What Are The Rules Here Anyway?

November 25, 2003

First of all, I am a newbie to this forum and the sum of my posts consist of arguing against geocaches on public land without the land managers consent and a question about the features I should look for in a GPS.

So, as is obvious, I have little reason to expect my ideas about this topic will get a warm reception by some. Nonetheless, as a newbie, I have noticed on this forum an inordinate amount of intervention on the part of the administrators. They seem to, more so than other forums I have visited, control what the participants discuss and post.

I admire them for their committment to the sport and what I assume is the earnestness with which they make their decisions but I am dismayed at the paternalistic attitude they demonstrate by forcing the participants here to limit his/her discussion to the narrow confines of what they feel is worth discussing.

You may have no experience with this but in my lurking I have found many examples of threads locked and posts edited for what appear to be the personal whim of an administrator.

In my first ever foray into this forum, the thread was closed - why? I am not sure really. Even I suggested that we were talking in circles but with a caveat that one of the posters had an idea that perhaps we could all agree on. Instead of an opportunity to hash it out, the thread was locked and now, unless I raise the topic again which I do not really want to do, I will never know if my thoughts (which were modified greatly by what I learned here) about geocaches on public land are similar to anyone else but one other person whom I agreed with on that thread.

There are numerous other examples where specific posts are deleted or modified for reasons other than decorum and other threads that are locked for no apparent reason other than the administrator did not want to have the participants talking about it anymore. I am not sure why this would be so. Certainly not to save bandwidth. I can only guess that the administrators decide what is discussed and to what extent it is discussed. Is this their role? I understand deleting overtly offensive posts but otherwise, why should they decide what you discuss or post? If that is their job and you agree then by all means ignore me but for my part, I think it detracts from the free flow of ideas on what is otherwise an amazing community of people.

Am I the only one that sees this as an issue? Are you not adults to decide what you think is worth discussing? Do you not, in some sense, own this forum by your participation?

I do not want to get into any sort of arguement about this. Sure the administrators own the website and control it, but it exists for the benefit of the people who geocache. Why do they get to decide what is discussed?

Enough said on my part (and likely too much). Again, if you think I am out of line then ignore me and this thread will fall off the front page in a hurry and will be forgotten (or deleted) and I will not bring it up again (if I am still permitted to post).

Les.

1.3k · November 25, 2003

Why do they get to decide what is discussed?

You answered the question before you asked it:

Sure the administrators own the website and control it,

but it exists for the benefit of the people who geocache

No, it exists for the benefit of Geocaching.com's customers, both paying and non-paying.

November 25, 2003

Instead of trolling around looking to stir up the pot again, why don't you join the community and go find a few caches. Maybe then your words will be given some respect.

21.9k · November 25, 2003

You asked "What are the Rules here?" The Rules are the Forum Guidelines which are linked from the top left-hand corner of the page in this forum. As volunteer forum moderators, we do our best to apply the forum guidelines fairly. As the guidelines state, the goal is not censorship but rather to promote civilized and enjoyable discussion. This is a game/sport/hobby.

If you believe that I or any other forum moderator has unfairly applied the Forum Guidelines, please send an e-mail to approvers at geocaching dot com so that Groundspeak can review your complaint.

Edited November 25, 2003 by Keystone Approver

November 25, 2003

Smells like a sock puppet in here.

3.9k · November 25, 2003

I have corresponded with Les thru emails and respect that he can have a civilized debate about, (apparently) anything. But I still maintain Les, that if your not here to enjoy the activity/sport of geocaching then what exactly is your motive if not to just stir things up? BTW, I haven't forgot to respond to your email, just to many thoughts I really need an inordinate amount of time to think about all of it without repeating myself.

As far as getting a positive response in these forums... It's kinda like family; You may hate your brother buy you'll defend him to the death. In other words, what you said in this thread would be more likely get a positive response if it was from someone who has been geocaching and has been a member of this community for a while. Rather than someone who has been lurking and hasn't spent much if any time actually participating in the sport that this community represents. The members of this community, (I imagine) will defend the admins before agreeing with you even if they partially agree with what you said. I don't know if any of that makes sense to anyone. But those are my scattered thoughts. The End.

9.4k · November 25, 2003

Nonetheless, as a newbie, I have noticed on this forum an inordinate amount of intervention on the part of the administrators. They seem to, more so than other forums I have visited, control what the participants discuss and post.

Are you my long lost sockpuppet? I used to complain about that, too.

