in accordance with the wishes of the forum members.

[+Morton]

No, Groundspeak has, once again, driven the moderators to resign because it doesn't want them to manage the forum in accordance with the wishes of the forum members.

Alan

 

Mandarin's detailed post highlighted several reasons why she stepped down. In the other thread, you expressed a belief that one of her paragraphs was the "key" one. This paragraph was indeed to do with Groundspeak.

 

In doing so, you chose to overlook the paragraph in which she alluded to the behaviour of certain forum contributors, particularly their treatment of reviewers.

 

I can't and wouldn't try to second-guess the relative importance of the reasons. But it concerns me that you're trumpeting the one involving Groundspeak - while ignoring the one which could, perhaps, reflect a little bit on you, together with everybody else here.

 

Regards

Richard

[Beefy4605]

No, Groundspeak has, once again, driven the moderators to resign because it doesn't want them to manage the forum in accordance with the wishes of the forum members.

Alan

 

Mandarin's detailed post highlighted several reasons why she stepped down. In the other thread, you expressed a belief that one of her paragraphs was the "key" one. This paragraph was indeed to do with Groundspeak.

 

In doing so, you chose to overlook the paragraph in which she alluded to the behaviour of certain forum contributors, particularly their treatment of reviewers.

 

I can't and wouldn't try to second-guess the relative importance of the reasons. But it concerns me that you're trumpeting the one involving Groundspeak - while ignoring the one which could, perhaps, reflect a little bit on you, together with everybody else here.

 

Regards

Richard

 

There are none so blind as the ones that can't see.

[+Munkeh]

a small minority of the forum users have managed to drive the Moderators to resigning

No, Groundspeak has, once again, driven the moderators to resign because it doesn't want them to manage the forum in accordance with the wishes of the forum members.

 

oh dear! I think I can say its more to do with users than groundspeaks policies - when you have to jump to conclusions it prooves that you don't really have anything to argue about

[+drdick&vick]

OH dear 1 thread just been closed. Now let's wait and see the bashers rise this time (or maybe not)

[The Royles]

OH dear 1 thread just been closed. Now let's wait and see the bashers rise this time (or maybe not)

 

Maybe you should take a look at the closed thread.

[+drdick&vick]

I did look, nothing controversial just an old thread dragged up along with 3 others that are still open.

 

Someone's idea of a joke but not harming anybody.

Edited November 6, 2008 by DrDick&Vick

[+The Book Of Shadows]

I love sausages

[The Royles]

Mypoint was, how could anyone object to that being locked ?

 

I love sausages

 

Do you dip them in your eggs

[+The Book Of Shadows]

Mypoint was, how could anyone object to that being locked ?

 

I love sausages

 

Do you dip them in your eggs

 

Yeah along with my chips and egg

[+Simply Paul]

It's all got weird again. Nurse!

[+mongoose39uk]

No beans?

[The Royles]

No beans?

Tinned tomatoes, lots of pepper.

[+mongoose39uk]

needs some Black Pudding

[Alan White]

you chose to overlook the paragraph in which she alluded to the behaviour of certain forum contributors, particularly their treatment of reviewers.

I chose to focus on the more important, and the probably real, reason. Consider the - very short - chain of events:

- I, supported by many others, suggested that too many threads are being locked

- mandarin points out that most are locked at the request of the OP and asks if we'd like her to stop doing that

- everybody says yes please, threads should be allowed to die naturally

- mandarin says sure, no problem. Everyone says great, thanks for listening

- overnight, mandarin resigns because of "differences in interpretations of GSP's forum policies"

 

It doesn't need a genius to work out what happened there.

[+Munkeh]

you chose to overlook the paragraph in which she alluded to the behaviour of certain forum contributors, particularly their treatment of reviewers.

