Are Moderators Micro-managing The Posts?

4.5k · November 26, 2003

I don't think I'm overly controversial on the frorums, but it just seems that lately I'm afraid to post what I really think for being castigated and getting filed-in naughty caution boxes. There are so many posts by the moderators telling us to "watch what we say" "what we want to say" "what we think we might say". "Don't get emotional" "don't be controversial" "don't argue" You get the picture.

I'm ready to chuck the forums and stick to caching. I'm actualy talking to my wife more lately.

Anyone feel like me?

There, now I feel better.

Alan

38.2k · November 26, 2003

Yeah, the forced politeness is going waaaaay overboard. OK, delete foul language, slander and threads about Vespa scooters. Leave the rest alone. If the topic isn't of interest to the community, it will soon fall off the board.

If anything, the tone here has gotten a little harsher since the moderators stepped in and a lot of that animosity is directed at them and the perceived heavy-handedness of GC.COM.

Edited November 26, 2003 by briansnat

3k · November 26, 2003

"watch what we say" "what we want to say" "what we think we might say". "Don't get emotional" "don't be controversial" "don't argue" You get the picture.

The picture I got from that is "Be Nice" I don't see whats so wrong with that.

[edited: for not paying attention]

Edited November 26, 2003 by umc

2.3k · November 26, 2003

I don't think I'm overly controversial on the frorums, but it just seems that lately I'm afraid to post what I really think for being castigated and getting filed-in naughty caution boxes.

I AM overly controversial on the forums, but am not going to say anything about this topic. It's a trick question. Let's see:

Say "Yes, they are micro-managing", and get on their bad side.

Say "No, they are are pretty laid back", and still get on their bad side because the Frog comes down on them for not doing a good enough job.

Say "They are doing a good job", and let it go at that.

Since I am already on everyones bad side, I will say that they are doing a good job, and try to keep my head out of the chopping block this time.

3.9k · November 26, 2003

What Are The Rules Here Anyway? Part 2

4.5k · November 26, 2003

"watch what we say" "what we want to say" "what we think we might say". "Don't get emotional" "don't be controversial" "don't argue" You get the picture.

The picture I got from that is "Be Nice" I don't see whats so wrong with that.

[edited: for not paying attention]

There's nothing wrong with that. It's just that I'm not a child but an adult who does not need someone else making judgement calls for me for what I can think and say. Briansnat got the picture - cursing should be out but not feelings of what you really think. We're adults who dont' need thought and speech monitors and that's the picture I'm seeing from the moderators. I'm sure they mean well. But it's insulting to our intelligence. And it's going to make the forums boring and uninteresting.

Frankly there a two reasons I see for this: 1. Power, the kind peole think they have when you place them in positions of authority and they can "flip the switch" 2. Business. geocaching.com is trying to put the best face forward by sanitizing the forums. Why is that? Hmmm.

Gee. There I go again be controversial.

Alan

1.4k · November 26, 2003

This thread looks like it'll be interesting.

*****

3.9k · November 26, 2003

I did think the last thread was closed prematurely. I don't think it was getting out of hand. There was some dialog that got slightly heated but nothing that was particularly offensive. If anything it ended up kind of comical. I did feel like big brother was looking out for me or us or whatever, which was not necessary. I do appreciate the job the admins do here, but I do think Keystone was a little quick on the trigger in that thread.

Edited November 26, 2003 by J&MBella

November 26, 2003

If anything, the tone here has gotten a little harsher since the moderators stepped in and a lot of that animosity is directed at them and the perceived heavy-handedness of GC.COM.

Not GC.com, but a few moderators who think they are high and mighty. Other than that it's heaven. ;-)

November 26, 2003

The picture I got from that is "Be Nice" I don't see whats so wrong with that.

[

Is that a command, a suggestion, or a plea?

November 26, 2003

Since I am already on everyones bad side, I will say that they are doing a good job, and try to keep my head out of the chopping block this time.

I thought you said you were giving up geocaching? When did you come back? Now you are back. You are starting to sound a lot like a local cacher. ;-)

November 26, 2003

I will put my head on the chopping block or in the gallows. I see no reason why the moderators should not be able to direct the topic, that is what they do. Ever watch those weird political shows on Sunday morning or CNN? The moderator re-directs all the time to keep them in check.

Sometimes the horse is already dead and buried, no reason to bring it back and keep kicking it.

Overall, I think that the moderators and the participants do a great job of keeping the discussion on topic and respectful.

Now if the moderators ever limit the discussion to pro/con for 3 of each, then I will get upset.

Sometimes the wisest man is the one who admits he knows nothing. One can learn more by listening than talking.

November 26, 2003

This is a little random, but I was going to suggest these in the closed thread (and then start a new one, the obvious solution to prematurely closed threads--which makes the forum archives impossible to search...

Since moderation is experience some growing pains (to be expected as it's new).

I can tell you were I censo..., er, I mean warned, I'd expect to be provided with the following via PM:

- link or copy the offending language/post

- state in clear terms how it offends (can be prepared statements)

- provide a course of action to clear the offense (IE, please direct your statements to all the readers rather than one individual)

Since complaints (both public and private) generated the need for moderation, and the forums are representative of the community and activity (to media, new participants, FWS reps trying to judge us in writing new guidelines), moderation is warranted.

However, moderating without explanation is deserving of a warning! {wink}

The growing pains will pass as those few undergoing moderation/warning/censorship modify their behaviour to fit within acceptable tolerances.

Wow, I spit that out at 1:33 am after short-changing my sleep last night! Scary...

Is this good? It might induce creative expression rather than direct attacks. It might generate more PMs. Either way it will improve the perception of the forums...

Another tact would be the one an adult sexuality area of a major online service (pre-Internet) handled it. They allowed discussion using clinical terminology rather than purient wordage. Moderators simply removed the post, sent it to you with the statement, "please modify your post to fit within the guidelines" and permitted reposting.

Childish? Yes, but childish behaviour warrants such.

Just my non-complaining (with an element of complaining) take on it,

Randy

3.5k · November 26, 2003

I'm ready to chuck the forums and stick to caching. I'm actualy talking to my wife more lately.

Sounds like something that most, if not everyone (moderators included), should do.

November 26, 2003

ok i help manage a very popular photo group we dont alow swearing on it because were a family forum but we do alow off topic chats . I see the same rules here, On my photo forum id let my son and daughter read any post. Here no theyed be watched over even though geocacheing is more of a family activity then my photography. dose any one see any thing wrong with this. Add mins keep up the good work.

1.2k · November 26, 2003

We're adults who <snip>

Is being an adult a condition for being a geocacher?

3k · November 26, 2003

I'm ready to chuck the forums and stick to caching. I'm actualy talking to my wife more lately.
Sounds like something that most, if not everyone (moderators included), should do.

Yeah, my wife keeps telling me this too.

1.3k · November 26, 2003

Hmm... I don't see the moderators stopping the free exchange of ideas. If slinging personal attacks and belittlement is the definition of free excange of ideas, then perhaps I'm wrong. If you sit back and read the many threads that have been locked, they usually contain a lot of bickering between individuals. There comes a point where two people on opposite sides of a discussion are so adamant about their position, nothing will change their mind. When that point is reached, they ought to leave the discussion, because they can no longer learn anything from it. (I have beeen guilty of this myself.)

Redundantly stating the same points continuously only takes up space, and slows the discussion for those that still wish to participate, and might be open to learning other people's opinions on the topic.

The trouble is, it's human nature to want others to agree with your opinoins, and some people will stop at nothing, (including personal attacks) to try to persuade others to see things the same way. If the other guy is just as sure of his position, it degrades into a flame fest rapidly. Moderators are necessary, and they are driven by human nature as well. I'm sure that they were chosen for their experience and sense of fairness, and if they come across as heavy-handed, so be it. You just might appreciate what they are doing when a gentle nudge steers a topic you are participating in away from flaming, and back on topic again.

Lately, many of the topics I have seen closed were closed only after a "gentle nudge" was not enough to get things back on track.

November 26, 2003

O.K. I'll take a bite.

It's hard to be politically correct anywhere, much less on the forum board.

I've layed low for awhile now, but still peek in now and then. I see the adversity now as I did then, and that's expected.

Moderation is fine. I will say good job to the mods for their role.

With the wide array of people and their opinions, it's obvious that you cannot please everyone at the same time regardless of what you say or what you do.

I can see now that it can be a pain in the @ss for a moderator to TRY to be PC, since they have to be fair and impartial, and provide guidelines to us all. That's hard to do when it [seems] for instance unfair to me or you and not the other guy.

Of course, not making reference to anyone on the board, I'm sure it has happend to us all at one time or another.

Suck it up and widen those shoulders. Surely whatever qualm we have will get better as long as we don't make it harder on ourselves. That's why when we do run astray and things don't go as planned, the mods step in.

Fine with me.

4.5k · November 26, 2003

I will put my head on the chopping block or in the gallows. I see no reason why the moderators should not be able to direct the topic, that is what they do. Ever watch those weird political shows on Sunday morning or CNN? The moderator re-directs all the time to keep them in check.

You've made my point about sanitizing the forums. CNN does these things not for the participants but for the outside viewers. They're limited by time and want to put on a good face, keep the thing moderated so the advertisers keep buying space.

But a forum should be a place for a free exchange of ideas even if the discussion gets heated. People should move on to other topics if it's getting to them, but the moderators should not be sanitizing for outsiders as I believe is often happening or cutting off debate because in their opinion the topic isn't following some pre-conceived format.

Alan

November 26, 2003

I deliberately avoided reposting on the previous thread on this topic (since locked) but did get a PM from another forum member and thought some of you may be interested in my reply. If not, just ignore it.

___________________

I appreciate your take on this and, as I made abundantly clear when I started the thread, I know I don't have much history on this forum, expection of sympathy for my ideas or, as was pointed out to me, credibility.

I am just disappointed that the discussion on an issue that is very important to me and others - geocaches on public lands - was terminated for no apparent reason and just at the point that a consensus may emerge. The only reason that I could see is that the moderator did not want us to talk about the issue anymore.

I like it when people disagee with me - I learn things that way. Someone wrote on this forum recently, "I never learned anything from a man that agreed with me." and that is brilliant. My position on geocaching on public land changed dramatically because of my participation in that thread. It might have been modified more or others may have modified or changed their opinions. Now we'll never know. What a shame.

I don't understand why, if some forum members want to discuss something, the moderators should decide if they can. Threads of no interest will die quickly. In one instance I read recently, some troll posted a really inflamatory topic and rather than get sucked in, numerous members simply ignored him and deliberately talked about something else - what a brilliant way to address this. (Of course the thread still got locked because the administrator did not want the title of that thread to remain near the top of the list - go figure. I find that odd, I don't know how you see it.)

From what I have seen here, the rules seem to be:

1) Don't discuss anything that some administrator does not want you to discuss. It will only be tolerated for a very short time before the thread is locked.

2) If you are going to disagree make sure that there are at least 5 people actively posting in some sort of rotation or the administrator will indicate that thread should become an exchange of PMs and lock it. (Forget the fact that others may be reading the thread, learning something but do not feel the need to post or that others may join in at a later date.)

3) Threads that are not about geocaching are not permitted unless the administrators think it is OK - take a look at the Thanksgiving reciepe thread - it has absolutely nothing to do with geocaching but is going strong. There are other examples of this. (Not that I think off topic thread are necessarily bad and should be locked but, if this thread is permitted, why not others?)

4) Don't disagree with anyone in anything less than a very polite manner and even better, don't disagree at all since it is really difficult to follow the rules on how one is to disagree - they seem to shift depending on the whims of the administrator.

5) Don't insult anyone unless the person you are insulting is taking a position contrary to what the administrators want. On my first thread here, I was called an idiot without any reaction whatsoever from the administrators. Frankly, I don't care a bit that I was called an idiot - I can look after myself. I do care however that the application of the rules are not consistent.

6) Be carefull what you post. If the administrators do not like it, they will edit it (fair enough I guess in most circumstances - they should have that responsibility) but, in addition to editing it, they insert a editorial into your post which is unbelievably inappropriate in my view. Your recourse? Get your entire post deleted. There is no appeal that your original post what edited wrongly.

I know that the administrators are volunteers and they are only human. It can not be an easy job and being criticized for how you do a job you volunteer for for the good of a whole group has got to suck. I sympathize with them on that count but I don't know why, because of that, I need to accept the things that they do that I do not agree with.

As I originally stated when I started that thread, I post elsewhere on the net on other topics that interest me. No where else have I seen the kind of intervention I see here by the administrators.

Les.

November 26, 2003

I frequent other forums on-line involved with other activities. I have had my posts there deleted or moved at the whim of the moderators. I have gotten messages posted in threads with warnings for "infractions" far less grievous than anything people post in these forums.

Personally, I think the moderators here are far more lenient on topics and posts that push the envelope than other sites.

Its easy and kind of fun to complain. And I think geocaching by nature attracts free spirited and independent people. But we don't own these forums and the rights to "free speech" don't really extend to here.

Let's give the moderators a break and let them do theier job. The forums are for learning about our hobby and people who share our interest in it. There are better and less restrictive ways to speak your mind.

1.4k · November 26, 2003

Great post lessenergy, your take on the rules seems very accurate.

I think you've nailed it. I hope that those who enforce the rules are listening.

*****

November 26, 2003

Cool and the gang you are right on,, hope everyone that post is listening …………………..JOE

November 26, 2003

I think my objections to the moderators are well documented. If it weren't for this computer glitch, I would still be banned.

1.4k · November 26, 2003

Cool and the gang wrote:
Let's give the moderators a break and let them do their job.

I agree. But let's see them do the job properly with good sense.

*****

5.9k · November 26, 2003

I think my objections to the moderators are well documented. If it weren't for this computer glitch, I would still be banned.

You got banned too?!

Cool! I got banned, my sock puppet got banned, and its sock puppet got banned.

November 26, 2003

I'm afraid to post what I really think for being castigated and getting filed-in naughty caution boxes.
Neutering seems a little harsh........................

Team Terrapin

3k · November 26, 2003

I don't understand why, if some forum members want to discuss something, the moderators should decide if they can. Threads of no interest will die quickly.

From what I have seen here, the rules seem to be:

1) Don't discuss anything that some administrator does not want you to discuss. It will only be tolerated for a very short time before the thread is locked.

Try and understand why threads are locked and posts are moderated. For example in this thread discussion has been going back and forth about the thread topic.

As you can see with the few posts above this one we are trailing off topic and are all over the place.

As things continue on this path they tend to get more and more out of hand until there is no hope in steering things back on topic so to speak. The options at the point are limited and locking the thread prevents those off color/off topic posts to continue to a point of complete mayhem which then solves nothing.

November 26, 2003

I can tell you were I censo..., er, I mean warned, I'd expect to be provided with the following via PM:

- link or copy the offending language/post

- state in clear terms how it offends (can be prepared statements)

- provide a course of action to clear the offense (IE, please direct your statements to all the readers rather than one individual)

I can tell you with certainty that this does NOT happen. Reasons given for a warning are non-specific and repeated requests via private mail for details are simply ignored. It is apparently not in The Guidelines that admins must treat others with the same respect they demand.

Lessenergy - for someone who hasn't been around here very long, your observations are pretty accurate and perceptive. I find it interesting that, in the previous thread, you were accused by multiple members of being a sockpuppet and/or troll, and advised that your words would carry more weight if you had more postings. This appears to be in direct violations of The Guidelines, "Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect", and is a pretty good example of multiple personal attacks which are also in violation of The Guidelines. I would be most surprised if any of those members making the accusations were admonished by an admin.

3.9k · November 26, 2003

I gotta say Les, most of your post seems pretty accurate. Still, and I hate to sound lke a broken record here but, GO GET A FREAKIN' GPS ALREADY!

the rights to "free speech" don't really extend to here

Why shouldn't free speech extend to here?

and advised that your words would carry more weight if you had more postings

What I said was it would carry more weight if he was a geocacher. Some people agreed, some didn't, no biggie.

Edited November 26, 2003 by J&MBella

1.7k · November 26, 2003

These forums are constantly evolving.

Recently, there were threads that were nothing more than tirades and "he said - she said" the like.

Now the pendulum has swung far to the other extreme as moderators try to learn what to do and how to do it.

Eventually the pendulum will settle somewhere in the middle.

I intend to work WITH the situation as it evolves. Why sweat the small stuff?

Everything changes........

21.9k · November 26, 2003

Personally, I do identify why a person is being warned and how it relates to the forum conduct guidelines. Twenty or so recipients of those warnings can attest to this. But I will not discuss specific examples here because I believe it inappropriate to do so. Gorak, if you had a different individual experience, fine.... complain about it.... but please don't extrapolate to absolute statements.

One of the reasons that Lessenergy's first forum thread was closed is because it had fallen to the level of personal attacks. Yet, having closed the thread, the moderators are now being criticized for doing so. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

1.7k · November 26, 2003

.....and advised that your words would carry more weight if you had more postings........

I thought they said his message would be taken more seriously if he was actively geocaching.

Not that it really matters. Anyone can have an opinion.

1.4k · November 26, 2003

Now the pendulum has swung far to the other extreme as moderators try to learn what to do and how to do it.

Eventually the pendulum will settle somewhere in the middle.

This may very well be, but in the meanwhile there are a number of us who are being treated rather unfairly.

I'd also have to disagree with Keystone Approver when he says that the previous thread had "fallen to the level of personal attacks". I certainly didn't see it that way and it's obvious that others didn't either.

Lighten up folks.

*****

3.9k · November 26, 2003

Why sweat the small stuff?

Ya know what? That might have been the smartest thing anyone has said in a while. In the grand scheme of things... Do these forums really effect me? No. Does it really matter to me if the admins are not consistent? No. Do I want shut off my computer now and go geocaching? Later.

5.9k · November 26, 2003

Try and understand why threads are locked and posts are moderated. For example in this thread discussion has been going back and forth about the thread topic.

As you can see with the few posts above this one we are trailing off topic and are all over the place.

As things continue on this path they tend to get more and more out of hand until there is no hope in steering things back on topic so to speak. The options at the point are limited and locking the thread prevents those off color/off topic posts to continue to a point of complete mayhem which then solves nothing.

...and a big hearty SO WHAT?!

Really, in the grand scheme of things, does it even matter?

November 26, 2003

Personally, I do identify why a person is being warned and how it relates to the forum conduct guidelines. Twenty or so recipients of those warnings can attest to this. But I will not discuss specific examples here because I believe it inappropriate to do so. Gorak, if you had a different individual experience, fine.... complain about it.... but please don't extrapolate to absolute statements.

Not all admins are as courteous, respectful and even-handed as yourself. I can only relate my own personal experience which did not involve yourself. It appears that others have the same experience as I, so I don't think my observations are unique.

Here is the entire content of my warning from CO Admin:

Your flaunting of the basic forum guidelines has earned you your first warning. Please review the forum guidelines and follow them to prevent another warning. I have included a link to the guidelines.

As I mentioned, repeated requests for specifics have been ignored.

Edited November 26, 2003 by Gorak

3k · November 26, 2003

I'd also have to disagree with Keystone Approver when he says that the previous thread had "fallen to the level of personal attacks". I certainly didn't see it that way and it's obvious that others didn't either.

I addressed this in the other thread and gave examples of what I thought were personal attacks and those were as follows:

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.

These are digs to get at people and they are personal in the nature that they call out people either by name or by a 'you', 'your', ect.

Again, I saw it that way but I was involved in something of a seperate debate with you J5 which I didn't see a problem with as we both kept it civil. Again, I wasn't wearing my moderator hat in that thread as it wouldn't be right to do both.

3k · November 26, 2003

...and a big hearty SO WHAT?!

Really, in the grand scheme of things, does it even matter?

I couldn't agree more with the exception of the fact that the moderators are being questioned on why a thread gets locked.

The thing is that it will get locked and then we are complained about for locking it. It would be nice if everyone took the SO WHAT attitude to an extent.

November 26, 2003

I had this great big long well thought out reply but somehow I deleted it before I posted it. Here is the short version:

1) Threads go off topic. So what?

2) Since, as an administrator, you have chosen to respond to a portion of my post, what about responding to the rest of it?

Les.

3k · November 26, 2003

I had this great big long well thought out reply but somehow I deleted it before I posted it. Here is the short version:

1) Threads go off topic. So what?

2) Since, as an administrator, you have chosen to respond to a portion of my post, what about responding to the rest of it?

Les.

"Threads go off topic so what?"

I don't think that its the OT threads so much as its the off color, derogatory, and as mentioned above name calling/personal attacks that go on in threads that make them jail bait.

You used an example of the Recipe thread, that was left alone because its light hearted and fun in nature. Its not necessarly the OT stuff that is in question as much as its the specific posts to a thread that can be disparaging.

As for the rest of your post, I chose not to post to it as I'm at work and move around from computer to computer and could not give it the time it deserves. Thats why you see a bunch of short posts from me, I have to keep moving.

November 26, 2003

Joe, You're right. I need a GPS. Soon. I can't wait. The sport is amazing. (And for the record, I agree that my post would carry more weight if I had found some geocaches. It might not strictly follow the guidelines but that is the reality.)

Many others are right. This is not a big deal in the whole scheme of things. It does not mean that it is not important as it relates to my and others activity on Groundspeak.com.

UMC and Keystone. Do people really complain when you don't lock a thread? Do you get PMs that say, "I started to read that thread because I thought it was about GPS Features but then someone made a joke and another mentioned that his dog was sick. For the love of God close that thread and tell them to start new ones about jokes and sick dogs and they had better be GPS related!"

I am dismayed about the thread that CO Admin locked since there was no reason for it and I and others were still getting something from it. I sent a very polite PM to him but I was ignored.

And finally, who cares if a thread goes off topic? Who does it hurt? It may come back on topic (or not) but either way, it'll fall out of sight soon enough. All threads do.

Les.

Edited November 26, 2003 by lessenergy

1.4k · November 26, 2003

To paraphrase Yogi

"This has become Deja Vu all over again."

This debate (if it can be called that) rears it's ugly head every few months here. In two years I've seen it at least 5 times. There are a few people that post here that need to try and improve the forums (ie: complain). They feed off the arguments and turmoil. It gives them a feeling of worth.

I would suggest that ignoring them and not feeding into thier narcissistic desire for acceptance and control would be the best course of action.

1.2k · November 26, 2003

To paraphrase Yogi

"This has become Deja Vu all over again."

This debate (if it can be called that) rears it's ugly head every few months here. In two years I've seen it at least 5 times. There are a few people that post here that need to try and improve the forums (ie: complain). They feed off the arguments and turmoil. It gives them a feeling of worth.

I would suggest that ignoring them and not feeding into thier narcissistic desire for acceptance and control would be the best course of action.

Well said.

So I should ignore the "pony"??????

1.1k · November 26, 2003

The admins are human, they have attitudes, opinions and feelings just like everyone else. It is an exercise in self discipline to uniformly inforce rules, to stand up in front of your peers, open yourself to criticism and make judgement calls.

My 4 year old son asks alot of questions. Road signs in particular lately. Why does that sign say 55? Why do we need a Speed Limit? Why do we have to stop at the stop sign? Why do we have to wear seat belts?..........I find myself saying because 'those are the rules'. To which he responds "Why do we need rules?" of course. And without much thought I say "We have to have rules, rules keep people from getting hurt." A discussion about why we don't hit, don't call names, don't play with flame throwers and electrical outlets follows.

I know I can make my own choices. I don't need a policeman to tell me to wear a seat belt, but I'm glad he is there.

"Deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. You rise and sleep under the blanket of freedom that I provide and then question the manner in which I provide it. I would prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a d*** what you think you are entitled too."

Passionate, but incomplete. ^^^^^^^

We need those authority/protective people there AND the right to challenge them. Eutopia is boring. Conflict creates change and forces progress.

I both enjoy and seek out friendly conflict. Nothing like an opinionated fool with some half baked crack pot idea to get me worked up, and then teach me something important.

1.2k · November 26, 2003

And finally, who cares if a thread goes off topic? Who does it hurt? It may come back on topic (or not) but either way, it'll fall out of sight soon enough. All threads do.

Les.

the following is a direct quote from the forum guidelines.

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

Thats why the moderators care. they are following the guidelines.

Edited November 26, 2003 by Lapaglia

1.4k · November 26, 2003

UMC wrote:
I addressed this in the other thread and gave examples of what I thought were personal attacks and those were as follows:

Since I didn't have opportunity to reply to this in the last thread before it was locked, I'll respond here.

Firstly, regarding the comment "the only thing worse than talking about rules, is talking about approvers and approval policies." How is this considered an attack or a dig? It's my opinion of what I think is a relevant and accurate observation of the situation on these forums. No dig, just an observation.

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.

What's the problem with my reply to Yumitori? I mean come on, read his post again and tell me that he didn't have a little of this coming for his condescending choice of words. My comment about others not posting when this is the type of response that they get, was not out of line. I'll agree that my comment that he should keep his whining to himself was fairly blunt, in my zeal to get the point across, although fully warranted based on his innuendos.

UMC wrote:
These are digs to get at people and they are personal in the nature that they call out people either by name or by a 'you', 'your', ect.

Let's get real here -- how many posts use words like 'you, and 'your'? When you are having a conversation with someone, do you avoid using those words? I don't think so. If I had said "Someone who is posting in this thread..." would it have been acceptable? Let's get reasonable here.

I respect that you and I perhaps don't see eye to eye on these matters and I obviously see things differently than you. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- it's always good to contemplate someone else's point of view and I find myself agreeing with your point of view quite a lot (just not this time). I don't agree with pussy-footing around issues -- I tend to be directly up-front about things and deal with them head-on -- I find it the most direct way to a solution and it helps eliminate a lot of the unnecessary fluff.

What really gets me with the way that the moderation is happening right now is that there are many who are being slapped for expressing their views and discussions are being closed when it's not warranted. As a result of this, you'll find that people are going to be less likely to honestly express their thoughts and concerns -- and that would truly be a shame.

*****

22k · November 26, 2003

To paraphrase Yogi

"This has become Deja Vu all over again."

Deja moo - that feeling you've heard this bull before.

November 26, 2003

To J&MBella:

This site exists as private entity owned and operated by Groundspeak etc. etc. and with published guidelines that the mangement has every right to enforce. We as users of the site are simply being allowed to use it and this is a privlege that can be revoked at any time by the site.

I can invite someone into my house. I can engage in a conversation with him. I can even post a sign that says "PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME A MORON".

If he calls me a moron I can tell him to shut up. If he doesn't, and I reach the limit of tolerance with him, I can throw him out. It is perfectly legal for me to either without infringing on his right to free speech and he probably isn't going to like it either.

The often cited "right" to free speech applies only to our government and it's policies. We should preserve our legal right to free speech at all costs! But within a private institution it is a different matter: When the Groundspeak administrators have reached the limit of thier tolerance with a subject or individual they are completely within thier rights to take action.

Hopefully this action is taken with good judgement and with consideration for the opinions of everyone involved, but once it's taken there nothing we, as consumers of this site can do but go elsewhere.

Now, I'M GOING CACHING! Have a great Holiday, everyone!

Are Moderators Micro-managing The Posts?

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