1.4k · November 25, 2003

I'd have to agree with most of lessenergy's post. These forums have gone from near anarchy to something else that is far from reasonable in a few weeks.

I was just given a warning yesterday (could I hold the honor of being the first?) -- for expressing a viewpoint -- there was no hostility in my post but the moderator (I won't say which one but his userID starts with "CO") told me that I was being 'personal' in the forums. Right. Can't have that.

I can't tell you exactly what the rules are lessenergy because there are many of them that "depend on the situation", but I can tell you that if you want to discuss what those rules are you might get told "Reasons for why a user is banned are not for public discussion". I guess you're supposed to learn what gets you banned from using this site by trial and error -- at any rate, you'd best not talk about it (oh, by the way, the only thing worse than talking about rules, is talking about approvers and approval policies).

You've brought up some very relevant observations that the owners and management of this site should pay attention to. Let's hope that they do.

Please be innocuous when you post and "tough nuts" if you don't like it.

*****

1.6k · November 25, 2003

Actually, the control is tamer than what I understand it used to be in the beginning of this site. I know of at least one person who claims to have been banned for challenging the deletion of an utterance of a competing site.

Feel fortunate they are allowing this little bit of dissension as it is.

CR

November 25, 2003

Oh, thank god!

I was getting tired of all the touchy-feely threads that popped up to acknowledge the hard work the people in charge put in to get new forums up and running after InfoPop freaked out.

By all means, let's go back to whining about the folks attempting to maintain some sort of control over the more, uh, out-spoken forum posters.

1.4k · November 25, 2003

yumitori wrote:
By all means, let's go back to whining about the folks attempting to maintain some sort of control over the more, uh, out-spoken forum posters.

Comments like yours are the reason why many people feel inhibited to express their thoughts about such matters. Perhaps it would be better if you kept *your* whining to yourself.

lessenergy has some very valid points that should be taken seriously.

*****

Edited November 25, 2003 by Jomarac5

3.9k · November 25, 2003

OK. So much for that whole family thing. What the hell was I talking about.

1.4k · November 25, 2003

It didn't take long did it?

1.4k · November 25, 2003

J&MBella wrote:
The members of this community, (I imagine) will defend the admins before agreeing with you even if they partially agree with what you said.

Now that's really helpful. And honest.

*****

3.9k · November 25, 2003

Now that's really helpful. And honest.

It wasn't meant to be helpful. I didn't think I was being dishonest.

November 25, 2003

Having an active moderator is a far cry better than the freakin zoo that this forum was just two months ago.

This is coming from a guy who had a very long post deleted last night without notice.

Thanks Moderators.

1.6k · November 25, 2003

I don't remember it being a zoo.

CR

November 25, 2003

I received my first warning yesterday from CO Admin for "flaunting of the basic forum guidelines" which he directed me to HERE. Aside from the fact that The Guidelines are extremely vague and open to interpretation, I was not told, even after asking, which posting was in violation and what Guideline was violated. I'm assuming that the post in question was this one but even so I cannot see what Guideline was violated unless paraphrasing Jeremy's stance on approvers and FTF's is considered disprespectful of "Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers..." In fact, if that posting was considered disrespectful, I'm willing to bet that I will receive another warning for this posting questioning the process.

Note to admins: With all due respect, if you're going to censure someone it is only common courtesy to be specific about what you're censuring them for.

Note to CO Admin: This is not a direct attack or an attempt at disrespect toward yourself or admins in general. It is simply a question regarding policy and process. I have read The Guidelines and do not want to be in violation of the directive: Our moderators are equipped with Kevlar flak jackets and an unlimited supply of admin bricks. Do not attempt to engage them in direct combat.

Respectfully,

1.4k · November 25, 2003

J&MBella:
It wasn't meant to be helpful. I didn't think I was being dishonest.

Well, it wasn't helpful, that's for sure.

Regarding the honesty part, from what you've said, you'd rather hold back on what you really feel is right or correct, and suck up to the admins instead. Ya, you're right, you're being completely honest.

*****

21.9k · November 25, 2003

A portion of this thread has devolved into a dialogue between Jomarac5 and J&MBella. On this point, the Forum Guidelines state:

Private Discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, use the private discussion feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general community.

I could also cite to the section of the guidelines which counsels against attacking persons rather than disagreeing with ideas.

Please continue your discussion offline if you so desire.

I sure hope that was specific enough.

1.4k · November 25, 2003

I'll be sure not to engage in any discussions with an individual here in the discussion forums in the future.

*****

1.3k · November 25, 2003

It would be interesting to know what percentage of forum users have actually been banned, or censored. I suspect the number will be less than one percent. Yes, the guidelines are open to interpretation, and it seems (to me at least) that the majority of people using this forum are able to interpret them correctly, thereby avoiding bans or censure.

21.9k · November 25, 2003

BloenCustoms, I can't speak for the other forum moderators, but I have issued a grand total of one warning notice since the new forums were introduced. It was given after Jomarac5 took offense to a posting of off-color language in a thread that he had started. I noted the violation of the Forum Guidelines, deleted the post, and warned the other user who had made the off-color post. I received a contrite reply, and the warning was lifted.

Edited November 25, 2003 by Keystone Approver

3.9k · November 25, 2003

Wow. You've completely missed the point. Sucking up to the admins? Back yourself up there Skippy. That's not what I'm doing. The guy who started this thread is the same guy that said:

geocaches on public land really irritate me. I think it takes away from the natural beauty of the land. Sure they are hidden but so is garbage in a landfill. It does not mean I want a landfill in the park I hike in.

My only point was that I didn't think Les' opinion would carry much weight with the members of this community.

That's the last I'll speak about this as apparently I'm not allowed to talk to J5 anymore.

Edited November 26, 2003 by J&MBella

1.2k · November 26, 2003

That's the last I'll speak about this as apparently I'm not allowed to talk to J5 anymore.

And that is a bad thing??????

November 26, 2003

Hmmmmm....I always find it interesting that the people who complain the most about the way things are run do not contribute to the site financially. I'm not sure if that actually carries any weight with TPTB, but it's kind of like complaining about the government, when you don't vote. And yes, I vote, too.

November 26, 2003

It would be interesting to know what percentage of forum users have actually been banned, or censored. I suspect the number will be less than one percent.

I would suspect the number is 10%. I also know of a word they censor too, and it's not a dirty one either.

2.1k · November 26, 2003

Hmmmmm....I always find it interesting that the people who complain the most about the way things are run do not contribute to the site financially. I'm not sure if that actually carries any weight with TPTB, but it's kind of like complaining about the government, when you don't vote. And yes, I vote, too.

First, read my signature. Your observation isn't really all that interesting. The people who were happy enough with the site to want to pay are the people who don't complain as much as the non-paying members...imagine that.

This is different from voting actually. Most people who have a complaint with the government will actually vote the next election (against the incumbent) instead of not vote which they would have otherwise done. In democracy, anger is a reason to participate (aka vote). In consumerism, anger is a reason not to participate (aka pay).

If those running a business (this or any other) want to remain profitable, they will respond to the concerns of the paying and non-paying customers alike, since a non-paying customer will only likely become a paying customer if they are happy with the company and/or product enough.

You will also find in our case that many people who are not paying members will be a bit more hasty to complain about something here than in other cases in life, because if they enjoy the hobby of geocaching, they have little available way to do it if not for here.

November 26, 2003

Don’t know how many folks were banned, but wish it had been a few more………..JOE

1.4k · November 26, 2003

Don’t know how many folks were banned, but wish it had been a few more………..JOE

Give it a few more days.

The pool has been going for a week already.

9.4k · November 26, 2003

Two jobs ago back east there was a basket next to the coffee maker in the communal kitchen. Usually in the basket was a few dollars and some change. On the basket was a slip of paper pinned to the front that asked for donations to help pay for the next coffee order.

There was this one guy who never refilled the pot when he poured the last cup of coffee, always complained about the fact the filter wasn't cleaned thoroughly before each new pot, and lamented about the lack of liquid cream and the horrific brand of coffee that the office assistant used to purchase.

He never contributed a dime to the till. He was, of course, perfectly within his right to complain.

November 26, 2003

Gotcha! I never begrudge anyone's right to complain. Mind you, I suppose that if he bought the coffee, he'd have nothing to complain about, and what fun would that be?

1.4k · November 26, 2003

Lapaglia wrote:
And that is a bad thing??????

It's not a bad thing for me.

Ju66l3r wrote:
If those running a business (this or any other) want to remain profitable, they will respond to the concerns of the paying and non-paying customers alike, since a non-paying customer will only likely become a paying customer if they are happy with the company and/or product enough.

Bingo!!!