I chose to focus on the more important, and the probably real, reason. Consider the - very short - chain of events:

- I, supported by many others, suggested that too many threads are being locked

- mandarin points out that most are locked at the request of the OP and asks if we'd like her to stop doing that

- everybody says yes please, threads should be allowed to die naturally

- mandarin says sure, no problem. Everyone says great, thanks for listening

- overnight, mandarin resigns because of "differences in interpretations of GSP's forum policies"

 

It doesn't need a genius to work out what happened there.

 

do I need to repeat myself alan

[+Simply Paul]

To avoid repetition, is it fair to say you have both taken a different interpretation from mandarin's leaving speech? Only she knows which is the right, or more accurate, one, and may not want to publicly expand on details which quite understandably might be rather painful at the moment.

[+mongoose39uk]

To avoid repetition, is it fair to say you have both taken a different interpretation from mandarin's leaving speech? Only she knows which is the right, or more accurate, one, and may not want to publicly expand on details which quite understandably might be rather painful at the moment.

 

I am sure you are correct.

 

I would say Munkeh knows the duck quite well though.

 

Hash Browns anyone?

[+Simply Paul]

...I would say Munkeh knows the duck quite well though.

Is that code for sock puppet?

[+mongoose39uk]

No, just someone that MrsB talks to regularly and has even cached with.

 

No socks would go near Munkehs feet

[+uk89camaro]

 

It doesn't need a genius to work out what happened there.

 

Well consider me for the moment, to not be a genius, as it appears you are proporting yourself to be. Please say what you think rather than attempting to elucidate your thoughts. Make's it a bit simpler that way.

 

Small minded people like you who clearly have had some extremely minor issues with reviewers, not moderaters per se, want to create a huge mountain out of a molehill in order to fill a hole in your life, that you appear not to be able to fill with something a bit more useful.

 

Like family, like charity work, or even a CITO event.

 

I was going to say it's "just plastic boxes in the woods", but clearly you have a disproportionate life/hobby balance, and you should take advice from a professional.

 

You, and your crew have sucessfully managed to drive out two moderators. Well done mate, I mean you must feel so proud, and this is what you will teach your children?

 

Now I'm off to fix up some shelves for a charity in the morning, at the expense of a FTF..It's a hobby FFS

 

Happy to help.

[+purple_pineapple]

 

It doesn't need a genius to work out what happened there.

 

Well consider me for the moment, to not be a genius, as it appears you are proporting yourself to be. Please say what you think rather than attempting to elucidate your thoughts. Make's it a bit simpler that way.

 

Small minded people like you who clearly have had some extremely minor issues with reviewers, not moderaters per se, want to create a huge mountain out of a molehill in order to fill a hole in your life, that you appear not to be able to fill with something a bit more useful.

 

Like family, like charity work, or even a CITO event.

 

I was going to say it's "just plastic boxes in the woods", but clearly you have a disproportionate life/hobby balance, and you should take advice from a professional.

 

You, and your crew have sucessfully managed to drive out two moderators. Well done mate, I mean you must feel so proud, and this is what you will teach your children?

 

Now I'm off to fix up some shelves for a charity in the morning, at the expense of a FTF..It's a hobby FFS

 

Happy to help.

 

In defence of Alan, (although he's more than capable of defending himself anyway! ) I don't think he has been abusive of the moderators at any point, let alone instrumental in driving them out.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I was rather hoping that after the recent sad and shameful episodes, it might be a timely opportunity for everyone to step back and allow the forums to return to some normality, even if that means a lack of debate for a short while. I'm not sure that calling people small-minded is quite within the guidelines anyway, but either way it should be possible to have a difference of opinion (which is all this is - none of us know which of Lucilla's reasons are the most important) without resorting to confrontational posts

[+Simply Paul]

No, just someone that MrsB talks to regularly and has even cached with.

 

No socks would go near Munkehs feet

Thanks for making that clear mongers. I wasn't being too serious, but it's worth knowing the details. And while I'm here, I'll tut at uk89camaro: <tut>

[+mongoose39uk]

Tis ok knew you were not serious, also know that I would not wanna be munkehs socks

[+Haggis Hunter]

No, Groundspeak has, once again, driven the moderators to resign because it doesn't want them to manage the forum in accordance with the wishes of the forum members.

