enfanta Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 ... in an indirect way. "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB. Although this BB does not and cannot review the messages posted and is not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we at this BB reserve the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless this BB, Madrona Park, Inc. (the makers of the bulletin board software), and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s)." This never used to worry me before but now that posts are getting deleted, I'm concerned about self-censorship. I find myself thinking twice about replying to posts and often not replying at all, concerned that I'm going to **** a moderator off. I've also noticed a topic shut down in one forum b/c the forum it was in wasn't the place to discuss policy... but the thread didn't seem that off-topic to me... I'm getting confused about what is accepted and what isn't and going by the rules posted above it looks like many of my posts have been in violation of the code. I understand there is a handful of posters who create problems for gc.com but the recent smack-down is causing folks like me (not a problem poster??) to shut up for fear of being punished. Am I the only one feeling this way? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Wearer of duplicative protective headgear. Quote Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 No your not. I also have not posted to threads due to not wanting to "offend" anyone, perceived insults or whatever. It seem as one of the Oregon Cachers overstepped the boundry and has been banished from the forums. For how long, I do not know. But along this same line, I will sound off to the approvers in a private e-mail when need be. I hope they do not hold grudges. So far, the approvers I have delt with are upfront and straight shooters with their comments and suggestions - in both private talks and forum postings - and honorable people who I am proud to deal with. I hope it stays that way. logscaler. "Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense." Mark Twain. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted October 16, 2003 Share Posted October 16, 2003 Enfanta, those are NOT the forum guidelines which I am helping the community observe. They are stock language posted by InfoPop in a help file. There are some phrases in InfoPop's test that are very different from the Groundspeak guidelines. Read the Groundspeak guidelines and judge what you do -- and what I do -- against what they contain. It is my hope that a polite and respectful forum will encourage MORE participation rather than less. I don't mean to drive anyone away. Rather, people who were afraid to post in the unmoderated forums would hopefully feel more comfortable stating their views if they know they won't be pounced upon. And also we hope for more "casual readers" to return. When talking to geocachers at events or on the trail, the admins hear over and over again that "the forums are full of junk/noise/bickering, so I never go there anymore." To my knowledge, the one and only account banned from the forums had that sanction applied quite a long time ago, before the moderation policy (yep, from Oregon). I do hope there won't be a need for similar action in the future. (Note: there have been sock puppet accounts banned since then, as well as bans unrelated to the forums.) I am happy to discuss the forums, and my role as a moderator, at any time with any of you.... either here or by e-mail. Many of you reading along already know this to be the case. This would include criticizing my actions in a constructive and respectful manner. If you are uncomfortable doing that directly, then please bring any criticisms to the attention of Groundspeak at the "contact at" e-mail address. I hope that this is helpful. |x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x| Keystone Approver, Geocaching.com Admin "Eschewing Entropy and Ensuring Enthalpy in the Groundspeak Forums" Quote Link to comment
+Perfect Tommy Posted October 17, 2003 Share Posted October 17, 2003 The disclaimer is typical boilerplate intended to protect the website from lawsuits. In my experience, these restrictions do not appear to be rigidly enforced by TPTB and their minions. Fear not and be just. ____________________________________________ I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused Quote Link to comment
enfanta Posted October 18, 2003 Author Share Posted October 18, 2003 quote: We simply want to preserve the spirit of an open, interactive discussion without offending participants. This means that we (Groundspeak and the volunteers for Groundspeak) reserve the right to edit/remove inappropriate messages, or to lock a discussion thread. Before taking any of these actions, a moderator will attempt to steer the discussion back to the topic, if this is possible and appropriate. Keystone, I have no concerns about your ability as both an approver and a moderator. I have seen several instances of both in which you have been fair, discreet and diplomatic. I am concerned, however, about a minority of moderators who find it easier to delete a post than to suggest respectfully that the conversation be brought back on topic, or who fall back into sarcasm (no doubt worn out by the same old arguments and bickering) just at the time they should either be disengaging from the topic or putting it back on track. For myself, I do not find this new moderation to be reassuring. It makes me question everything I say and although that may be a good thing in some people's eys I don't think I was one to mindlessly post just for the sake of posting. I am also concerned about the dual Approver/Moderator role. I feel a wedge growing between gc.com and cachers and the approver/moderator role becoming one of defense, not facility. Furthermore, if a cacher ticks off a moderator, where is the assurance that that cacher's caches will not keep falling to the bottom of the approval queue? I don't feel that concern here in PA but perhaps others do across the country. Should not the moderator and approver role be seperated? I am still uneasy about the tone in the general forum... Quote Link to comment
+MissJenn Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver:It is my hope that a polite and respectful forum will encourage MORE participation rather than less. I don't mean to drive anyone away. Rather, people who were afraid to post in the unmoderated forums would hopefully feel more comfortable stating their views if they know they won't be pounced upon. I don't read the Forums as often as I used to. And even when I do, I tend to just stick to the NE one - the General one had gotten too annoying to me. I would, though, be really interested to know if those of you who are more regular readers and posters notice a difference: as far as more people feeling more comfortable to post and not be ''pounced upon.'' quote:And also we hope for more "casual readers" to return. I sure hope this comes to pass. quote:"the forums are full of junk/noise/bickering, so I never go there anymore." This is what I found annoying. Quote Link to comment
+MissJenn Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver: Read the Groundspeak guidelines and judge what you do -- and what I do -- against what they contain. Here they are as posted by hydee on Sept 15, 2003 [This message was edited by MissJenn on October 23, 2003 at 11:17 AM.] Quote Link to comment
+Polgara Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 quote:Originally posted by MissJenn: quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver:It is my hope that a polite and respectful forum will encourage MORE participation rather than less. I don't mean to drive anyone away. Rather, people who were afraid to post in the unmoderated forums would hopefully feel more comfortable stating their views if they know they won't be pounced upon. I don't read the Forums as often as I used to. And even when I do, I tend to just stick to the NE one - the General one had gotten too annoying to me. I would, though, be _really interested_ to know if those of you who are more regular readers and posters notice a difference: as far as more people feeling more comfortable to post and not be ''pounced upon.'' quote:And also we hope for more "casual readers" to return. I sure hope this comes to pass. quote:"the forums are full of junk/noise/bickering, so I never go there anymore." This is what I found annoying. I couldn't agree more. THe forums have definetly changed since I joined...back in December. There are alot of people who used to post, and don't anymore, and its a shame because the people i speak of used to discuss more about caching, and showed more positive interest in caching. I think it was right around the late spring when this change ensued. I'm hoping that the reason for that is because these cachers were busy caching more than posting in the forums, as the weather got nicer. I sure hope they return to the forums, maybe things will take a different direction again. "The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator." - Louis Pasteur [This message was edited by Ce'Nedra on October 23, 2003 at 01:15 PM.] [This message was edited by Ce'Nedra on October 23, 2003 at 01:17 PM.] Quote Link to comment
+Planet Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Reading the general forums lately is so depressing. I joined in April '02. The forums were fun back then. Even when there was some dispute it was over something real. It's a wonder we've never gone to war with Canada! If we could only weed out the few that make it miserable, who just don't get it, this would be a happier place, but they get to play too. It's just a shame they keep on repeating themselves, it really is. So I skip right over anything posted by "the Whiners" It's not worth reading anything they say. Anything I do want to post to them would be along the lines of "Please be quiet!" Only harsher toned than that. I love this game, I love the people I've met, I love the site. I am having the most fun I've had in my life. Thank you all for being there. I love you guys *sniff sniff* I cache, therefore I am. Planet Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Can you imagine the opposite... HAVING to read every single post in every single thread in the Getting Started and General forums? Who would be stupid enough to volunteer to be a moderator in those forums? Wait, don't answer that.... By the way, I just took a poll in my local area's Yahoo! group, where all my friends go to actually discuss geocaching. I asked them two questions: "do you still read the forums?" and "Keystone is getting pretty sick of all the stuff being thrown at the approvers, should he resign his position and go back to being a geocacher?" The answer to the first question was a unanimous condemnation of the general forums. The answer to the second question was a unanimous "keep being stupid, Keystone, we need you." |x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x| Keystone Approver, Geocaching.com Admin "Eschewing Entropy and Ensuring Enthalpy in the Groundspeak Forums" Quote Link to comment
+PSUPAUL Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 KA, keep up the stupidity, we need ya!!! PSUPAUL of Team Geo-Remdation Quote Link to comment
+lostinjersey Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver:I don't mean to drive anyone away. Rather, people who were afraid to post in the unmoderated forums would hopefully feel more comfortable stating their views if they know they won't be pounced upon. And also we hope for more "casual readers" to return. When talking to geocachers at events or on the trail, the admins hear over and over again that "the forums are full of junk/noise/bickering, so I never go there anymore." I am happy to discuss the forums, and my role as a moderator, at any time with any of you.... either here or by e-mail. Many of you reading along already know this to be the case. This would include criticizing my actions in a constructive and respectful manner. i have just a few issues with the recent "editing" of posts. Same with the deleting of posts. I find it extremely jarring when in the middle of the an otherwise unremarkable post I see "irelevant discourse edited to keep us on the theme of this discussion" or however it is phrased. I genuinely am annoyed by this. Generally speaking, its very apparent when someone has an ax to grind, or are trying to hijack a thread (the inevitable "gays are evil, god will smite them" posts in a discussion about "encountering gays in a park gitting some", and when i created such a thread, thats what happened & I asked it to be closed since it was getting out of hand) Since it's obvious, there usually is a definite need for intervention. But I'm seeing posts which seem to be on target, dont seem to be someone with an ax, and suddenly we get that edit. Why? There is a difference between being off topic and hijacking a thread. the actions taken by moderators would be appropriate against a hijack, but being off topic isn't necesarily a bad thing per se. I would like to think that all moderators are fair & unbiased but I can't know that for sure. Not knowing what was in there only makes me suspicious because if the rest of the post doesnt seem to be offensive, it makes me question the judgement involved, but I have ABSOLUTELY nothing to go since I couldn't read it for myself. As for obnoxious posts and such, the whole wild west aspect of the forums at times, and the idea that "the forums are so bad I don't go there any more", I just don't buy it. I'm not saying I want to read some of the posts, as they can be downright nasty and even degrading. However, my feeling is if there's a line, and its crossed, warn them. Cross that line again, suspend their forum priviledges for a week. maybe a month. Again and they're baaned for an even longer period of time or even face suspension of their account. I've sene it handled that way in other forums, seemed to work fine there... There has to be aserious violation of the TOS, or the rules or whatever we want to call them though. someone referenced some sort of official rules... heres a few snipets and my thoughts... quote:This means that we (Groundspeak and the volunteers for Groundspeak) reserve the right to edit/remove inappropriate messages, or to lock a discussion thread. Before taking any of these actions, a moderator will attempt to steer the discussion back to the topic, if this is possible and appropriate. When in the middle of a post we see those words that indicate an edit has taken place, how has this rule been followed? As I said there is a difference between hijacking a thread and just straying into lala land... When the rest of the post seems ok, I highly doubt whatever was edited rises to the level of being excised... quote:About our Moderators: Forum Moderators are community volunteers ... Do not attempt to engage them in direct combat. As if anyone would know, the whole thing would likely be edited and kept from prying eyes anyway... Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 GWho, thanks for expressing your concerns. I do think that I've been following the forum moderation guidelines. I will very often send a private e-mail to alert a forum community member of a concern that I might have. I will very often post a friendly reminder in a thread to attempt to keep it on topic. Editing or deleting posts ought to be a last resort. Rest assured, when it is done, it is for good reason. The most common reasons include potty jokes, lewd pictures, foul language and direct personal attacks on other community members. Often times I will annotate my efforts with an explanation such as "edited to remove names of geocachers" or "expletive deleted." I do not feel the need to give you a clearer picture... "edited to remove image of Kermit the frog having sex with a bunny rabbit" (that's true, from a post deleted within the past week). It would kinda defeat the purpose of the editing, eh? I think you do need to repose some bit of trust in the forum moderators to do their job. If someone does not like the way that their post was edited, they may alert the website and the post will be deleted. They are then welcome to post again without breaking the forum conduct guidelines. Besides public and private warnings, I can think of a half dozen instances since the forum moderation policy became effective where a person's forum posts have been moderated for a period of a week. There is no particular need to publicize names for everyone else to see. It just happens... the posts are screened and the posts which meet the forum conduct guidelines are promptly posted. Longer periods of moderated posts, temporary bans and permanent bans are more stringent measures which I hope never need to be applied, but they are certainly available. If you have specific examples of situations where I have acted in a manner that troubles you, please either e-mail me with details privately or, if you would feel more comfortable, report my conduct to Da Boss by e-mailing approvers at geocaching.com. |x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x| Keystone Approver, Geocaching.com Admin "Eschewing Entropy and Ensuring Enthalpy in the Groundspeak Forums" Quote Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver:... If someone does not like the way that their post was edited, they may alert the website and the post will be deleted. ... What is the procedure one should follow when they don't like the fact that their response to a post was deleted, but the offensive post that provoked the response was neither deleted nor edited by an even-handed moderator? Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 BP, Describe your concerns, perhaps with a link to the thread, in an e-mail to the special address that is set up JUST for complaints about the volunteer forum moderators/cache approvers. The address is approvers at geocaching dot com. E-mails sent to this address receive priority attention at Groundspeak, because they do not get lost among the hundreds of routine inquiries received at the general contact address. I don't recall ever deleting or editing one of your posts without providing an explanation to you via e-mail. I did not receive any response from you. If you have any problems with my work, you should also feel free to bring it up with me directly. I am speculating that you are asking about an action taken by another forum moderator. |x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x|x*x-x| Keystone Approver, Geocaching.com Admin "Eschewing Entropy and Ensuring Enthalpy in the Groundspeak Forums" Quote Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver: I don't recall ever deleting or editing one of your posts without providing an explanation to you via e-mail. I don't recall you, or any other moderator for that matter, ever editing a post of mine. I have noticed a few of my posts "disappear." It is obviously not possible (from our end, at least) to know which moderator deleted a post. As we all know, forum users are not permitted to delete their own posts, but we are permitted to edit/remove the content of our posts for a limited period of time. I suggest moderators should have no greater ability: Should a moderator decide a post needs to be deleted, they should, of course, be permitted to remove the content of the offending post, but the header and a line reading something like [The content of this message was deleted by (name of moderator) on (current date) at (current time)] should remain as a "placeholder." Quote Link to comment
+lostinjersey Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot:Should a moderator decide a post needs to be deleted, they should, of course, be permitted to remove the content of the offending post, but the header and a line reading something like [The content of this message was deleted by (name of moderator) on (current date) at (current time)] should remain as a "placeholder." For whatever reason, lately I've been finding myself agreeing with you. a lot. This is no exception. It's a good idea I think. Whether it's one sentance or the whole thing, we should at least know something was there, and no longer is. Quitters never win and winners never quit, but people who never win and never quit and complete idiots Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.