Jeremy wrote:
He never contributed a dime to the till. He was, of course, perfectly within his right to complain.

Apparently you don't think so though, otherwise you'd have no reason to bring this enlightening story up here.

*****

3k · November 26, 2003

If those running a business (this or any other) want to remain profitable, they will respond to the concerns of the paying and non-paying customers alike, since a non-paying customer will only likely become a paying customer if they are happy with the company and/or product enough.

So, for example, Microsoft should respond to the concerns of those stealing their software in hopes that they may buy it?

Its funny there too because there are a ton (research based) of people out there that steal MS software and complain about it all the time (also research based)

Now this example may not apply because theft is not involved here but its still a matter of paying and not paying, voting not voting, complaining not complaining.

I've always learned that if it was given to you (free) that you don't complain about it. If you didn't pay for the meal then don't complain about how it tastes.

1.4k · November 26, 2003

UMC wrote:
Now this example may not apply because theft is not involved here but its still a matter of paying and not paying, voting not voting, complaining not complaining.

Wrong. There is no obligation to pay here -- we are all told on a regular basis that the service is free. Period. I have no need for pocket queries so there is no incentive for me to pay other than out of guilt (don't take that to mean that I will never pay or that I'm suggesting that others don't pay). Perhaps if peoples suggestions were greeted with some positive feedback, I'll change my mind -- sorry but "tough nuts" doesn't cut it in my books.

As for your complaining about the complaining, these discussion boards are for the purpose of discussing caching -- by your reasoning, anyone not paying should not even consider offering opinions or suggestions (which can always be construed to be complaints) of how to make the activity better. Should we all just ignore the negative things about this activity and only mention the warm fuzzy stuff?

Paid membership or not, everyone's opinion should count here. Just because someone doesn't fork out 30 bucks (for whatever their reasons) doesn't mean that their opinions don't matter.

If you didn't pay for the meal then don't complain about how it tastes.

Would it be wrong then to suggest to the chef that there is too much salt in the mix? Is that complaining or is it suggesting ways of improving the broth?

*****

3k · November 26, 2003

There is positive constructive thought and there is down right negative BS.

I'm saying leave the the negative BS at home or at least out of here. Paying or not.

Perhaps if peoples suggestions were greeted with some positive feedback

Perhaps if some peoples suggestions were positive then positive feedback would be had.

As for your complaining about the complaining,

I don't see where I was complaining in my above post, sorry.

by your reasoning, anyone not paying should not even consider offering opinions or suggestions (which can always be construed to be complaints) of how to make the activity better.

I think opinions and suggestions are great but I didn't mention that in my reasoning, I mentioned the complaining, you know what I mean.

1.4k · November 26, 2003

UMC, perhaps you could explain the difference between complaining and offering suggestions in an effort to improve something? As I see it, there is not much difference other than the way it is interpreted -- and if you're not willing to take opinions and suggestions in a positive, and open-minded manner, it will be construed as a complaint every time -- regardless of how reasonable and polite the delivery of the suggestion is.

If all someone ever does is grumble about how something sucks, without ever adding some suggestions of how to make it better then it probably is complaining. If that's what you are referring to, then I guess I do know what you mean. But the way that you said it, everyone here who is not paying for a membership is doing nothing but complaining. And that's just not true.

But the point of this thread (as outlined in the first post) is that there is still a lot of inconsistency with the moderation of the discussions. From what I see this is true (this is not a complaint -- it is an observation). It is also my observation that one of the moderators is pretty quick on the delete button and could use a bit of moderation himself (should I not mention that at the risk of being labelled a complainer?). And having said that, I believe that the majority of moderators are quite level-headed and use a good amount of fairness in their actions.

In the end, do I have a lot to complain about?... NO. Do I have opinions and suggestions of ways to make things better -- you bet I do. Complaining, suggesting, opinions -- they are all pretty close together -- it would do well to define the boundaries of each before pointing a finger at others.

I think you know what I mean.

*****

3.9k · November 26, 2003

I believe that the majority of moderators are quite level-headed and use a good amount of fairness in their actions.

Suck Up!

I'M JUST KIDDING J5! PUT DOWN THE GUN!

3.9k · November 26, 2003

Let's face it...there will always be someone that dosen't like the rules and will complain about them. Debating with them is a total waste of time. You could give them everything they want and they would still find a complaint.

There once was two boys, one was optimistic, one was pessimistic. They decided to do a study on the two of them.

They placed the optimistic boy in a room full of horse manure. They then placed the pessimistic boy in a room full of the latest and hottest toys.

8 hours later they went back and checked on them. They checked the pessimistic boy first and found him sitting in the middle of the room sulking. When they asked him what was wrong, he said that all the toys were boring and no fun.

They then checked on the optimistic boy. They found him digging through the horse manure grinning from ear to ear. When they asked him what he was so happy about, he replied...with alll this horse sh*t, there has to be a pony in here somewheres!

El Diablo

1.4k · November 26, 2003

J&MBella wrote:
Suck Up!

I'M JUST KIDDING J5! PUT DOWN THE GUN!

He he he. That's funny -- the gun's not loaded.

Keystone Approver, is it OK if I laugh at that post?

Hope I don't get called a suck up again. He he he.

*****

3k · November 26, 2003

UMC, perhaps you could explain the difference between complaining and offering suggestions in an effort to improve something? As I see it, there is not much difference other than the way it is interpreted

com•plain

intr.v. com•plained, com•plain•ing, com•plains

1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.

2. To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge.

sug•ges•tion n.

1. The act of suggesting.

2. Something suggested: We ordered the shrimp, a suggestion of the waiter.

3. The sequential process by which one thought or mental image leads to another.

4.

a. A psychological process by which an idea is induced in or adopted by another without argument, command, or coercion.

b. An idea or response so induced.

5. A hint or trace: just a suggestion of makeup; the first suggestion of trouble ahead.

Thats what I was pretty much thinking of about those two words and dictionary.com agrees with what I was thinking as thats where I got those definitions from.

But the way that you said it, everyone here who is not paying for a membership is doing nothing but complaining. And that's just not true.

Nope, thats the way you (and maybe others) interpreted it and thats not what I was implying at all with my Microsoft comments. I was refering to the folks that "complain" about the software that they use and talk about how much they resent Microsoft for who knows what reason.

I was not refering to the folks who suggest positive improvements for the software that they use.

Thats why you wont see the word suggest in my first post above.

1.4k · November 26, 2003

OK, now I'm miffed. It seems that I'm being targeted here.

I just noticed that my warn meter is now at 20% and I just received a PM from Tenessee Geocacher that says (in it's entirety):

<snip>

Nov 25 2003, 06:08 PM

I don’t think I have to explain this to you be NICE of fellow posters<br>

--------------------

</snip>

Quite frankly, this is crap. For more than one reason.

Firstly, who are you? Ann Landers? Where was I out of line? I'd like to know where I wasn't being nice to anyone.

Secondly, is this what we are expected to get for a warning? No explanation. No nothing.

This is the kind of moderating that this thread is about.

*****

Edited November 26, 2003 by Jomarac5

November 26, 2003

If you want to see a heavily moderated BB then go to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers message board. They ban people for talking about banned people. They ban you if you use a "*" to bypass the sensors to post profane language. They can ban you and not tell you why. The thing is, it is probably the most popular message board for football fans and has more than 73,000 members.

I am on several other message boards myself and they all have their own rules. They are the ones paying for me to use that message board. If I want to do what I want on a message board then I will start my own.

Edited November 26, 2003 by mlnapoli

1.4k · November 26, 2003

UMC wrote:
com•plain

intr.v. com•plained, com•plain•ing, com•plains

1. To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.

2. To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge.

sug•ges•tion n.

1. The act of suggesting.

2. Something suggested: We ordered the shrimp, a suggestion of the waiter.

3. The sequential process by which one thought or mental image leads to another.

4.

a. A psychological process by which an idea is induced in or adopted by another without argument, command, or coercion.

b. An idea or response so induced.

5. A hint or trace: just a suggestion of makeup; the first suggestion of trouble ahead.

Thats what I was pretty much thinking of about those two words and dictionary.com agrees with what I was thinking as thats where I got those definitions from.

Can't say I'd disagree with any of this, it's my understanding as well.

So who's complaining in this thread? Before answering that, there's one more definition that needs to be added:

ques·tion

An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.

An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture.

A subject or point open to controversy; an issue.

A difficult matter; a problem: a question of ethics.

A point or subject under discussion or consideration.

A proposition brought up for consideration by an assembly.

The act of bringing a proposal to vote.

Uncertainty; doubt: There is no question about the validity of the enterprise.

-----

I see questions and suggestions in this thread, but nothing that looks like complaining.