Alan

 

Mandarin's detailed post highlighted several reasons why she stepped down. In the other thread, you expressed a belief that one of her paragraphs was the "key" one. This paragraph was indeed to do with Groundspeak.

 

In doing so, you chose to overlook the paragraph in which she alluded to the behaviour of certain forum contributors, particularly their treatment of reviewers.

 

I can't and wouldn't try to second-guess the relative importance of the reasons. But it concerns me that you're trumpeting the one involving Groundspeak - while ignoring the one which could, perhaps, reflect a little bit on you, together with everybody else here.

 

Regards

Richard

Well said Richard. Are you coming tomorrow night, I think I shall buy you a milkshake

 

you chose to overlook the paragraph in which she alluded to the behaviour of certain forum contributors, particularly their treatment of reviewers.

I chose to focus on the more important, and the probably real, reason. Consider the - very short - chain of events:

- I, supported by many others, suggested that too many threads are being locked

- mandarin points out that most are locked at the request of the OP and asks if we'd like her to stop doing that

- everybody says yes please, threads should be allowed to die naturally

- mandarin says sure, no problem. Everyone says great, thanks for listening

- overnight, mandarin resigns because of "differences in interpretations of GSP's forum policies"

 

It doesn't need a genius to work out what happened there.

Alan I have highlighted the only sensible thing you have said in this statement. Everything else is speculation and your original post did not come across that way. How you would know that was the deciding factor of Lucilla resigning is beyond me?

[+Haggis Hunter]

Well consider me for the moment, to not be a genius, as it appears you are proporting yourself to be. Please say what you think rather than attempting to elucidate your thoughts. Make's it a bit simpler that way.

 

Small minded people like you who clearly have had some extremely minor issues with reviewers, not moderaters per se, want to create a huge mountain out of a molehill in order to fill a hole in your life, that you appear not to be able to fill with something a bit more useful.

 

Like family, like charity work, or even a CITO event.

 

I was going to say it's "just plastic boxes in the woods", but clearly you have a disproportionate life/hobby balance, and you should take advice from a professional.

 

You, and your crew have sucessfully managed to drive out two moderators. Well done mate, I mean you must feel so proud, and this is what you will teach your children?

Although I may agree with the sentiments of your post, I am afraid that I think the above quote borders or even breaches forum rules and to me looks like a direct insult to Alan.

[+mcwomble]

Can anyone see why a simple cache that mentions a 1985 memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre is regarded as soliciting whereas caches based around war memorials seem OK.

 

I can't but our local reviewers seem to take exception to it.

 

Any thoughts anyone?

Or, if you take his post at face value:

D A genuine question from someone confused as to what the problem was.

That's the meaning I took from it, which is why I posted my initial thoughts. While using his situation 'as an example', he compared it to war memorials to keep it in a wider context. I did suggest to him his timing might not be the wisest too, but once the question is out there...

 

I can only quote my last post of that thread #51

 

In defence of Graculus and as originator of this thread

 

i) My original submission was reviewed and I took Graculus's points on board and rewrote significant parts of it - one paragraph was omitted and two more rewritten.

Having had Graculus's subsequent response to the original submission I can fully understand the reasons why, what I had originally submitted were unadmissable.

 

ii) I resubmitted what I thought was a meek and mild version and sat awaiting Graculus' comments & response.

 

iii) This resubmission was picked up by Deceangi and was again rejected requiring me to make the published alteration. It was that alteration to what seemed to me an already meek and mild, which annoyed me somewhat and in a fit of pique I posted to the forums. I shouldn't have done, as many have pointed out, put it down to being a newbie!

 

My original intention behind the forum post was not to attack the decision but to

i) try and discover why some memorials (eg war memorials) are considered politically correct enough to be mentioned in cache reports whilst others are not and

ii) whether the incorrect versions ever become PC and is it a case of just passing time or numbers dead.

In both cases they commemorate the fact that people lost their lives and to me I distinguish no difference.

<snip>

 

I cannot help but wonder if had I submitted the meek & mild version first including the reference to the shootings whether it would have been accepted without any fuss and whether the original submission had in all naive innocence raised the collective hackles. We'll never know, but I've learnt patience for next time.

 

<snip>

 

In response to what I originally submitted

 

i) it wasn't a complete cut&paste job as has been suggested but the original text was used as the basis. I cut out some of the bits I felt were too over the top

ii) The cache was called "In Memoriam - Sharpeville Hills" and was based on 2 local "In Memoriam .." caches centred on local War Memorials and I used as similar wording as possible.

iii) The short description read something along the lines of

Whatever your political views, you are invited to stand and remember the 69 innocent black protesters killed in the Sharpeville Massacre

 

The political views comment is what rang the warning bells and caused the initial rejection.

I ACCEPTED this initial rejection decision and had no problem with it, which I then edit as is.

 

As has already been supposed I wonder whether an initial meek and mild version would have been accepted without mention.

 

I thought having found approaching 200 finds at the time, that I'd got enough knowledge as to writing a cache description myself. My experience has only gone to show that no matter how you think you've written something, someone else can always see a different and in some cases more sinister side of things.

The reviewers have in my opinion a tough job on their hands and they tread a fine line doing so.

 

YES - I should have waited for discussions to continue and not post to the forum, I'll know that for next time.

But I was genuinely confused as to what the difference was, why some memorials are still considered "sensitive" or politically incorrect even after nearly 50 years?

[+Morton]

But I was genuinely confused as to what the difference was, why some memorials are still considered "sensitive" or politically incorrect even after nearly 50 years?

I'm not sure you can put a logical explanation on it James, it's just that some things are still raw and tender, while in other cases we're at peace with ourselves. I don't think the amount of time passed has much to do with it. Here in Scotland for example, I'd be moderately careful what I said about Culloden, and THAT happened in 1746.

 

If I had cause to refer to Sharpeville in some public context, I'd be especially cautious - primarily because it's part of the narrative of a complex and sensitive period, easing towards reconciliation, and about which I know very little. It's extremely difficult to understand the nuances, and to spot the unintended apple-carts our words might upset.

 

One specific thing I'd do would be to avoid the word "massacre", notwithstanding that it's commonly used to refer to the tragic events of 1960.

 

I realise that many people are going to disagree with me on this one (and, sorry, it's very unlikely I'll be willing to debate the point, for exactly the reason outlined above). As in previous posts, though, I'm trying to present an alternative point of view.

 

Best wishes

Richard

[+uk89camaro]

No, just someone that MrsB talks to regularly and has even cached with.

 

No socks would go near Munkehs feet

Thanks for making that clear mongers. I wasn't being too serious, but it's worth knowing the details. And while I'm here, I'll tut at uk89camaro: <tut>

 

This brings a recent event to mind...

 

I have a major retail account that I deal with, worth many English Pounds to my business. That's not a brag, it's a fact that is useful in making this analogy.

 

I went into the local co-op today and the cashier was having a dickey fit over the fact that the Lottery machine was playing up..."too much stress".

 

SP, if you wish to state some facts, then please do. But to only give me stress over a <tut>, or even a double <tut><tut>, is reprehensible in it's failure to provoke a response of even the mildest of "Chubby Brown" repsonses.

 

So, let's not get stressed over something that does not significantly affect our lives.

 

You really must try harder.

[+Haggis Hunter]

Here in Scotland for example, I'd be moderately careful what I said about Culloden, and THAT happened in 1746.

Oh yeah, you had to go and bring up Culloden didn't you???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+Simply Paul]

Well, since you ask. I was going to leave it at tut...

 

It doesn't need a genius to work out what happened there.

Well consider me for the moment, to not be a genius, as it appears you are proporting yourself to be. Please say what you think rather than attempting to elucidate your thoughts. Make's it a bit simpler that way.

Alan says you don't have to be a genius. You say that means he thinks he is. But he's saying you don't need to be a genius... He's explained what was on his mind anyway, so you either followed it or you didn't.

Small minded people like you who clearly have had some extremely minor issues with reviewers, not moderaters per se, want to create a huge mountain out of a molehill in order to fill a hole in your life, that you appear not to be able to fill with something a bit more useful.

You can say what you like about Alan (oh, you did ) but he's not known to resort to insults at the drop of a hat. He questions manarin's motivations, and suddenly you're an expert on his. You're also suddenly an expert on his life too. Have you been following Alan? Tapping his phones perhaps? Are you Alan's stalker?

Like family, like charity work, or even a CITO event.

You may already know all about his family, charity work and CITO activities

I was going to say it's "just plastic boxes in the woods", but clearly you have a disproportionate life/hobby balance, and you should take advice from a professional.

Another little bit of abuse, which reflects pretty badly on you, in my opinion. I've never reported a post (bar one years ago, which featured pornographic cartoons of transsexual foxes, if you can imagine such a thing) but I think you crossed the line there. I've still not hit that button (I'm not the forum police) but this post got me close to it. I think you owe Alan an apology, before someone else reports it. Of course, it might be regarded as fair comment, in which case the quality of forum moderation would have taken another step south, I'd say.

You, and your crew have sucessfully managed to drive out two moderators. Well done mate, I mean you must feel so proud, and this is what you will teach your children?

The only comments I've seen as 'evidence' of what made our reviewers choose to step down -apart from Deci saying he didn't want to be the prime-UK-mod- was a comment about dictatorship which didn't come from Alan or 'any of his crew'. I didn't even know Alan had a boat. As for his children (child, I think) well, parents get to pass their values on to their children. I hope, for example, he's installing the idea that it's better to have a reasoned argument than just slag someone off. That kind of thing.

Now I'm off to fix up some shelves for a charity in the morning, at the expense of a FTF..It's a hobby FFS

 

Happy to help.

I'm sure the charity in question were pleased you were happy to help, and you know, FTF-obsession is never a healthy thing, so that's good too. It is a hobby, but one which people feel strongly about, because they invest time, money and effort in it. Football's a hobby, and people get glassed over that...

 

Happy to expand on my tut. I hope it was educational

[+Munkeh]

given whats gone on you would think people would learn when to drop something

[+uk89camaro]

That's a much better effort.

 

My work here is done.

[+Simply Paul]

given whats gone on you would think people would learn when to drop something

Do you mean him or me? I had left it at <tut>.

 

Edit: Glad it was appreciated. And the apology to Alan?

Edited November 7, 2008 by Simply Paul

[+mtn-man]

given whats gone on you would think people would learn when to drop something

Do you mean him or me? I had left it at <tut>.

 

Edit: Glad it was appreciated. And the apology to Alan?

I've been sitting back kind of letting folks blow off some steam. Sometimes that is best, and this seemed like one of those times. It is interesting to see the UK community comment on both Alan's post and on uk89camaro's post. I see some form of self-moderation taking place within the community. I think community members here have said some of the things I might have said to both of them actually, had I felt the need to step in. Most know where I would be coming from and could probably imagine what I might have said, and which posts above would apply. Hearing your fellow cachers say the same thing probably carries more weight, since they are your peers, and in many cases -- your friends.

 

Still, what will help heal an ailing community is sometimes using the backspace key. We are all fellow cachers in the long run, enjoying a game. A comment can have "force", or it can have "bite". Some of you need to back off of the "bite", use the backspace key, and maybe just give a bit of "force" in your argument. Use the preview button and read what you are about to post. Would you say this to a friend? Many times, no. Then, apologies tend to not be needed. We shouldn't have to get to that point anyway (and the point when I start stacking up admin bricks for tossing).

 

Treat each other like you want to be treated. The backspace key can be your best friend.

[big_bob]

and that is why we are lucky to have mtn-man as mod in this forum!