Jump to content

Clarification


GeoBain

Recommended Posts

As someone who has been put on a very short leash and having read about a number of high profile permanent vacations recently, I would like some clarification about what can or cannot be discussed.

 

There are a few topics that have been forbidden for quite a while that recently some mods have stated are not forbidden. There is an app that has caused some ire for a lot of cache owners that is now questionable about whether or not we can discuss it.

 

There are some recently rolled out website features that are problematic for a lot of users.

 

Please don't ban me for asking this question. On the contrary, I would like to know what is safe and what is not safe. As it is, I am hesitant to give an opinion on anything anymore.

 

One "solution" is to "play it safe." Only post to "count down the cheeseballs and win a prize in 100 years" threads. Or word association (& download a censor app like kids's forums use). And avoid risking jokes on the hot dog thread (like one northern poster who skated to the very edge of the thin ice!).

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment

As someone who has been put on a very short leash and having read about a number of high profile permanent vacations recently, I would like some clarification about what can or cannot be discussed.

 

There are a few topics that have been forbidden for quite a while that recently some mods have stated are not forbidden. There is an app that has caused some ire for a lot of cache owners that is now questionable about whether or not we can discuss it.

 

There are some recently rolled out website features that are problematic for a lot of users.

 

Please don't ban me for asking this question. On the contrary, I would like to know what is safe and what is not safe. As it is, I am hesitant to give an opinion on anything anymore.

 

One "solution" is to "play it safe." Only post to "count down the cheeseballs and win a prize in 100 years" threads. Or word association (& download a censor app like kids's forums use). And avoid risking jokes on the hot dog thread (like one northern poster who skated to the very edge of the thin ice!).

 

:ph34r:

 

 

And never, ever, ever post a picture of the Swedish bikini team.

Link to comment

 

If positions have changed on the use of those words, then should past infractions involving those words be held against the user?

 

I say yes. The longevity of it being used for future bans isn't due to the word itself; it's due the deliberate infraction.

 

The infractions aren't always deliberate.

Touche. Strike the word "deliberate" from my response. :)

It's like speeding. Whether one intended it or not, one got caught. 6 months later the speed limit on that stretch of road is raised. Should that erase the previous infraction?

 

Your statement that I took no action as a result of that thread prior to today is factually inaccurate. Since you are proceeding upon a flawed premise, it's difficult to answer constructively. You would be wise to take gpsfun's advice to move on to something else.

 

I just looked at that thread again.

 

I don't see any moderator action until the thread was closed.

B.

Having been a moderator on a different forum, I can assure you that visible actions taken directly in threads (nudges, warnings posted by mods) are only the tip of the iceberg. Just because you don't see it in the thread does not mean that action wasn't taken as a result of that thread. :)

 

About transparency and clarification of individual infractions: It has been a few years now, but I recall from that other forum that the lawyers made it clear that any moderator action (nudges, warnings, bans) were not to be discussed in public - neither with the general posting community nor with the offender. All clarification of the restriction/nudge/ban had to be directed to the one forum administrator, and even then you probably didn't get a straight answer. If it's the same situation here, then I recommend blaming the lawyers, not the moderators. :ph34r:

Link to comment

 

If positions have changed on the use of those words, then should past infractions involving those words be held against the user?

 

I say yes. The longevity of it being used for future bans isn't due to the word itself; it's due the deliberate infraction.

 

The infractions aren't always deliberate.

Touche. Strike the word "deliberate" from my response. :)

It's like speeding. Whether one intended it or not, one got caught. 6 months later the speed limit on that stretch of road is raised. Should that erase the previous infraction?

 

Your statement that I took no action as a result of that thread prior to today is factually inaccurate. Since you are proceeding upon a flawed premise, it's difficult to answer constructively. You would be wise to take gpsfun's advice to move on to something else.

 

I just looked at that thread again.

 

I don't see any moderator action until the thread was closed.

B.

Having been a moderator on a different forum, I can assure you that visible actions taken directly in threads (nudges, warnings posted by mods) are only the tip of the iceberg. Just because you don't see it in the thread does not mean that action wasn't taken as a result of that thread. :)

 

About transparency and clarification of individual infractions: It has been a few years now, but I recall from that other forum that the lawyers made it clear that any moderator action (nudges, warnings, bans) were not to be discussed in public - neither with the general posting community nor with the offender. All clarification of the restriction/nudge/ban had to be directed to the one forum administrator, and even then you probably didn't get a straight answer. If it's the same situation here, then I recommend blaming the lawyers, not the moderators. :ph34r:

 

As a moderator on another forum for a number of years, I can assure that I know all too well about communications "behind the scenes". Communications between moderators and members, and communications/discussions between moderators in the private Moderators' Forum.

 

(There were no lawyers involved in the decision to not publicly warn or ban folks. It was common sense, and common forum moderator practice.)

 

If that were the case here, then that probably would have been a more helpful message to post publicly, not that the poster had his facts wrong. What transpired publicly is all that the members have to take away from the forum. Nothing is learned about the "why" and "therefore" of actions / reactions.

 

 

B.

Link to comment

Trolls generally post controversial replies or topics in order to get people riled up.

Genuinely concerned people sometimes also post controversial topics. Many people have felt for many years that this forum is broken. My local geocachers have told me that many times. I am not so sure that the forum regulars are the real problem.

The key point of the description is now bolded.

Link to comment

Trolls generally post controversial replies or topics in order to get people riled up.

Genuinely concerned people sometimes also post controversial topics. Many people have felt for many years that this forum is broken. My local geocachers have told me that many times. I am not so sure that the forum regulars are the real problem.

The key point of the description is now bolded.

 

I don't know why you bothered to do that. What you said is true.

Link to comment

It's unfortunate that some people think that asking hard questions is akin to trolling. They don't understand what a true troll is.

 

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to be less accusatory and suspicious of others and treat honest questions with respect and courtesy.

 

In the "Getting Started" forum is a thread where a newbie accuses folks of lying about using phones to find caches. That is pretty incredible to me, and I've yet to see a Moderator post chastising the poster.

 

But long-time members of this forum have been accused of behaviour that they are not exhibiting.

 

There has long been unhappy feelings about the Groundspeak forum that have been expressed publicly. This is nothing new, and didn't start with this thread.

 

Long-time posters know that. They just need to acknowledge it.

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

 

If positions have changed on the use of those words, then should past infractions involving those words be held against the user?

 

I say yes. The longevity of it being used for future bans isn't due to the word itself; it's due the deliberate infraction.

 

The infractions aren't always deliberate.

Touche. Strike the word "deliberate" from my response. :)

It's like speeding. Whether one intended it or not, one got caught. 6 months later the speed limit on that stretch of road is raised. Should that erase the previous infraction?

 

Points roll off your record automatically after a period of time.

 

Your statement that I took no action as a result of that thread prior to today is factually inaccurate. Since you are proceeding upon a flawed premise, it's difficult to answer constructively. You would be wise to take gpsfun's advice to move on to something else.

 

I just looked at that thread again.

 

I don't see any moderator action until the thread was closed.

B.

Having been a moderator on a different forum, I can assure you that visible actions taken directly in threads (nudges, warnings posted by mods) are only the tip of the iceberg. Just because you don't see it in the thread does not mean that action wasn't taken as a result of that thread. :)

 

About transparency and clarification of individual infractions: It has been a few years now, but I recall from that other forum that the lawyers made it clear that any moderator action (nudges, warnings, bans) were not to be discussed in public - neither with the general posting community nor with the offender. All clarification of the restriction/nudge/ban had to be directed to the one forum administrator, and even then you probably didn't get a straight answer. If it's the same situation here, then I recommend blaming the lawyers, not the moderators. :ph34r:

 

Kill all the lawyers, I say. They ruin it for everyone. Lol

Link to comment

Trolls generally post controversial replies or topics in order to get people riled up.

Genuinely concerned people sometimes also post controversial topics. Many people have felt for many years that this forum is broken. My local geocachers have told me that many times. I am not so sure that the forum regulars are the real problem.

The key point of the description is now bolded.

 

I don't know why you bothered to do that. What you said is true.

 

I was just making the point that of course non-trolls can post controversial topics. But that response wasn't a counter to Cunninghams'. What are trolls? There's the definition. What distinguishes them? The intent to rile people up - not just what they post, which is generally controversial topics. Cunningham wasn't calling everyone who posts controversial content a troll - only those who do it intentionally to get people riled up.

 

Some people here may post controversially, or be annoying, or be unintentionally rude, insulting, or antagonistic. That doesn't make them trolls. Trolls do it intentionally and knowingly, and those are the ones you don't feed, because that's exactly what they love. The rest? If they're open to discussion or resolution, then feed them - they'll eventually be satisfied. Hopefully. =P

 

It's unfortunate that some people think that asking hard questions is akin to trolling. They don't understand what a true troll is.

 

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to be less accusatory and suspicious of others and treat honest questions with respect and courtesy.

+1

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I guess I should have added more to my definition of trolls. They usually get people worked up and then when they are confronted about it their response is usually along the lines of "I was just kidding" or "don't be so serious bro."

 

In that case, are you trolling with your posts? Why else would you be bringing that up in this thread? We are not trolling. We are discussing what some of us see as a serious issue and if you can't contribute, please leave.

Link to comment

Someone asked what trolling was. I answered. The following posts we're people quoting my response trying to clarify MY response. I just figured I would post what I meant. Thank you for the warm welcome to the forums.

 

Sorry... that wasn't clear to me, and apparently not to some others. I apologize and warmly welcome you to the forums.

Link to comment

Thank you. These aren't the most highly moderated forums I have ever been on but that probably has something to do with the maturity of the posters. Things usually tend to resolve themselves. My first thread I asked a somewhat stupid question and the moderator did eventually close the thread but there was definitely some "pile-on" before that happened. Even after I conceited that my idea probably wasn't the greatest. Seems like most pointless threads generally fizzle out due to lack of response.

Link to comment
I can't count the number of times I've responded to threads in this forum and the OP never, ever returns to their thread to say anything. "One-post wonders" abound here.

 

It's one heck of a leap of logic to think that a bit of forum bantering "scared" them off. There's no proof to that assumption, except for the newbie to state that.

 

B.

+1

Keep saying that I should start a tickle file for a 30 days reminder, just to post, "You're welcome :) ".

:laughing:

 

The paper (yeah, real old-school) file I keep says that less than half ever return to that thread, even with everyone on their best behavior.

They got their info, now they're done with you.

Link to comment

Thank you. These aren't the most highly moderated forums I have ever been on but that probably has something to do with the maturity of the posters. Things usually tend to resolve themselves. My first thread I asked a somewhat stupid question and the moderator did eventually close the thread but there was definitely some "pile-on" before that happened. Even after I conceited that my idea probably wasn't the greatest. Seems like most pointless threads generally fizzle out due to lack of response.

 

I think that many of us feel that the main moderation problem here is not over-moderation, nor is it under-moderation. It is inconsistent moderation. One thread will be allowed to run out of control for pages, while another gets moderator attention almost immediately. Or things can be said or spoken of for a while, then suddenly those same things can't be spoken of. And then they can be, but only if not interpreted by the moderation team to be out of line. Example: There was a time when we could not use the very word, "Munzee" here. We now understand that we can, as long as we are not seeing as promoting the stupid things. And there are never announcements stating when such "rules" have changed. It gets confusing to those that post here regularly.

 

By the way, I thought it hilarious that, when I thought you were accusing us of trolling in this thread, that you stated that trolls, when confronted, often deny that they were trolling. And then, after I confronted you about it... you denied it! :laughing:

 

Don't worry... I believe you. But it was funny.

Link to comment

I think that many of us feel that the main moderation problem here is not over-moderation, nor is it under-moderation. It is inconsistent moderation. One thread will be allowed to run out of control for pages, while another gets moderator attention almost immediately. Or things can be said or spoken of for a while, then suddenly those same things can't be spoken of. And then they can be, but only if not interpreted by the moderation team to be out of line. Example: There was a time when we could not use the very word, "######" here. We now understand that we can, as long as we are not seeing as promoting the stupid things. And there are never announcements stating when such "rules" have changed. It gets confusing to those that post here regularly.

 

This is the problem in a nutshell. This is why I asked for clarification.

 

* ###### edited by me

Link to comment

I hear you. In my past experience with forums/moderators of a warning was handed out or an edit was made to a post the moderator would generally quote the rule that was being broken. Also rule changes should be pinned as to avoid confusion. There does seem to be a lack of clarity but also a lack of rules to clear it up.. I will say that if it wasn't for a certain app I would have never paid for a premium account.

Link to comment

I think that many of us feel that the main moderation problem here is not over-moderation, nor is it under-moderation. It is inconsistent moderation. One thread will be allowed to run out of control for pages, while another gets moderator attention almost immediately. Or things can be said or spoken of for a while, then suddenly those same things can't be spoken of. And then they can be, but only if not interpreted by the moderation team to be out of line. Example: There was a time when we could not use the very word, "######" here. We now understand that we can, as long as we are not seeing as promoting the stupid things. And there are never announcements stating when such "rules" have changed. It gets confusing to those that post here regularly.

 

This is the problem in a nutshell. This is why I asked for clarification.

 

* ###### edited by me

I still haven't seen an answer. Did I miss it?

Link to comment

In the "Getting Started" forum is a thread where a newbie accuses folks of lying about using phones to find caches. That is pretty incredible to me, and I've yet to see a Moderator post chastising the poster.

I'm pretty sure the quote below is the comment you're referring to? I don't think this reads as someone saying phone cachers are lying. For one thing, it has a question mark at the end. It's someone trying to understand why they're having problems finding caches using only their phone, since a lot of other cachers use their phone to find caches. I wouldn't take any offense from it. :D

 

So... is a GPSr really necessary, are the people who say they only use phone GPS lying, is my phone bad, what am I doing wrong? :(
Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

I wouldn't take any offense from it. :D

 

You wouldn't; I wouldn't; but there are people who seem to run around looking for something to find offensive, and as soon as one of them hits that statement (question really)and posts that they are offended, GS will likely lock the thread and/or suspend/ban the poster.

Link to comment

It is good that they did work it out amongst themselves, we are all in fact adults here. Well, maybe not depending one your age since I think you can be under 18and sign up.

 

But have no illusions that GS needs to give you/me any rights. We are in their home and under their rules, no right to free speech. I enjoy what I get from. The GAME and the info I may get or give on this forum. But, if I was banned now or the site closed I would move on. It's the internet, do not get so worked up over it.

 

We may not like their rules but that is tough noodles. They provide this forum for free to use as they see fit. If they do not like how it goes they would pull the plug now. This is their right as the owner. This is their house, if a guest gets unruly they can send them packing. As you would in your home...

 

I think this is a good dialog to have with us and the rulers but in the end if we do not like the answers we get or lack there of that is to bad. Some who have argues with the mods I am surprised they were not also sent on vacation. Most places do not take kindly to putting down the population especially the administration staff . but their home their rules

Edited by doc73
Link to comment

It is good that they did work it out amongst themselves, we are all in fact adults here. Well, maybe not depending one your age since I think you can be under 18and sign up.

 

But have no illusions that GS needs to give you/me any rights. We are in their home and under their rules, no right to free speech. I enjoy what I get from. The GAME and the info I may get or give on this forum. But, if I was banned now or the site closed I would move on. It's the internet, do not get so worked up over it.

 

We may not like their rules but that is tough noodles. They provide this forum for free to use as they see fit. If they do not like how it goes they would pull the plug now. This is their right as the owner. This is their house, if a guest gets unruly they can send them packing. As you would in your home...

 

I think this is a good dialog to have with us and the rulers but in the end if we do not like the answers we get or lack there of that is to bad. Some who have argues with the mods I am surprised they were not also sent on vacation. Most places do not take kindly to putting down the population especially the administration staff . but their home their rules

Of course, it is their sandbox. We are all quite aware of that. And yes, they do have rules that we are to follow. Nobody here is denying that. It is how and when those rules are, or are not applied that we are discussing here. And if we don't like it, we can leave. Or we can hope to make it a better place by speaking up as long as Groundspeak will allow us that privilege.

 

I'm not sure, however, what you mean by "its just the internet" (bolded by me). JUST?:huh:

Link to comment

I think speaking up is good. OP had the big ones to ask the tough question, good on you.

 

My point of just the Internet is just that. Obviously some folks got sent packing, I do not know who they are, what they said or why they went away. To be honest I do not even care. I logged on and had 200 unread posts and not one (that I saw) had the banned people in them. No effect on me or my caching experience.

 

In my world I live and die by rules and regulations. Most of which are open to wide interpretation. Of which I have no say or control over. This is not, IMO any different. If I am unhappy with things I will pass on to the next forum, in the mean time I will enjoy the ride.

Edited by doc73
Link to comment

So to reply to the original question:

 

I found a little note of clarification here

 

User Insights Forum Guidelines:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=321716

 

That is the page for rules posting in the forums for suggestions to the website,etc.

 

Those rules say:

 

"We recognize that not all players enjoy geocaching using our products. We know that there is valuable information in hearing about your experience on other websites or apps, so in the User Insights forum ONLY participants may constructively discuss their experience with other geocaching products and how they improve your geocaching experience."

 

Bolding is not mine.

 

This is some good clarification.

 

I feel this is the sort of thing we need to know.

 

Whether we agree with it or disagree with it isn't the issue, so much as we know what the rules are here.

Link to comment

. . . we are all in fact adults here. Well, maybe not depending one your age since I think you can be under 18and sign up.

 

Well, no we're not all adults. But some 13-year-olds who post here seem more mature than many who are chronologically adults.

Link to comment

. . . we are all in fact adults here. Well, maybe not depending one your age since I think you can be under 18and sign up.

 

Well, no we're not all adults. But some 13-year-olds who post here seem more mature than many who are chronologically adults.

Sure does seem like that often.

Link to comment

 

Touche. Strike the word "deliberate" from my response. :)

It's like speeding. Whether one intended it or not, one got caught. 6 months later the speed limit on that stretch of road is raised. Should that erase the previous infraction?

 

 

 

Ummm, major difference.

 

On streets speed limits are clearly posted all over. And then on top of that, most of us know the speed limit on our freeways and on the side streets of our local towns. And they don't change without a lot of hoopla in the media ("SPEED LIMITS INCREASED???? IS THAT SAFE????!!")

 

What this thread is about is asking what the speed limits are here. We know a few of them from the forum rules, and some of them from the site rules, but because of the recent bannings, the questions has come up about unspoken rules. There are a lot of them, we're trying to figure them out.

 

Such as the last post I made. That is not in the main posting rules of this forum. We're supposed to just know it I guess. But then the unspoken rules can vary moderator to moderator, so, I for one, want to know what the rules are so I can keep from "speeding".

 

It is never my intention to break forum rules (at least not so far ;) ). If I don't know what the rules are that makes it tough.

Link to comment

 

Touche. Strike the word "deliberate" from my response. :)

It's like speeding. Whether one intended it or not, one got caught. 6 months later the speed limit on that stretch of road is raised. Should that erase the previous infraction?

 

 

 

Ummm, major difference.

 

On streets speed limits are clearly posted all over. And then on top of that, most of us know the speed limit on our freeways and on the side streets of our local towns. And they don't change without a lot of hoopla in the media ("SPEED LIMITS INCREASED???? IS THAT SAFE????!!")

 

What this thread is about is asking what the speed limits are here. We know a few of them from the forum rules, and some of them from the site rules, but because of the recent bannings, the questions has come up about unspoken rules. There are a lot of them, we're trying to figure them out.

 

Such as the last post I made. That is not in the main posting rules of this forum. We're supposed to just know it I guess. But then the unspoken rules can vary moderator to moderator, so, I for one, want to know what the rules are so I can keep from "speeding".

 

It is never my intention to break forum rules (at least not so far ;) ). If I don't know what the rules are that makes it tough.

I know the speeding analogy isn't watertight. It's flawed in a lot of respects. It was simply an analogy to answer the question about whether violation of a rule that has since been relaxed should still count against the violator. Further conclusions from the analogy are not guaranteed nor intended. ;)

Link to comment

I know the speeding analogy isn't watertight. It's flawed in a lot of respects. It was simply an analogy to answer the question about whether violation of a rule that has since been relaxed should still count against the violator. Further conclusions from the analogy are not guaranteed nor intended. ;)

Kind of depends on why that rule was relaxed, doesn't it? If it was relaxed because other circumstances have changed that make the rule no longer important, I would agree with you. But if a rule was lifted or reworded because it was discovered to be wrong or overbearing or simply silly, then it should not be held against anybody that received disciplinary actions for it.

 

Also realize that we are not talking about speeding, or any other law that would cause endangerment of lives if broken. I'd say your speeding analogy sinks like a brick.

Link to comment

I'm still hoping for some clarification. A sticky at the top of the forum would suffice.

 

My one and only (so far) forum ban was for commentary about the lack of input from TPTB (in a way that I thought was humorous but I guess not so much for the receiving end).

 

Compared to other forums in which I participate, interaction with officiates here (other than moderators) is conspicuously lacking.

 

Browsing past forum posts indicates that this wasn't always the case and I often wonder if there was a tipping point and what it was.

Link to comment

I'm still hoping for some clarification. A sticky at the top of the forum would suffice.

 

My one and only (so far) forum ban was for commentary about the lack of input from TPTB (in a way that I thought was humorous but I guess not so much for the receiving end).

 

Compared to other forums in which I participate, interaction with officiates here (other than moderators) is conspicuously lacking.

 

Browsing past forum posts indicates that this wasn't always the case and I often wonder if there was a tipping point and what it was.

 

1 in 508. Keep posting! :ph34r::laughing:

Link to comment

I want to reiterate that I am not trolling. I am hoping to possibly fix something that wrong here. Please take the high road. I'm trying to.

Okay this is my dumb question. What does Trolling mean? Is it the same as Phishing?

 

edit:

Nevermind got my answer.

 

I one time went off topic to try to disfuse a heated conversation once.

On the fishing site I moderate going off topic from the original post we call "Hijacking" the thread. Trolling would be different and as others have stated what it is.

 

Hijacking a thread would be something like this thread was started about what we can and can't post and then someone came along and posted about some cupcakes they made that were just great! Then everyone here started talking about the cupcakes they liked and there recipes and it went on for a few pages then they Hijacked the tread. Just thought I would clarify what I think going off topic is called.

Edited by WarNinjas
Link to comment

The one thing I don't understand (well I kind of do) is the hatred they have for one phone app.

 

What I don't understand is the continual smartphone bashing. I can imagine it would be a turn off for any new geocacher visiting the forum. I keep saying that I find and hide caches successfully all the time with my smartphone, but it doesn't seem to make a difference.

 

I wish a "voice of reason" would step in during some of those threads and correct inaccurate information. Presumably if Groundspeak is promoting smartphone caching, they must think it works pretty well.

 

I believe that WarNinja was referring to Groundspeak's "hatred" for the c:geo app.

Yes I was talking about the c:geo app. I also see where The Incredibles is coming from. My guess is when the phone apps first came out they were probably horrible and had really bad GPS's. All the members with handheld GPS probably hated all the wrong coords of caches they were placing. That started some smart phone bashing. The ones still using handhelds don't know that there are now some phones with pretty accurate GPS's. I know there are still some phones out there that are bad but not all. I am in your boat and have found over 3600 caches and placed over 160 all using my phone. I find it to be very accurate. I did get some phones in between that were horrible but switched them out and my new one is pretty spot on.

I also know some cachers who have both and still only swear by there handheld GPS. We are all playing the same game together so I don't see a need for others to hate on someone for there device used but I understand why some don't like the smart phones added into the game.

Link to comment

I use both. The GPSr / smart phone debate is like the ac or DC electrical debate, each will fight that theirs is better. The smart phones ARE the future and dedicated GPSr is dying. People generally hate change so it is natural to not want to give up ones handheld for a smart phone. Is a smart phone a handheld GPS? No, nothing can be everything when it is all packed into a small package but they are catching up. I know my battery life stinks on GPS mode with my phone but it is waterproof and shockproof just like my GPS right from the factory. I found it to be 100 feet off if I used it to place a cache. Got a GPS averaging app and it put it right on with my GPSr averaged coordinates.

Link to comment

 

Your statement that I took no action as a result of that thread prior to today is factually inaccurate. Since you are proceeding upon a flawed premise, it's difficult to answer constructively. You would be wise to take gpsfun's advice to move on to something else.

 

Having been a moderator on a different forum, I can assure you that visible actions taken directly in threads (nudges, warnings posted by mods) are only the tip of the iceberg. Just because you don't see it in the thread does not mean that action wasn't taken as a result of that thread. :)

 

As a moderator on another forum for a number of years, I can assure that I know all too well about communications "behind the scenes". Communications between moderators and members, and communications/discussions between moderators in the private Moderators' Forum.

 

If that were the case here, then that probably would have been a more helpful message to post publicly, not that the poster had his facts wrong. What transpired publicly is all that the members have to take away from the forum. Nothing is learned about the "why" and "therefore" of actions / reactions.

 

B.

 

**above quote was liberally snipped**

 

OK, here I go. I didn't get the dancing joke. I don't need to get every joke, but standards for joking should be equally applied to moderators, reviewers, forum regulars and noobies.

 

I also thought Keystone's response quoted above was heavy-handed and snarky. I do understand that it's impossible to read tone in written communication, but here's how it came across to me:

 

1. Your statement is stupid and doesn't even deserve an answer because you don't have all the facts.

2. The facts either can't or won't be shared with you. (fair enough)

3. So do as you're told and shut up.

 

IMHO, the same message could have been delivered MUCH more kindly and might even have served as an example of how to behave nicely in the forum, even to others you may view as troublesome. Maybe something like, "I understand why you would think that, but rest assured, appropriate actions were taken in manners you cannot see. While we can't always share details with you, we don't want to discourage you from asking questions about situations that truly trouble you."

 

I'm the Mrs. half of the Car54 team and usually the only one to post. I don't post often and have never had a warning or worse, but I still get a "walking on eggshells" feeling quite a lot in these forums. That is a shame.

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