*****

3k · November 26, 2003

OK, now I'm miffed. It seems that I'm being targeted here.

I just noticed that my warn meter is now at 20% and I just received a PM from Tenessee Geocacher that says (in it's entirety):

<snip>

Nov 25 2003, 06:08 PM

I don’t think I have to explain this to you be NICE of fellow posters<br>

--------------------

</snip>

Quite frankly, this is crap. For more than one reason.

Firstly, who are you? Ann Landers? Where was I out of line? I'd like to know where I wasn't being nice to anyone.

Secondly, is this what we are expected to get for a warning? No explanation. No nothing.

This is the kind of moderating that this thread is about.

*****

I'm not sure but I think he may have been refering to these comments:

oh, by the way, the only thing worse than talking about rules, is talking about approvers and approval policies.

yumitori wrote:

By all means, let's go back to whining about the folks attempting to maintain some sort of control over the more, uh, out-spoken forum posters.

Comments like yours are the reason why many people feel inhibited to express their thoughts about such matters. Perhaps it would be better if you kept *your* whining to yourself.

Twas rather cynical towards those approvers and yumitori was not pointing fingers but you pointed one at him. Just how I interpreted it.

If I find out more or the 'real reason' I will let ya know

3.9k · November 26, 2003

Where was I out of line? I'd like to know where I wasn't being nice to anyone.

Well. You could have been a little more warm and fuzzy toward me. But I have thick skin and can dish it out just as much as I can take it. Can I assume it was about the dialog that we had in this thread? If it was I was I didn't take it personally. And I thought I reciprocated well. Anyway, I'm from New York that was like a warm friendly 'Hello' to me. Plus I called him a 'suck up' back so we're even. Let me know if that's not good enough, I think I can come up with a few more colorful phrases to try to offend him.

1.2k · November 26, 2003

Let's face it...there will always be someone that dosen't like the rules and will complain about them. Debating with them is a total waste of time. You could give them everything they want and they would still find a complaint.

There once was two boys, one was optimistic, one was pessimistic. They decided to do a study on the two of them.

They placed the optimistic boy in a room full of horse manure. They then placed the pessimistic boy in a room full of the latest and hottest toys.

8 hours later they went back and checked on them. They checked the pessimistic boy first and found him sitting in the middle of the room sulking. When they asked him what was wrong, he said that all the toys were boring and no fun.

They then checked on the optimistic boy. They found him digging through the horse manure grinning from ear to ear. When they asked him what he was so happy about, he replied...with alll this horse sh*t, there has to be a pony in here somewheres!

El Diablo

THen there is the story about the boy who asked questions and if he didnt like the answer, even if it was the correct answer, he asked again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again!

I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony I want a pony

November 26, 2003

After years of local bulletin boards, CompuServe, and internet discussion groups I swore I would never read or post to a discussion group again (circa 1996).

In 2001 I discovered geocaching and this discussion group. I told all the newbies to get on the board, ask questions, and get answers, 'cause this discussion group was better than any I had ever seen. No bickering, just a few friendly arguments and some teasing and lots of useful information about geocaching and related subjects.

In the last year it has degenerated into that morass that all the other boards descended into years ago. Alas, popularity has its dark side also.

The efforts of the VOLUNTEERS to restore order and keep the topics between the lines, with the expressed purpose of serving the geocaching community are commendable. I support them.

If you need freedom of expression, set up a (free) yahoo discussion group, invite others to join you (in this forum) and go after each other. There you can “instant message” or “instant flame” yourselves into an “anarchist’s paradise”. Otherwise, let’s get this discussion group back to supporting geocaching and geocaching activities.

My $0.02 worth, your mileage may vary.

One of my best friends is a frog.

November 26, 2003

I agree with the original post; why does Admin prowl the discussion forums just searching for what they consider to be off-topic posts? I feel spied upon, and am not comfortable with this kind of surveillance. It is not that they do not have a right to stop off-color and angry posts, that is OK with me. It's just that they seem too controlling as to what we can discuss. Yes, the frog, whoever he is, owns ADMIN(the minions), and this is adverse to a true geocaching forum. I don't like it. Regards, Team Safari.

21.9k · November 26, 2003

This thread has degenerated into a back-and-forth adversarial dialogue of the type I had cautioned against earlier. My prior post was a suggestion in order to keep the discussion productive. It didn't work, so I'm closing this thread.

What Are The Rules Here Anyway?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment