Clarification

[Keystone]

Mrs. Car54, you need to read my response in its context. Fellow moderator gpsfun already provided the polite version of the answer in a prior post. It wasn't heard, so I dialed up the volume.

 

You should also consider the response in the context of the person to whom it was addressed. You have not been following me around the forums taking issue with even the simplest of actions, so I would likely have answered you differently had you asked the same question.

 

You may also not have read the companion thread to this one. I recommend reading this post which said, in relevant part:

 

Details of individual accounts are not discussed publicly. Suffice it to say that one needs to rack up a large number of forum warnings over a sustained period of time in order to be considered for a permanent posting suspension. It is a last resort when prior warnings and multiple short-term posting suspensions have failed to change fundamental behaviors.

 

One focus of the moderating team is for the forum community to be more welcoming and helpful to newcomers or occasional visitors who stop by to ask simple questions.

[knowschad]

I'm guessing that I am the one that you feel is "following you around the forums, taking issue with even the simplest of actions", Keystone. That simply is not the case. I have publicly criticized a couple of your posts, but for the most part, I am simply trying to fix things here. How many people in this thread alone have said that they can relate to my comment about feeling like we are 'walking on eggshells'? It isn't simply because of this thread that people are feeling that way. We are referring to a much bigger picture than that. You can argue, or you can listen to it. Or you can continue to ban people that say something about it. But that isn't going to change the reality that this is not the warm, friendly place that it could be.

 

I'm also not sure why you felt that I did not here GPSFun's post. I simply responded to it, respectfully. There was no call for you to "dial up the volume".

[+thebruce0]

I've never felt like I've had to walk on eggshells. I've never felt singled out or targeted by any moderator.

 

Why is that?

 

My observation is that people who feel 'cramped' or hounded, or singled out, or having to speak carefully, are typically the ones who don't like at least one of the community rules, or don't like having to be subject to authority, or not being exposed to every bit of information. That's just my observation to date, and my interpretation. The fact that there are users who have zero problems, means that the problem is not exclusively with forum powers; it must have something to do with the interaction between certain users and certain powers. Instead of pointing fingers, look at the causes of such disagreements, and why - without demanding what you have no right to (see "Details of individual accounts are not discussed publicly." - a very common regulation in similar environments; of course presuming you respect rules)

 

It's unfortunate that situations like this start the ball rolling, and usually end up growing into an all out war.

I don't know a solution. All I can imagine is the ideal. And that's perfect authority, and perfect submission to authority.

Pretty sure that will never happen

[+Spenny!]

Insert fork. this thread should be done.

[knowschad]

Insert fork. this thread should be done.

 

Thanks for the perfect example of the thread hijacking that was mentioned above. You have 31 posts in these forums. I have 17,824. Stick around for a few thousand more posts and see if you still want to make light of this thread.

Edited March 26, 2015 by knowschad

[+GeoBain]

without demanding what you have no right to

 

I, for one, am not demanding anything. I am patiently requesting clarification of what is and is not kosher to talk about here.

[+doc73]

Well after four pages of no response I think you all will be waiting for them a long time..

 

Keystone, thanks for what you do. You have taken a test that is not always appreciated. I am sure in the end those who went away did what they did to themselves. Not our business why. I bet if we respect each other and act like adults we will not be banned or sent on a trip.

Edited March 26, 2015 by doc73

[+GeoBain]

without demanding what you have no right to

 

I, for one, am not demanding anything. I am patiently requesting clarification of what is and is not kosher to talk about here.

 

Btw, this need not be in the form of a reply to this thread. I would be more than happy with a pinned post which need not have any discussion from us.

[+Colonial Cats]

Insert fork. this thread should be done.

 

Thanks for the perfect example of the thread hijacking that was mentioned above. You have 31 posts in these forums. I have 17,824. Stick around for a few thousand more posts and see if you still want to make light of this thread.

I would like the clarification too. I am posting less to this forum because I am not comfortable doing so. I feel I cannot express my true views on a topic without fear of upsetting somebody's apple cart. I figure if all of those long time forum regulars can be banned for expressing their opinions, I feel that I cannot express mine. The forum should not just be a cheering squad.

[knowschad]

Well after four pages of no response I think you all will be waiting for them a long time..

 

Keystone, thanks for what you do. You have taken a test that is not always appreciated. I am sure in the end those who went away did what they did to themselves. Not our business why. I bet if we respect each other and act like adults we will not be banned or sent on a trip.

 

You're making a lot of assumptions there, Doc. We would not be here defending those banned members had they been troublemakers in our viewpoints, but more than defending them, we are trying to make this a place where we can post without fear of being banned ourselves because we spoke our view of the truth.

 

I will, however, agree with you that Keystone has a very difficult and unappreciated job. There is no doubt about that.

[+jellis]

without demanding what you have no right to

 

I, for one, am not demanding anything. I am patiently requesting clarification of what is and is not kosher to talk about here.

I think one thing I mentioned was not a subject but an attitude. Bashing, Road Rage and hijacking.

I've seen so many newbies post to ask a question. Yes some questions seem dumb or lame to us but that is why they are newbies or even foreign. I have seen some responders be really helpful and try to understand the OPs. But some the first response have been cruel or trying to be funny when they are not. Posting ridiculous photo comments. To me it seem so high school.

That is my 5 cents. (price went up)

[+Dame Deco]

I agree with jellis--it has more to do with mocking attitudes than forbidden topics.

[+jellis]

I also want to say and yes I started the thread that caused some issues, is that yes you can agree and disagree but name calling and rude behavior should not be on here in the forums

[+WarNinjas]

Smartphone debate? Thread hijack?

 

That had me LOL!

[+doc73]

Well after four pages of no response I think you all will be waiting for them a long time..

 

Keystone, thanks for what you do. You have taken a test that is not always appreciated. I am sure in the end those who went away did what they did to themselves. Not our business why. I bet if we respect each other and act like adults we will not be banned or sent on a trip.

 

You're making a lot of assumptions there, Doc. We would not be here defending those banned members had they been troublemakers in our viewpoints, but more than defending them, we are trying to make this a place where we can post without fear of being banned ourselves because we spoke our view of the truth.

 

I will, however, agree with you that Keystone has a very difficult and unappreciated job. There is no doubt about that.

 

I agree. I am making very large assumptions but generally people are not let go for being the best person in the forums. You are also all asking large assumptions that they did not deserve the ban. Were you there? I was not not. Do you know if it was because of an unseen thread, message or email. You all have the same info I do (well maybe I do not), their knowledge of banning for NO reason is in your eyes or from their perspective in a private email. They are respected members of this forum in your eyes, I assume. So it would be no surprise you would want to support them.

 

I, again, have no idea who was affected or not, but if there is a point system of sorts that amount to a certain level then one is banned they obviously earned it somehow...

 

Again, assuming, I agree with the above few posts their problems very likely(not knowing who they are to read posts) came from attitude more than postsing the word munzee or another naughty word. I do see 98% of those who want to help someone out with their questions right away while a few lay in wait to jump on someone's lack of knowledge. Post count can mean three things to me on a forum. Knowledgeable to help anyone due to their inside knowledge. Two, been around for a while and now feels entitled to help when they want and do what they want because "they post a lot." three, (in humor) they need to get off the office chair and get a life.

 

If they were the folks in the latter group out jumping on folks I am fine with their release. If they were the best poster in the forums winner ten years in a row, it sad to see them go, but oh well... It's an Internet forum, not the end of the world.

[+Team Microdot]

I was struggling to remember the subject of this thread as raised by the OP - so I went back and read it again.

 

This is what it says:

 

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.

 

Perhaps the thread could return to the original direction and yield something useful - like answers to the questions from people who know what the answers are? Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

[+thebruce0]

I was just going to say - it's not about posting opinions and getting banned for it. It's about how you post those opinions. How you interact. How you obey rules that are set out. And if a rule comes along you don't like, how you respond will make a huge impact. Continued arguing and ranting against a rule (eg, use of a censored word) could earn you a ban, even if your arguments are sound. That's not the point. The rule was put in place for a reason, and if you continually attempt to fight the rule, disregarding and/or disrespecting the authority that put it in place, then you could earn a ban.

Expressing opinions is not disallowed. Expressing opinions to the point of questioning or even disrespecting authority - that can't end well.

For other stuff, bad attitude, rudeness, name-calling, etc, well that's just common sense

 

I said earlier, it would be nice to have a 'black list' for discussions, but I'm sure enough information is available in the forum use guidelines. And Groundspeak has zero obligation to outline in detail anything more than that.

 

I, for one, am fine with that.

[+J Grouchy]

I've never felt like I've had to walk on eggshells. I've never felt singled out or targeted by any moderator.

 

Why is that?

 

My observation is that people who feel 'cramped' or hounded, or singled out, or having to speak carefully, are typically the ones who don't like at least one of the community rules, or don't like having to be subject to authority, or not being exposed to every bit of information. That's just my observation to date, and my interpretation. The fact that there are users who have zero problems, means that the problem is not exclusively with forum powers; it must have something to do with the interaction between certain users and certain powers. Instead of pointing fingers, look at the causes of such disagreements, and why - without demanding what you have no right to (see "Details of individual accounts are not discussed publicly." - a very common regulation in similar environments; of course presuming you respect rules)

 

It's unfortunate that situations like this start the ball rolling, and usually end up growing into an all out war.

I don't know a solution. All I can imagine is the ideal. And that's perfect authority, and perfect submission to authority.

Pretty sure that will never happen

 

Ah...so the translation:

I personally don't have a problem with the moderators, so it must be all your fault.

 

As for the "demanding what you have no right to" part, nobody is "demanding" details of any particular argument or disagreement. All I saw in the OP was a request for clarification (see...right there in the title of the thread) of the sorts of things that may lead to being blocked from the forums.

Edited March 26, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+Bubbles&Bonkers]

I have to partly agree with a PP. I've never been threatened with being banned probably because I'm a rule follower. Authority figures are good to have. Ever read Lord of the Flies? But I have heard of people getting banned that surprised me versus other people who don't get banned yet seem to have been raised by wolves and never.ever.ever have a nice thing to say. I'm on one other forum and they will shut down a thread so fast if it veers way off topic and people are getting attacked personally. I like that. They don't do that here. I see the same people spewing garbage over and over and over and it's sad really. Kinda hit or miss in my opinion.

[+Team Microdot]

Expressing opinions to the point of questioning ... authority - that can't end well.

 

I highly doubt that's a position that Groundspeak would subscribe to. Recent dialogue through the User Insights forum, for example, tells me very clearly that the authority here is very, very open to being questioned, to engaging in productive dialogue - which is why I've taken the fullest advantage that I could of that opportunity and will always try so to do when such opportunities arise in the future

 

I for one am fine with dialogue

[knowschad]

Expressing opinions to the point of questioning ... authority - that can't end well.

 

Those of us that live in the U.S. are here BECAUSE people challenged authority. When we believe authority is wrong, it is our obligation to raise questions and not just sit there meekly. Sure, there is some risk in that. Quite a bit, actually.

[knowschad]

I think one thing I mentioned was not a subject but an attitude. Bashing, Road Rage and hijacking.

 

Like this? http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5487426

 

The person that posted that probably doesn't realize that continuing to do that could result in a vacation.

Edited March 26, 2015 by knowschad

[+thebruce0]

Ah...so the translation:

I personally don't have a problem with the moderators, so it must be all your fault.

No. Inaccurate translation.

For one, are you banned? No. Someone who is banned? Yes, I'm confident it was their fault. Why? Because there are rules, and I'm confident they were not banned because they expressed a respectful opinion and asked about something they didn't like, once or twice, understanding that they don't have a 'right' to a satisfying answer.

 

As for the "demanding what you have no right to" part, nobody is "demanding" details of any particular argument or disagreement. All I saw in the OP was a request for clarification (see...right there in the title of the thread) of the sorts of things that may lead to being blocked from the forums.

"Demand" explicitly? Of course not. No one says "I demand you answer me!"

But threads like this can very easily and quickly grow into having the same effect.

 

Bubbles&Bonkers - agreed.

 

Recent dialogue through the User Insights forum, for example, tells me very clearly that the authority here is very, very open to being questioned, to engaging in productive dialogue

Bolded is the key

 

Those of us that live in the U.S. are here BECAUSE people challenged authority.

In the US (and Canada) there are also jails and prisons to house anyone the government deems law-breakers or trouble-makers for civility.

But this forum isn't the US government. Absolutely nothing like a governing authority over a civilization. It's a private company with volunteer moderators who try to maintain a semblance of peace and respectability in a discussion forum. Whether they're successful to that end - ymmv.

 

Also, the fork post wasn't hijacking. It was not a productive comment, but it was not hijacking, not trolling, not bashing, not road rage. Ignore it and move along.

Edited March 26, 2015 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

 

Recent dialogue through the User Insights forum, for example, tells me very clearly that the authority here is very, very open to being questioned, to engaging in productive dialogue

Bolded is the key

 

 

I would see a meaningful response to the OP as productive. YMMV.

[+J Grouchy]

Ah...so the translation:

I personally don't have a problem with the moderators, so it must be all your fault.

No. Inaccurate translation.

For one, are you banned? No. Someone who is banned? Yes, I'm confident it was their fault. Why? Because there are rules, and I'm confident they were not banned because they expressed a respectful opinion and asked about something they didn't like, once or twice, understanding that they don't have a 'right' to a satisfying answer.

 

But we weren't talking only about "banned" folks...but anyone who may have received some warning or communication from moderators. As noted in many other posts, moderation appears inconsistent and overreaching in many cases, but in several instances moderators have not responded to those defending their actions. I can personally attest to that fact...that in at least one case my reply to a warning went unanswered even though I felt I was treated wrongly.

 

As for the "demanding what you have no right to" part, nobody is "demanding" details of any particular argument or disagreement. All I saw in the OP was a request for clarification (see...right there in the title of the thread) of the sorts of things that may lead to being blocked from the forums.

"Demand" explicitly? Of course not. No one says "I demand you answer me!"

But threads like this can very easily and quickly grow into having the same effect.

 

You're right, no one demanded it...but you appeared to be accusing folks of doing so in your post.

[+Mudfrog]

 

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.

 

I've seen this going on for years. Not sure why, but moderators, and other lackeys that happen to post, seem to always side with each other and with Groundspeak no matter the situation.

 

Imo, Knowschad asked a legitimate question (post #76). The responses he recieved from GS associates seemed both, rude and belittling to me. To tell a customer to "mind their own business and to stop asking questions" is not right and is definitely not good business practice.

 

For the record, i know i don't post as much as others. I have offered up my differing opinions, many times negative in nature towards GS and other forum users. Gotten into a few heated debates (arguements some might say) but don't believe, and this may change with this post, i've ever received a warning in all the years i've been on the forums. I just cannot imagine what the couple of our more prolific posters could have done to have gotten banned.

[+thebruce0]

You're right, no one demanded it...but you appeared to be accusing folks of doing so in your post.

Not any person in particular, but the general attitude of discussions such as this. The impression of a thread like this (not necessarily the OP which was a respectful request) becomes one of "why don't you answer us? why don't you respond to our simple question? it's your fault we're upset so you should assuage our growing anger". Effectively - demanding.

I did not intend to imply there was an accusation against any single individual of literally demanding a response. Sorry if that's the impression I gave.

 

As noted in many other posts, moderation appears inconsistent and overreaching in many cases, but in several instances moderators have not responded to those defending their actions.

Which again becomes one of wanting an answer. Which is fine. But when we understand we don't have a right to an answer, we can much more easily shrug about it move on.

Of course it's in the best interest of TPTB to provide an answer, but it's also in our best interest to let it go and move along. If everyone took the high road, we'd have peace Like I said earlier, I envision a utopian environment; but have no idea how to get there. All I can do is encourage what I think are steps in the right direction.

 

As for me, I've seen no evidence of injustice (that word sort of makes me chuckle in the context of a discussion forum) or bad leadership or bad moderation when it comes to warnings or bannings. There is much hearsay, and a lot of unanswered questions. But that's it. Being a user in the forum, I understand I'm already under an authority, so that determines how I respond, or to what degree I express my opinions. So far I haven't seen evidence of any unfair or unjust moderation. And unanswered questions do not mean unjustified actions (nor does it mean completely justified). It just means there's an unknown.

 

Will we get answers to the OP?

I highly doubt it.

I think the forum guidelines will be as far as we get. We may get comments from moderators expressing their own thoughts on how they choose to moderate, on how they interpret and carry out the rules which we can all see and share. But they won't comment on specific cases unless they choose to do so - they aren't obligated to do so.

[+J Grouchy]

You're right, no one demanded it...but you appeared to be accusing folks of doing so in your post.

Not any person in particular, but the general attitude of discussions such as this. The impression of a thread like this (not necessarily the OP which was a respectful request) becomes one of "why don't you answer us? why don't you respond to our simple question? it's your fault we're upset so you should assuage our growing anger". Effectively - demanding.

I did not intend to imply there was an accusation against any single individual of literally demanding a response. Sorry if that's the impression I gave.

 

As noted in many other posts, moderation appears inconsistent and overreaching in many cases, but in several instances moderators have not responded to those defending their actions.

Which again becomes one of wanting an answer. Which is fine. But when we understand we don't have a right to an answer, we can much more easily shrug about it move on.

Of course it's in the best interest of TPTB to provide an answer, but it's also in our best interest to let it go and move along. If everyone took the high road, we'd have peace Like I said earlier, I envision a utopian environment; but have no idea how to get there. All I can do is encourage what I think are steps in the right direction.

 

As for me, I've seen no evidence of injustice (that word sort of makes me chuckle in the context of a discussion forum) or bad leadership or bad moderation when it comes to warnings or bannings. There is much hearsay, and a lot of unanswered questions. But that's it. Being a user in the forum, I understand I'm already under an authority, so that determines how I respond, or to what degree I express my opinions. So far I haven't seen evidence of any unfair or unjust moderation. And unanswered questions do not mean unjustified actions (nor does it mean completely justified). It just means there's an unknown.

 

Will we get answers to the OP?

I highly doubt it.

I think the forum guidelines will be as far as we get. We may get comments from moderators expressing their own thoughts on how they choose to moderate, on how they interpret and carry out the rules which we can all see and share. But they won't comment on specific cases unless they choose to do so - they aren't obligated to do so.

 

Generally wanting answers about everyone elses' experiences? Of course not...don't put words in my mouth.

I don't, however, feel it unreasonable to expect some sort of response to a defense of one's own actions. Nowhere has anyone implied that there needs to be a drawn-out explanation or debate, but if nobody even takes our own thoughts into consideration when moderating, then how can they expect anyone to respect such final actions as banning? It's totally one-sided. Nobody has even said such discussions need to occur in a public forum. I'm talking entirely about private messaging, which is how warnings are issues. Are you actually saying that if I disagree with the reasoning behind an issued warning, that I should just shut up and take it because clearly they can do no wrong and it was undoubtedly my own fault, no exceptions?

[+doc73]

But we do not have to respect their decisions. We have no right to even know why.. We use their system at their sole discretion and whims.

 

Sure, the US did not like it's treatment so we revolted from a government we did not like. We have a right to free speech and protest from the government. Here we have no rights against a private organization in a private forum. Against the government their is federal suits and a constitution. Here if you do not like the rule of their law you vote with your feet and move on.

 

As much as it is argued and asked, even if very nice with cherries on the top, they will never need to respond to justify or defend their actions. They have no need to or obligations. That might grab some folks butt but it is what it is.

 

I am actually surprised it has gone this long without a lock but I guess we are remaining civil so maybe we are good.. But again after 4 pages Keystone stopped in and without finding the post again was the only one to weight a brief opinion. Which is fine with me.

Edited March 26, 2015 by doc73

[+thebruce0]

Generally wanting answers about everyone elses' experiences? Of course not...don't put words in my mouth.

I did not. Let me requote: "Not any person in particular, but the general attitude of discussions such as this."

 

if nobody even takes our own thoughts into consideration when moderating, then how can they expect anyone to respect such final actions as banning? It's totally one-sided.

Let me requote: "Of course it's in the best interest of TPTB to provide an answer, but it's also in our best interest to let it go and move along." "I envision a utopian environment [with respectful users and competent, perfect authority]; but have no idea how to get there."

 

Nobody has even said such discussions need to occur in a public forum.

Then what's this thread?

 

I'm talking entirely about private messaging, which is how warnings are issues. Are you actually saying that if I disagree with the reasoning behind an issued warning, that I should just shut up and take it because clearly they can do no wrong and it was undoubtedly my own fault, no exceptions?

Don't put words in my mouth I did not say "shut up and take it". Let me requote: "I'm confident they were not banned [or warned] because they expressed a respectful opinion and asked about something they didn't like, once or twice, understanding that they don't have a 'right' to a satisfying answer."

Moderators have lost their moderator positions. New moderators gain moderator positions. The ones who decide that are their authorities. So of course, in imperfect leadership, it should be brought to light - in productive, respectable ways. If a moderator has done something wrong, then it's more productive to report them to their 'ptb', than to post ranting threads in the public forum - which are also one-sided, and can quickly get you warned and/or banned.

There's a theme here...

[+doc73]

Ok what is a tptb and a pub? I am sure it's simple but my simple mind is missing it.

[+thebruce0]

Ok what is a tptb and a pub? I am sure it's simple but my simple mind is missing it.

 

TPTB - The Powers That Be (generic reference to anyone who is in a controlling position)

PTB is just without 'The'

[+J Grouchy]

Nobody has even said such discussions need to occur in a public forum.

Then what's this thread?

 

You're not even talking about the same thing I'm talking about. I'm not sure how you veered off, but my comments are specifically referring to a privately messaged warning and the discussion that occurs (or SHOULD occur, assuming the moderator doesn't ignore it) out of the public eye between the moderator and the individual that was warned. Nobody said that stuff - the warning and the response/defense - needs to be publicly aired. The problem I was talking about was when a disagreement with the warning occurs, it often is met with silence.

 

This thread is about the types of things that warrant the warnings in the first place and my comments address what happens when that warning is issued and how merely saying "read the guidelines" is often not enough of a response. Sometimes it can be argued that the guidelines weren't violated at all, yet often there is no room given for such debate.

[+geodarts]

Like I said earlier, I envision a utopian environment; but have no idea how to get there. All I can do is encourage what I think are steps in the right direction.

. . .

 

Will we get answers to the OP?

I highly doubt it.

I think the forum guidelines will be as far as we get. We may get comments from moderators expressing their own thoughts on how they choose to moderate, on how they interpret and carry out the rules which we can all see and share. But they won't comment on specific cases unless they choose to do so - they aren't obligated to do so.

 

I may have a different idea of utopia -- neither perfect authority or perfect submission is my goal since those who have tried it have ended up with prison camps -- but I believe that questioning is the only way to get closer to whatever I am trying to achieve. As the late Wobbly singer Utah Phillips pointed out, the most important question is often "Why?" Its a good question, whether addressed to a government or a business. This thread seems to fit within that.

 

In some ways, I have been surprised by how much is allowed on these forums -- we can generally talk among ourselves and even criticize Groundspeak until the subject fades away of its own accord. Given this, those who undertake to moderate have a difficult task. In light of that, clarification would be a good thing that would help those who come to these forums, those who moderate the discussions, and the company itself.

 

But I agree that I do not expect any answers to be forthcoming. Its not the type of question that Groundspeak likes to answer. In some ways, it reflects tensions between the origins of this game as a community-based activity and Groundspeak transforming that activity into a business.

 

I have participated in another thread in these forums where further answers were promised, but TPTB withdrew and left it to others of us to explain why the company did not appear to be acting illegally (and at the same time to wonder why they were silent). I did not even get a response to an email seeking clarification for an individual billing question, so answers are not what I expect on any level. Clarification? I think it is probably as clear as it is going to get.

Edited March 26, 2015 by geodarts

[+doc73]

Ok what is a tptb and a pub? I am sure it's simple but my simple mind is missing it.

 

TPTB - The Powers That Be (generic reference to anyone who is in a controlling position)

PTB is just without 'The'

 

Yeah I am just that simple... Wow! Thanks.

[+thebruce0]

You're not even talking about the same thing I'm talking about. I'm not sure how you veered off, but my comments are specifically referring to a privately messaged warning and the discussion that occurs (or SHOULD occur, assuming the moderator doesn't ignore it) out of the public eye between the moderator and the individual that was warned. Nobody said that stuff - the warning and the response/defense - needs to be publicly aired.

Ok, I had an inkling there might be a gap in communication there. I agree that private discussions about a matter between a user and a moderator should remain as such in an effort to quickly, quietly, and hopefully respectably, come to a satisfactory resolution.

 

> The problem I was talking about was when a disagreement with the warning occurs, it often is met with silence

 

And my response to that is - Yes, it's in their best interest to assuage our doubt in their ability to lead, but if such matters don't involve us, then jumping to the conclusion that there's some injustice or unfair action taking place on the part of the moderators is something that - if taken to more than sincere curiosity without a need to have an answer - can result in more warnings / bannings.

 

Taking a private disagreement public - not advised.

Taking someone else's disagreement public - not advised.

Taking any disagreement beyond a respectable attempt to find resolution - not advised.

Taking issue at not getting an answer for a disagreement not involving you - not advised.

Disrespecting TPTB (whether personally, or questioning competence as authority via the wrong channel) - not advised.

Expressing critical opinions publicly? I've seen no evidence that, if all the above is true of the party/ies involved, there's any bad judgement on the part of the moderators. But that's my observation, so far.

 

(also note: 'not advised' - because it's all really a matter of how we deal with situations like this, and it's usually quite subjective on the part of the moderator, just like dealing with local reviewers; get on their bad side, and you could have a very hard time doing things others have no problem doing; so don't give them reason to act in such a manner but if you think it's legitimately bad judgement, then report them via the proper channel)

 

This thread is about the types of things that warrant the warnings in the first place and my comments address what happens when that warning is issued and how merely saying "read the guidelines" is often not enough of a response. Sometimes it can be argued that the guidelines weren't violated at all, yet often there is no room given for such debate.

In those cases, I would say if it's your own violation, take it up with the moderator privately, or someone at HQ - respectably. Chances are, if you're not already on their Bad list, you may get a response. Otherwise, if it were me, I'd look at the guidelines (the absolutely minimum I'm sure I'd be told) and find out where I went wrong. And if I can't find it, and I don't get any more detail, sure I'd be upset, but I'd watch my actions from that point on.

Then I'd be walking on eggshells, as it were. But until all that happens, I have no reason to feel like I need to walk on eggshells.

[Keystone]

As noted in many other posts, moderation appears inconsistent and overreaching in many cases, but in several instances moderators have not responded to those defending their actions. I can personally attest to that fact...that in at least one case my reply to a warning went unanswered even though I felt I was treated wrongly.

I don't, however, feel it unreasonable to expect some sort of response to a defense of one's own actions. Nowhere has anyone implied that there needs to be a drawn-out explanation or debate, but if nobody even takes our own thoughts into consideration when moderating, then how can they expect anyone to respect such final actions as banning? It's totally one-sided. Nobody has even said such discussions need to occur in a public forum. I'm talking entirely about private messaging, which is how warnings are issues. Are you actually saying that if I disagree with the reasoning behind an issued warning, that I should just shut up and take it because clearly they can do no wrong and it was undoubtedly my own fault, no exceptions?

... my comments are specifically referring to a privately messaged warning and the discussion that occurs (or SHOULD occur, assuming the moderator doesn't ignore it) out of the public eye between the moderator and the individual that was warned. Nobody said that stuff - the warning and the response/defense - needs to be publicly aired. The problem I was talking about was when a disagreement with the warning occurs, it often is met with silence.

What are you talking about? Your warn meter reflects three formal interactions with moderators. Two were in 2013 and involved Lackeys; the third one was recent and involved a volunteer moderator (me). Please describe specifically where your questions were not answered.

[Pup Patrol]

without demanding what you have no right to

 

I, for one, am not demanding anything. I am patiently requesting clarification of what is and is not kosher to talk about here.

 

Btw, this need not be in the form of a reply to this thread. I would be more than happy with a pinned post which need not have any discussion from us.

 

Lots of highjacking going on in this thread.

 

The OP asked for clarification of what specifically can not be posted here on this forum.

 

As I said back in post #10, the word "munzee" has seen an evolution in terms of moderating action. At one point in time, it was a "verboten" word. Later, that changed.

 

The two things that used to bring on moderating action are "c:geo" and "pathtag". It seems like there has been some leniency of late about both of those. Some threads get locked, a lot don't.

 

I'm pretty sure that was what the OP was asking about. The rest of the discussion seems to be off-topic from the OP's original intent.

 

 

B.

[+frinklabs]

The OP asked for clarification of what specifically can not be posted here on this forum.

 

Absent any official public response, I can relate anecdotally what was the nature of my behavior that resulted in my no-warning ban.

 

I was "showing a continuing pattern of disdain for Groundspeak"

 

Instead of being constructively critical (which is alleged to be OK), my mistake was "to take underhanded swipes at the company"

 

I wonder if the moderators would to allow me to relate what it was exactly I did, as a cautionary tale to others, without having the post deleted and resulting in a (possibly-permanent) ban?

[+gpsfun]

What are you talking about? Your warn meter reflects three formal interactions with moderators. Two were in 2013 and involved Lackeys; the third one was recent and involved a volunteer moderator (me). Please describe specifically where your questions were not answered.

With copious respect for my fellow moderator Keystone, I'm suggesting that in at least two of the three cases posting those discussions that were intended to be private would not be appropriate. Perhaps they can be discussed through email or a private topic.

[+larryc43230]

"The world is good-natured to people who are good natured." -- William Makepeace Thackeray

 

Every time I see gpsfun's signature, I can't hep but think of that other great quote in the same vein:

 

"It's nice to be nice... to the nice." Frank Burns

 

 

Sorry if i lightened things up. Carry on.

 

---Larry

[Keystone]

What are you talking about? Your warn meter reflects three formal interactions with moderators. Two were in 2013 and involved Lackeys; the third one was recent and involved a volunteer moderator (me). Please describe specifically where your questions were not answered.

With copious respect for my fellow moderator Keystone, I'm suggesting that in at least two of the three cases posting those discussions that were intended to be private would not be appropriate. Perhaps they can be discussed through email or a private topic.

That was my point, to continue a private dialogue that was already underway rather than dragging it into this thread. I gave a thorough reply to J Grouchy quite recently via the private message thread that began with a "slap on the wrist" type of warning. I opened my reply by saying that I read his feedback "with great interest," which was true. I ended by saying "If you had any other specific concerns, I'd be happy to discuss them with you privately. Otherwise, please continue being a (usually) positive contributor to the forum community." There was no response to this invitation.

 

Obviously I would not discuss the specifics of the issue which gave rise to the warning, but I did feel a need to defend myself against any implication that I was unresponsive to feedback.

[+gpsfun]

What are you talking about? Your warn meter reflects three formal interactions with moderators. Two were in 2013 and involved Lackeys; the third one was recent and involved a volunteer moderator (me). Please describe specifically where your questions were not answered.

With copious respect for my fellow moderator Keystone, I'm suggesting that in at least two of the three cases posting those discussions that were intended to be private would not be appropriate. Perhaps they can be discussed through email or a private topic.

That was my point, to continue a private dialogue that was already underway rather than dragging it into this thread. I gave a thorough reply to J Grouchy quite recently via the private message thread that began with a "slap on the wrist" type of warning. I opened my reply by saying that I read his feedback "with great interest," which was true. I ended by saying "If you had any other specific concerns, I'd be happy to discuss them with you privately. Otherwise, please continue being a (usually) positive contributor to the forum community." There was no response to this invitation.

 

Obviously I would not discuss the specifics of the issue which gave rise to the warning, but I did feel a need to defend myself against any implication that I was unresponsive to feedback.

Well said, and I was unaware of the PM conversation.

[+cheech gang]

Absent any official public response, I can relate anecdotally what was the nature of my behavior that resulted in my no-warning ban.

 

I was "showing a continuing pattern of disdain for Groundspeak"

 

Instead of being constructively critical (which is alleged to be OK), my mistake was "to take underhanded swipes at the company"

 

Back to walking on eggshells:

 

There is a goofy thread in the OFF TOPIC area entitled: Hot Dog - Is it a sandwich? Why or why not?

 

I just today jokingly posted a comment: "What would a hot dog sandwich look like if Groundspeak decided to redesign it?"

After reading frinklabs' comment I'm not so sure if my paltry attempt at comedy was the best decision of the day.

 

Is that what this thread inquiry is about?

[+gpsfun]

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.

The best case scenario in a community forum environment is for members of the community to answer the questions of others. As to this post, Pup Patrol offered this answer to the question posed by the OP:

 

Two words previously forbidden and now generally allowed without promotional implication

 

As to the immediate hijacking of the thread into a critique of Groundspeak asserting paranoia, Sol seaker answered with this:

 

which includes one of the more profound statements in the topic - "It is important to keep a positive outlook in the forums, but in order to do that one must keep a positive outlook. You can't create positive with negative. It just doesn't work."

 

There were numerous other positive comments and I beg forgiveness of those who made such posts that have not been referenced here. For brevity, I'll close with this post from thebruce0 which lists some forum behaviors that are best avoided:

 

A good reference point

 

With thanks to those whose helpful posts rose above the noise, this thread is being closed.