Questions about forum guidelines...

January 26, 2011

These are questions that I have about the forum guidelines. Not that I don't trust my husband in what he says, but after I read them I am not for sure I fully understand them myself.

Based on reading the forum guidelines I believe in I am the right forum room area or whatever you call it for this discussion. If I am not, my apologies.

So if you don't mind I would like to ask a few questions regarding the forum guidelines.

Question 1. In regards to guideline #3 (Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. 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.)

If a moderator violates someones cival rights. Is this condidered a personal attack & not critisim even when you can provide the examples as to why what they did was good or bad? Do the forums not allow for discussion, of possible legal implifications of the actions of moderators or reviewers, by the members of the geocaching community, even though those discussing the situation are not legally afiliated with Groundspeak?Does this require that legal counsel be involved even when the discussion is only among the geogaching community and not those directly associated with Groundspeak?

Is a discussion about a mistake a moderator may or may not have made considered to be a personal attack?

Question 2. Regulation #5 "Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that veer off topic may be closed by a moderator."

I can see why the post that I made in that one thread was deleted. As it was off topic of the main thread. However, in my thread I did take offense as to some prior posts in that thread about things said about my husband, & not fully understanding why he did what he did. I have reported those posts as offensive as those posts the posters don't understand the problems that my husband have. I posted what I posted that was deleted in defense of my husband.

I would like more clarification on this regulation as well. I see many threads that have similar topics. Some are very general, Some are also very specific. At what point does a moderator decide that 2 threads are to similar and lock one. Why don't they give a better explanation? Why even lock it, As I read regulation #5, no where in that statement does it say anything about not allowing or having multiple threads about the same topic, or even topics that are very similar.

Regulation #5 from my perspective seems to talk about making sure you stay on topic within the thread, & that you post new threads about a topic in the correct forum room. ie don't post about issues your having with your iPhone app, in the general geocaching.com topic room. Where does it imply or say though that a room can't have several threads with similar or even the same topic of discussion?

Question #3 in regards to regulation #1 (Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.)

Does this apply to the moderators & reviewers as well? Because IMHO IFEEL that they have not done so with myself or my husband. As well as a few posts towards my husband in that room. Sure thats my opinon. But its how we FEEL we are treated that counts the most.

WNT

3.3k · January 26, 2011

I must say that I am not willing to browse through and read the various active forum topics to try to figure out what you are attempting to discuss and challenge.

3.3k · January 26, 2011

You tell 'em WNT. The moderators around here can pretty do what they want and double standards abound. One minut they be sleepin on the job and the next they be like nazis closing everything in site.

Says the account opened today. :blink:

3.3k · January 26, 2011

U gots a point or just showin yer ignoranse?

Now that there is funny.

3.3k · January 26, 2011

You were for a moment. Buh, bye.

3.7k · January 26, 2011

You tell 'em WNT. The moderators around here can pretty do what they want and double standards abound. One minut they be sleepin on the job and the next they be like nazis closing everything in site.

Wow, Godwin's law right out of the gate.

January 26, 2011

To wrastro & Uknowuright..

Please stop the bickering. Those posts are all OFF topic.

The topic of this thread is not about any past issues that maybe going on with my husband, myself, Groundspeak, or the moderators actions.

The questions I have about clarification of the current forum guidelines is the TOPIC of this thread. Not about any other issues.

Thank You

WNT

3.3k · January 26, 2011

I repeat my comments from post #2 of this topic.

January 26, 2011

I must say that I am not willing to browse through and read the various active forum topics to try to figure out what you are attempting to discuss and challenge.

No need too. This thread isn't about any other issue except that of clarification of the current forum guidelines.

I am a newbie as they say. So forget about any other issues. That isn't the point of this thread.

All I want is to have a better understanding of the forum guidelines. Is that to much to ask? Please don't be sarcastic... I will find that rude and violation of regulation #1 of the forum guidelines.

WNT

Edited January 26, 2011 by WildNTexas

6.7k · January 26, 2011

I must say that I am not willing to browse through and read the various active forum topics to try to figure out what you are attempting to discuss and challenge.

No need too. This thread isn't about any other issue except that of clarification of the current forum guidelines.

I am a newbie as they say. So forget about any other issues. That isn't the point of this thread.

All I want is to have a better understanding of the forum guidelines.

WNT

I suggest that you email contact@geocaching.com. You are really not going to get a final word on policy from anyone here. The mods don't make policy and the users can only give you their opinions. Best to go to the source.

1.1k · January 26, 2011

You have no civil rights on an Internet Forum other than the right to stay away from the ones you don't like.

3.3k · January 26, 2011

sorry. wastro took the conversation in anuther direction by saying he was two lazy to look for the threads that made you open this one.

there are no civil rights here. this is a privet forum. they can do what they want. instead of askin bout cival rights you should be asking if the moderaters should follow the rulez like everyone else and not get special traetment and be able to treat everyone any way they want

There is not yet any coherent conversation within this thread. That was the point of my first post. In order to attempt to respond to the OP anyone would be required to search these forums to attempt to discern the source of the concern.

1.4k · January 26, 2011

MUST...resist...discussing...cival...rights. <_<

January 26, 2011

sorry. wastro took the conversation in anuther direction by saying he was two lazy to look for the threads that made you open this one.

there are no civil rights here. this is a privet forum. they can do what they want. instead of askin bout cival rights you should be asking if the moderaters should follow the rulez like everyone else and not get special traetment and be able to treat everyone any way they want

Again the point of this thread wasn't about cival rights, the actions of the moderators good or bad, or the actions &/or posts from myself or my husband.

The point of this thread is so I can get a better understanding of the forum guidelines. That my friend is the topic of this thread.

THREAD TOPIC.... FORUM GUIDELINES in relation to the questions I posted above. Topic thread is NOT about anything else. Period.

WNT

January 26, 2011

sorry. wastro took the conversation in anuther direction by saying he was two lazy to look for the threads that made you open this one.

there are no civil rights here. this is a privet forum. they can do what they want. instead of askin bout cival rights you should be asking if the moderaters should follow the rulez like everyone else and not get special traetment and be able to treat everyone any way they want

There is not yet any coherent conversation within this thread. That was the point of my first post. In order to attempt to respond to the OP anyone would be required to search these forums to attempt to discern the source of the concern.

My concern... I don't understand the forum guidelines. Simple.

WNT

January 26, 2011

Hi, WildNTexas.

I am a Groundspeak employee and I will attempt to clarify the situations you have mentioned. However, if at any time you believe a site volunteer (moderator or reviewer) has treated you inappropriately, I encourage you to clearly document the situation in an email to appeals@geocaching.com where a Groundspeak employee will be happy to work with you.

Question 1. The general point here is that the forums exist to ask questions about or discuss "things" like caches, rules, guidelines, opinions, behaviors, etc. The forums are not for discussing or criticizing people - be they cachers, property owners, site volunteers, etc. Generally using the third person works pretty well - the other cacher wrote this in his log; the reviewer told me this, etc. Stated another way, the forums are not a place for personal arguments. And I'm afraid that's the best I can do on this question without knowing the specific situation.

I'm not sure about the comment on violating someone's civil rights, but that comes up sometimes when a moderator states that a particular topic cannot be discussed in the forums. An example of that might be a discussion of a competitor. The "freedom of speech" topic has to do with the government not being allowed to prevent you from saying things that the government may not like. That does not apply in private sector communications. We cannot take a sign touting Books A Million into a Barnes & Noble bookstore, for example. Commercial entities have the right to tell you that you cannot advertise a competitor at their place of business, or on their web site.

Question 2. The idea of staying on topic is to make the forums easier to use by everyone by keeping related topics together. One point is to look in the listed forum topics before posting to see if the issue is already being discussed. Another point is to avoid injecting a separate subject into an ongoing conversation.

Question 3. I agree that your question in another topic about contacting Keystone was not handled well. Regrettably, you inadvertently touched a "hot button" and folks assumed that you might be trying to communicate with him in a troublesome way. Keystone has been a moderator here for a very long time and he is like the rest of us - loved by many, respected by most, and disliked by a few. The fact that your question was not addressed in a respectful manner initially was inappropriate. In a token defense of the forum regulars, the question you raised comes up from time to time in a very negative context - so you received a knee-jerk reaction. Please accept my apology for that.

I do not know the details of the issue with your husband that you mentioned. If you believe further discussion on that is needed, please write to appeals@geocaching.com The folks at Groundspeak will be happy to assist you further.

I hope you find this helpful.

5.3k · January 26, 2011

If a moderator violates someones cival rights. Is this condidered a personal attack & not critisim even when you can provide the examples as to why what they did was good or bad?

Ya know, that particular misspelling of "civil rights" looks identical to a misspelling in another post by a another person... I wonder how that happened?

FWIW, sock puppets are explicitly forbidden in the forum guidelines. In case you were wondering.

January 26, 2011

I must say that I am not willing to browse through and read the various active forum topics to try to figure out what you are attempting to discuss and challenge.

No need too. This thread isn't about any other issue except that of clarification of the current forum guidelines.

I am a newbie as they say. So forget about any other issues. That isn't the point of this thread.

All I want is to have a better understanding of the forum guidelines.

WNT

I suggest that you email contact@geocaching.com. You are really not going to get a final word on policy from anyone here. The mods don't make policy and the users can only give you their opinions. Best to go to the source.

Thank you very much for your honest direct answer & not being rude, crude, or disrepectfull. You are probably right.

I might be better off asking Groundspeak directly.

I did have a point though to using the forum for this question. I wanted to see how the geocaching community viewed & understood the forum guidelines as well. Not just by those who made them.

Obviously though, at least not yet, that hasn't been the case.

One thing I have observed in these forums is something that I can now easily understand why they get my husband so worked up over. I might just have to do all his posting for him to make sure that the guidelines are strictly followed by him. Although to do so would require that understand them better myself. For those of you who don't know, my husband does have several mental disabilites. He is mildly austistic as well as having ADD.

Thanks though, I do appreciate your honesty and stopping to actually provide some usefull feedback rather then taking other disresctfull actions. I also appreciate you giving me the respect you did by doing so.

WNT

7.7k · January 26, 2011

Ya know, that particular misspelling of "civil rights" looks identical to a misspelling in another post by a another person... I wonder how that happened?

Amateur forensic spelling analysis caused a lot of angst and some embarrassment some time back.

January 26, 2011

I must say that I am not willing to browse through and read the various active forum topics to try to figure out what you are attempting to discuss and challenge.

No need too. This thread isn't about any other issue except that of clarification of the current forum guidelines.

I am a newbie as they say. So forget about any other issues. That isn't the point of this thread.

All I want is to have a better understanding of the forum guidelines.

WNT

I suggest that you email contact@geocaching.com. You are really not going to get a final word on policy from anyone here. The mods don't make policy and the users can only give you their opinions. Best to go to the source.

Thank you very much for your honest direct answer & not being rude, crude, or disrepectfull. You are probably right.

I might be better off asking Groundspeak directly.

I did have a point though to using the forum for this question. I wanted to see how the geocaching community viewed & understood the forum guidelines as well. Not just by those who made them.

Obviously though, at least not yet, that hasn't been the case.

One thing I have observed in these forums is something that I can now easily understand why they get my husband so worked up over. I might just have to do all his posting for him to make sure that the guidelines are strictly followed by him. Although to do so would require that understand them better myself. For those of you who don't know, my husband does have several mental disabilites. He is mildly austistic as well as having ADD.

Thanks though, I do appreciate your honesty and stopping to actually provide some usefull feedback rather then taking other disresctfull actions. I also appreciate you giving me the respect you did by doing so.

WNT

Hi WNT.

I'm a little slow - in the time it took for me to reply in post #21 to your questions several other posts were added. I have removed some of the more irrelevant posts, and some will complain about my violation of their freedom of speech. The fact is that folks are not free to say those things here.

I regret the lack of hospitality that has been demonstrated. That's not how things really are here.

-Brad

7.7k · January 26, 2011

ive been opprossed. my cival rights has been violation.

Personally, I am surprised your account hasn't been banned yet. The forum equivalent of pouring gasoline on fire by what appears to be a sock puppet account is not normally tolerated by the mods.

January 26, 2011

Hi, WildNTexas.

I am a Groundspeak employee and I will attempt to clarify the situations you have mentioned. However, if at any time you believe a site volunteer (moderator or reviewer) has treated you inappropriately, I encourage you to clearly document the situation in an email to appeals@geocaching.com where a Groundspeak employee will be happy to work with you.

Thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to respond to my questions. I appreciate that you gave me the respect and courtesy to respond to my questions in a dignified manner. To that I thank you.

I have added that email address to my address to book to use in case their are any questions in the future with any moderator. Hopefully though their won't be.

Question 1. The general point here is that the forums exist to ask questions about or discuss "things" like caches, rules, guidelines, opinions, behaviors, etc. The forums are not for discussing or criticizing people - be they cachers, property owners, site volunteers, etc. Generally using the third person works pretty well - the other cacher wrote this in his log; the reviewer told me this, etc. Stated another way, the forums are not a place for personal arguments. And I'm afraid that's the best I can do on this question without knowing the specific situation.

From the way you explained it there, I clearly did not fully comprehend or understand guideline #3. The way I understand is that their is no discussion of individual persons of any grouping in the geocaching community. Any critisism is left only for the caches, rules, guidelines, opinions as long as they are followed with respectfull courteous explanation. All individuals need to be refered to in the third person more as a group as you explained. No personal arguments between two or more people. Your explanation is much better than the one used in the guidelines. Maybe you might consider updating how that rule is written? Just a suggestion. Do to the disability my husband has. He takes things very litterely. If it isn't explicitly spelled out. Then it isn't written. Not unlike real legal law.

I'm not sure about the comment on violating someone's civil rights, but that comes up sometimes when a moderator states that a particular topic cannot be discussed in the forums. An example of that might be a discussion of a competitor. The "freedom of speech" topic has to do with the government not being allowed to prevent you from saying things that the government may not like. That does not apply in private sector communications. We cannot take a sign touting Books A Million into a Barnes & Noble bookstore, for example. Commercial entities have the right to tell you that you cannot advertise a competitor at their place of business, or on their web site.

The reason I used the term "Cival Rights" is because of the personal email I received from a certain moderator, informing me of possible legal implications & that I should contact groundspeaks legal counsel. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a TYPE of Cival rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act applies to every business, Non-Profit or for profit, all institutions in the jurisdictional bounds of the United States of America. No business or institution is exempt from the ADA. Including internet sites. The ADA requires that a business or institution provide reasonable accomadations to inviduals that request those accomadations. Providing that the individual has a disability covered by the ADA. In that case. A moderator &/or reviewer could in fact violate those so called cival rights. It's no different than a restaurant being required to have access ramps for wheelchairs to enter their buisness. I was not using the term cival rights as a reference to freedom of speach. Nor was I or my husband trying to do anything of a commercial nature. I had no problem with understanding the limits of freedom of speach in the forums, even in regards to commercial entities. While a restaurant does have the right to control what you say in their restaurant, limiting your freedom of speach. They are still required to provide reasonable accomdations to allow you to eat in their establishment if you do have a ADA covered disability. Including providing a No smoking area, etc...

Question 2. The idea of staying on topic is to make the forums easier to use by everyone by keeping related topics together. One point is to look in the listed forum topics before posting to see if the issue is already being discussed. Another point is to avoid injecting a separate subject into an ongoing conversation.

I would like to make a suggestion/request then. One that will provide reasonable accomadations for those who are autistic, have ADD (Attention defficit disorder) as well as other mentail disabilities. This is a request for what should be considered a reasonable accomadation under the ADA. That is when threads get exceptionally long. Such as over 300 posts, &/or are NOT a topic that is very specific. That is it's a broad topic thread. Then allow more specific threads on topics that maybe very similar, but are more specific. This would make it even easier for those with ADD &/or austic as well as other mental disabilities. As for exceptionally long threads. Break them up, or get them more focused & allow a similar topic thread that maybe in a slightly different direction.

EXAMPLE:

The thread about VIRTUALS... Have a thread about allowing them or not allowing them, & a thread about suggested rules, guidelines & regulations about virtuals should they be enabled again. The one thread you have. Seems to have posts from both areas of Virtuals. This made it VERY confusing and hard to understand by my husband.

Thanks though for your explanation. Again you stated it much better in that short paragraph than what the guidelines state. The guidline mentioned nothing about not starting new ones.

Question 3. I agree that your question in another topic about contacting Keystone was not handled well. Regrettably, you inadvertently touched a "hot button" and folks assumed that you might be trying to communicate with him in a troublesome way. Keystone has been a moderator here for a very long time and he is like the rest of us - loved by many, respected by most, and disliked by a few. The fact that your question was not addressed in a respectful manner initially was inappropriate. In a token defense of the forum regulars, the question you raised comes up from time to time in a very negative context - so you received a knee-jerk reaction. Please accept my apology for that.

I do not know the details of the issue with your husband that you mentioned. If you believe further discussion on that is needed, please write to appeals@geocaching.com The folks at Groundspeak will be happy to assist you further.

I hope you find this helpful.

I have done just that. I as well as my husband have both sent emails to the email address you gave in regards to the ORIGINAL issue that started most of this mess in the first place. Hopefully they will get our issues resolved in a manner that will be satisfactory to Groundspeak, the forums, my husband & myself.

Thank you again for taking the time & giving me the courtesy of responding to my questions in this thread. We are a very upfront, direct & honest family. We always tell it how we see it &/or feel it. Some of the actions taken by certain peoples (there were several) we took great offense too.

To you Brad & to any other forum members who are reading this post I say this....

I apologize for myself & my husband for any actions that we took &/or said that others may have taken offense to as well. I tend to have better self-control than my husband. My husband tends to be more vocal when he gets offended, or feels violated in some manner than I do. But if I did personaly say something that offended someone, then I am truly sorry.

To other forum members...

In the future... for posts you may find from my husband. Keep in mind he takes things literely. He takes things to heart. He takes great offense to being blindsided. Those are just part of his disabilities... Even so I am not saying that excuses anything he might say or do. Just understand why.

Thank You

WNT

P.S. Brad... Please feel free to LOCK this thread as you answered my questions quite nicely. Although I would love to get some actual forum user feedback to my questions and how they understand the forum guidelines, I am afraid that the chances of that happening are sadly not going to happen, & the continued sarcastic remarks and comments will continue. So it maybe in both of our best interests to lock this thread.

Thanks.

Edited January 26, 2011 by WildNTexas

January 26, 2011

The reason I used the term "Cival Rights" is because of the personal email I received from a certain moderator, informing me of possible legal implications & that I should contact groundspeaks legal counsel. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a TYPE of Cival rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act applies to every business, Non-Profit or for profit, all institutions in the jurisdictional bounds of the United States of America. No business or institution is exempt from the ADA. Including internet sites. The ADA requires that a business or institution provide reasonable accomadations to inviduals that request those accomadations. Providing that the individual has a disability covered by the ADA. In that case. A moderator &/or reviewer could in fact violate those so called cival rights. It's no different than a restaurant being required to have access ramps for wheelchairs to enter their buisness. I was not using the term cival rights as a reference to freedom of speach. Nor was I or my husband trying to do anything of a commercial nature. I had no problem with understanding the limits of freedom of speach in the forums, even in regards to commercial entities. While a restaurant does have the right to control what you say in their restaurant, limiting your freedom of speach. They are still required to provide reasonable accomdations to allow you to eat in their establishment if you do have a ADA covered disability. Including providing a No smoking area, etc...

just becuase someone has disable does not mean they can say anything they wants. reasobanle accomdations would mean somethin like making site readable by text to apeach or similar if needed. for instance most guvment sites are careful to be sure they work withe txt to speach for the blind. but you still would not be able to call the presidant a twit on the white house page.

I am really honestly not going to dignify that with an answer. Other then to say this... I wasn't nor was my husband ever using freedom of speach as his cival rights. If HE did he didn't mean too. Nor was he or I using the ADA with the freedom of speach as well. Sorry if that is what you understood. That is not what neither he or I were trying to communicate. Obviously unsucessfully.

Go back and read some more of what I responded to Brad about and the reasonable accomadations that I mentioned and requested from Brad. None of it has anything to do with freedom of speach.

WNT

January 26, 2011

To those of you who think "Uknowtheywrong" is a sock puppet, I do not know if he is a sock puppet like some of you claim or not. I did look up what exactly is a sock puppet.

I do know this... that whoever it is. It isn't myself nor is it my husband. One computer household and except earlier this evening (Before 6pm CST) he hasn't been online in the forums posting anything, nor have I allowed him on the computer.

Same thing applies to any other account that you may think is a sock puppet as well.

So in case your assuming... Don't.

WNT

21.9k · January 26, 2011

ive been opprossed. my cival rights has been violation.

Personally, I am surprised your account hasn't been banned yet. The forum equivalent of pouring gasoline on fire by what appears to be a sock puppet account is not normally tolerated by the mods.

You'll have to forgive us for sleeping sometimes. It's 4:30 in the morning and I'm on the job. :anicute:

7.4k · January 26, 2011

Expecting the entire forum to slow down to a pace that you and your husband can handle is not a "reasonable" accommodation.

Many people lurk for a long time before jumping in, so when they do start to participate, they are well-grounded in the knowledge required to participate in a meaningful way.

It's generally considered rude to leap into a forum without considering the culture and having the background knowledge to keep up. Whenever a discussion has to back up because of a n00b, it's unfair to the people who are trying to engage in serious discourse. Asking to have these longer threads broken up because you're not tall enough to ride is inappropriate and inconsiderate.

There is a forum section for beginners that might suit you better. It's there for people who are just learning the ropes, and it's a gentler environment for people who can't keep up with the pace of the regular forum.

Edited January 26, 2011 by narcissa

January 26, 2011

people split topics all the time. it is not nesecarily a mod job to do this. if you feel somthing said in a topic deserves it own thread then start one with specific more narrowldy defined topic.

i think i am begining to agree with wastro. i think you should post example to demonastate what you be saying

To answer your question even though it is probably off topic. I will answer it like this. Since you did ask.

As YOU suggested. He did FEEL like he needed to create a new thread. When it was locked. He did not get a reason that he was able to understand. So he created the second thread.

Keep in mind he is autistic as well as having ADD. Both covered by the ADA.

The thread that the mods wanted him to post in was a thread that consisted at the time of more than 300 posts and covered the broad topic area of virtuals. It coverd everything from suggested guidelines to a discussion about if virtuals should even exist.

This thread was way to long and way to broad for him to understand, comprehend, follow, or keep up with. It would have been even harder if he posted his thoughts and ideas about virtuals in the thread as well. He would not have been able to keep up with any replies to his posts. Simply because the thread had gotten to big, to large, and to long.

Thus he DID create a new thread. One that was very specific to the desires he was trying to fullfill. Get feedback on his ideas for possible guidelines on virtuals. It doesn't matter if his ideas were good or bad. That isn't the point.

Alowing him to keep his thread would NOT have created any undue hardship, or excessive financial stress on Groundspeak. These are the only 2 defenses any company, institution or entity have in not fullfilling a request for reasonable accomadation as required by the ADA.

When his first thread was locked. The mod did not give an explanation that someone with his disabilites was able to understand. Doesn't matter if you or others are able to or not. He didn't, that is why he created the second thread.

Then other things happend, & things progressively got worse. If you ever do any research on someone who is austistic, & they are upset it isn't an easy thing to control. Trust me I know. I am his wife. I have lived with him for over 17 years. Some things were said to him that weren't very nice. I am not excusing his behaviour though. Just helping you & others understand where he is coming from. He takes things literely. Like most austistic people. If you asked do you know what time it is.. He will say "Yes I do". He won't give you the time. He isn't trying to be funny, when he does that. It is the way autistic people are. If you want him to tell you the time. You have to specifically, say. "Please tell me what time it is now".

I hope this has helped a few of you understand what is going on, why & our point of view.

I also hope this has helped answer your questions.

here are the links you requested.

First link is for the first thread he created...

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=267629&view=findpost&p=4596179&hl=texasgrillchef&fromsearch=1

This is the second thread her created...

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=267638&view=findpost&p=4596533&hl=texasgrillchef&fromsearch=1

This is the excessively long thread that they wanted him to post in.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=266855&view=findpost&p=4597114&hl=texasgrillchef&fromsearch=1

Now you may or may not agree with the ADA, or if this does or doesn't fall in it. But unless your a lawyer specializing in ADA law, you may just not have the background to understand how powerfull this act is.

What I would like to do is apologize for everything that has happend on our behalf. At no point in time did either of us ever truly mean any individual any personal grief, harm, or had any desire to offend them. I think many things were said by us and others back n forth in the heat of passion. I am more controlled than my husband is, for obvious reasons.

What I can say is this. I have locked my personal accounts so he won't be using them, & he won't be using the forums unless I am present. That is a promise I can make to all of you.

All I ask in return, is you keep in mind where he is coming from and don't be sarcastic. He doesn't take sarcasm well and finds it very rude & disrepectful. Sorry if thats a problem for you all.

WNT

January 26, 2011

Expecting the entire forum to slow down to a pace that you and your husband can handle is not a "reasonable" accommodation.

Many people lurk for a long time before jumping in, so when they do start to participate, they are well-grounded in the knowledge required to participate in a meaningful way.

It's generally considered rude to leap into a forum without considering the culture and having the background knowledge to keep up. Whenever a discussion has to back up because of a n00b, it's unfair to the people who are trying to engage in serious discourse. Asking to have these longer threads broken up because you're not tall enough to ride is inappropriate and inconsiderate.

There is a forum section for beginners that might suit you better. It's there for people who are just learning the ropes, and it's a gentler environment for people who can't keep up with the pace of the regular forum.

I find your comment very rude, inconsiderate of anyone with a disability as well. Thats like expecting or even requiring someone who is extremely allergic to smoke, or who has asthma to put up with going to a restaurant that allows smoking.

He wasn't asking the thread to slow down. He was just asking for a more specific thread. That ISN'T an unsreasonable request. An additional thread, would NOT have created an undue hardship for anyone.

Sometimes in life. It is considered rude of people NOT to slow down for other that maybe around them who are disabled. Say your in a big group of people who are walking to your local pub/restaurant/bar etc... but one of you is on crutches with a broken leg. I take it your group would leave your friend behind cause he/she couldn't keep up with your normal walking pace?

He isn't a noob... I am a noob in the forums. But he isn't. I wasn't asking the threads, or the forums to slow down for me, nor was I asking the forums to allow me to have a specific thread when another similar thread is going on.

In schools, they are required to slow down in classes sometimes so that the person with learning disabilities can catch up as well. Many times they are not in special classes. Especially in smaller schools where money is to scarce to hire the needed teachers.

But again.. he wasn't asking them to slow down. Just for a more specific thread & a better explanation to him when they locked the first thread.

Wnt

3.8k · January 26, 2011

Expecting the entire forum to slow down to a pace that you and your husband can handle is not a "reasonable" accommodation.

Many people lurk for a long time before jumping in, so when they do start to participate, they are well-grounded in the knowledge required to participate in a meaningful way.

It's generally considered rude to leap into a forum without considering the culture and having the background knowledge to keep up. Whenever a discussion has to back up because of a n00b, it's unfair to the people who are trying to engage in serious discourse. Asking to have these longer threads broken up because you're not tall enough to ride is inappropriate and inconsiderate.

There is a forum section for beginners that might suit you better. It's there for people who are just learning the ropes, and it's a gentler environment for people who can't keep up with the pace of the regular forum.

Wait, who's being rude here? I am now confused..

3.8k · January 26, 2011

Expecting the entire forum to slow down to a pace that you and your husband can handle is not a "reasonable" accommodation.

Many people lurk for a long time before jumping in, so when they do start to participate, they are well-grounded in the knowledge required to participate in a meaningful way.

It's generally considered rude to leap into a forum without considering the culture and having the background knowledge to keep up. Whenever a discussion has to back up because of a n00b, it's unfair to the people who are trying to engage in serious discourse. Asking to have these longer threads broken up because you're not tall enough to ride is inappropriate and inconsiderate.

There is a forum section for beginners that might suit you better. It's there for people who are just learning the ropes, and it's a gentler environment for people who can't keep up with the pace of the regular forum.

I find your comment very rude, inconsiderate of anyone with a disability as well. Thats like expecting or even requiring someone who is extremely allergic to smoke, or who has asthma to put up with going to a restaurant that allows smoking.

He wasn't asking the thread to slow down. He was just asking for a more specific thread. That ISN'T an unsreasonable request. An additional thread, would NOT have created an undue hardship for anyone.

Sometimes in life. It is considered rude of people NOT to slow down for other that maybe around them who are disabled. Say your in a big group of people who are walking to your local pub/restaurant/bar etc... but one of you is on crutches with a broken leg. I take it your group would leave your friend behind cause he/she couldn't keep up with your normal walking pace?

He isn't a noob... I am a noob in the forums. But he isn't. I wasn't asking the threads, or the forums to slow down for me, nor was I asking the forums to allow me to have a specific thread when another similar thread is going on.

In schools, they are required to slow down in classes sometimes so that the person with learning disabilities can catch up as well. Many times they are not in special classes. Especially in smaller schools where money is to scarce to hire the needed teachers.

But again.. he wasn't asking them to slow down. Just for a more specific thread & a better explanation to him when they locked the first thread.

Wnt

You'd be a lot better off if you just moved on from this topic.. and I am taking no position on your topic. There are many self righteous forum followers here that do NOT follow the spirit of civility as suggested in the guidelines.

January 26, 2011

Closing topic.

Questions about forum guidelines...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment