Jump to content

Closing Topics


Team GPSaxophone

Recommended Posts

As much as I don't like it when topics are closed, there are instances where it becomes necesary. This thread, for example was obviously started just to get a rise out of people, the mods in particular. CO Admin was kind enough to close the thread before the topic starter was burned at the stake. In doing so, CO Admin posted a concise reason why the thread was being closed:

 

The topic of this thread servers no purpose other than to incite.

I am closing this thread.

I would like to propose that this become the standard for closing threads.

 

No attacks should be made, or posts deleted. Editing should occur only if there is profanity. No 'last word' needs to be made by the moderator. A simple "This thread is being closed because it violates this particular forum guideline: (list guideline here)" or such is all that needs to be said.

 

This way everyone can see the context behind the moderator's decision.

 

Why is this important? Why should I be able to see the context?

 

I was told one time by a moderator that (he) didn't have to answer to me. I disagree. As a customer, I should have some say in how the company I am supporting is being managed. The moderators are volunteers, yes, but they are enforcing rules made by the company's leaders. If I don't like the company's way of doing things, I can choose to not support the company any longer. By letting me view the context involved in closing threads, I can make that decision based on all the evidence. Instead, I have to make that decision based on the negative impression I get over locked threads.

 

Link to comment

In contrast to a similar thread posted today in the Geocaching Topics forum and later closed, GPSaxophone has posed the question in a constructive fashion. Thanks.

 

So, a well-worded post usually gets me thinking, and out of curiousity I reviewed the 562 topics over the past 30 days in the "Geocaching Topics" forum, where most of the controversial topics and topic locks occur. Here were my findings, which are admittedly unscientific in that I'm characterizing the tone of the moderator closing the topic, and as a moderator I may have a built-in bias:

 

A total of 47 topics appear as "Closed", or roughly 8% of all topics.

 

23 topics were closed by their originator.

 

12 topics were closed by a moderator, with a polite, direct statement similar to the example cited above by GPSaxophone.

 

5 topics were closed by a moderator, in a tone which I would characterize as polite, but which also contained an opinion or comment.

 

4 topics contain no "closing statement" at all; they were not very controversial but I can't tell who closed them without further research.

 

3 topics were closed by a moderator with a final post that included a strong statement of opinion, "parting shot" or whatever you want to call it.

 

I found this statistical breakdown to be interesting and thought I would share it with you. Originally I did the research just to check out how big of an issue this was. I was surprised, for example, to see that about half of thread closings are done by their originator, not a moderator.

 

I would agree with GPSaxophone that any topic closed by a moderator should include a short factual statement giving the reason why the topic is being closed.

Link to comment

I have noticed jabs. For lack of a better way to put it, there is a way to say things and a way to say things. You can make something sound reasonable that is dripping with sarcasm and that in turn is a jab. You can also make something so sugary sweet that it has the exact opposite meaning. The written word does have a power. Both direct and subtle.

 

The jabs from a moderator have no place in these forums just as they would also argue that the same kind of attacks (however veiled) from forum members have no place here. I'll be the first to admit that I do the same thing for certain posters. It’s not those posts that have earned me my warning status though.

Link to comment

My prior thread has prompted 2 warnings and a review on any posts I make by the moderators so, if this gets read, thanks to the moderators for letting this go through.

 

The info below is a copy of PM to someone who posted on the other thread.

 

Les.

_________

 

I don't see the issue as an either/or thing.

 

I sympathize with the mods and that is why I thought it would be nice to give them a holiday on Christmas. I don't agree with most of their decisions but they think they need to mod the forums and I am not going to change their minds.

 

So, while I don't agree with them, they are doing what they are doing because they believe they need to. I admire them for that and they deserve our thanks for doing something that, from their perspective, is for the good of the community.

 

I don't agree but I don't doubt their good intentions so I thought it would be nice if they had a break. I don't like the rules and think the forums are over-moderated but I could live with that if the rules were applied consistently.

 

I get really frustrated by the inconsistent way that they apply the rules and they way they abuse their authority. The final straw was a thread from yesterday (which had nothing to do with me as I did not post in it or even really care about the topic).

 

I waited a day before I posted just see if I still cared enough to take the heat.

 

I deliberately used the F-you tag line. It was posted in a on-forum thread and directed at me a while ago but, because the mods agreed with what the poster said it was allowed and even joked about.

 

I wanted to see how they reacted when I used it in criticising them - guess what? I got a warning about it (actually twice from two different moderators). Also, all of my posts will be reviewed by a mod before they are put up on the forum.

 

Point proven I guess.

 

Les

Link to comment

I will offer up This Closing Message as an example of a "jab" that I took when closing a topic. Had I just left out the last sentence, I would have included the post in the "polite" category instead. I just couldn't resist the extra sentence. Sometimes it sucks to be human.

 

We are always trying to do our job better and in hindsight I would have preferred to have closed this particular topic without taking a jab at the thread's originator.

 

Still, it's a handful of threads. Do others really think this is a huge problem?

Link to comment

Thank you very much for the statistical breakdown, Keystone. In your data, 74.4% of posts follow the guideline I have suggested (the first 2 examples you gave). The other 25% do not. This is the part I would like to change.

 

The more closed topics that have this information, the less I* will just assume that the "mean moderator"** closed it on us. If every moderator follows this guideline, the remaining closings will obviously have to be done by the topic stater, as that is the only other person that can close the thread.

 

* I could say everyone, but this is my opinion and others' may vary.

** Quote credit: CO Admin from a thread a couple of months ago. I can't remember the title of the thread.

Link to comment

I must agree. Both mods and forum members have been known to close threads on an unpleasant note. Both are human. However, the moderators, although volunteering for the job, have taken a responsibility from Groundspeak to be professional in all dealings with the customers while serving the company. To make a parting jab as a moderator, in my opinion, is a worse crime than doing so as a forum member. Neither one is right in doing this, but the moderators are here to set an example. Parting shots are not a good example to set. As smurf-boy suggested, when a moderator closes a thread, the reason should be given in plain, simple English. No sarcasm, no veiled attacks, no parting shots. If a moderator can't do this with every post, human or not, they should step down from the position out of respect for the forum members, and more so out of respect for Groundspeak. To me, a moderator that behaves this way is, in essence, slapping Groundspeak in the face. They were given the responsibility to provide guidance, respect, and examples. When they act that way, they are violating the trust of their employer.

Link to comment

I think that in order to violate the trust of the employer, you actually have to be employed. I'm under the impression they're actually not being paid for this abuse. If they are they're definately not being paid enough.

 

Sparky, if we can blame them for not living up to the same standards we refuse to be held to, then the situation is truly messed up. Do you really believe that the rules that apply to them shouldn't apply to everyone? And if the same rules apply to everyone we need to be willing to cut them the same breaks we want them to cut us.

Link to comment
I think that in order to violate the trust of the employer, you actually have to be employed. I'm under the impression they're actually not being paid for this abuse. If they are they're definately not being paid enough.

 

Sparky, if we can blame them for not living up to the same standards we refuse to be held to, then the situation is truly messed up. Do you really believe that the rules that apply to them shouldn't apply to everyone? And if the same rules apply to everyone we need to be willing to cut them the same breaks we want them to cut us.

Edited by the 5 little bears
Link to comment
I think that in order to violate the trust of the employer, you actually have to be employed. I'm under the impression they're actually not being paid for this abuse. If they are they're definately not being paid enough.

 

Sparky, if we can blame them for not living up to the same standards we refuse to be held to, then the situation is truly messed up. Do you really believe that the rules that apply to them shouldn't apply to everyone? And if the same rules apply to everyone we need to be willing to cut them the same breaks we want them to cut us.

Bons, you are confusing being employed and being compensated. I was a volunteer paramedic in a town with volunteer police and firemen. Though didn't get paid by the ambulance service, I was employed. I had to uphold the rules of the company and abide by them. I also worked for an ambulance company at the same time that paid me for my services. I was also expected to uphold the rules of that company and abide by them in the same way as the volunteer position. My actions were scrutinized by everyone in the community, as well as by those on the county and state EMS boards. If I acted in a way that was disrepectful of the company, I was reprimanded. If I acted outside the written standards and guidelines of the company, I would have been terminated, and possibly charged with endangerment or malpractice. I was employed, but not paid. I made that point about the moderators, also. You don't have to receive a paycheck to be employed. But, if you are employed, you are expected to uphold the company's mission statement, expectations, etc. You are expected to set examples. If we are to be held as accountable as the moderators, then why have moderators? That statement has been cut up, fried, and eaten too many times in these forums. They are here for a purpose. They are Groundspeak employees, and they are accountable for their actions.

Link to comment
I think that in order to violate the trust of the employer, you actually have to be employed. I'm under the impression they're actually not being paid for this abuse. If they are they're definately not being paid enough.

 

Sparky, if we can blame them for not living up to the same standards we refuse to be held to, then the situation is truly messed up. Do you really believe that the rules that apply to them shouldn't apply to everyone? And if the same rules apply to everyone we need to be willing to cut them the same breaks we want them to cut us.

They should be held to a higher standard then us as they enforce the rules. If they say we can't be off topic then they should never be of topic as it is hypocritical to serve up a ban for something they do.

 

KA in looking at your statistics I would say 1 instance of jabs at a close is wrong regardless of who did it. Why? Because it is a sign of a coward first of all. You take a shot then close the thread before the people can reply. It's like hanging up on someone or slamming the door in their face.

 

I think mods and the general population should be held accountable for all their actions. However they aren't and that is the problem.No one mods the mods because 1 or 2 of them do what they want and nothing ever gets done about it. I know I am just "the bitter guy that is back from a 1 month ban so don't listen to him", but that is the way it is.

 

I just think that if we are asked to conduct ourself in a certain fashion the by god the people who are asking us to do that should have the character to do the same and if not then they should have the honesty to say "I am not a good admin" and step down. Lead by example. If you want to be a leader then be in front leading not behind cracking a whip.

 

KA this is not an attack at you, you just happened to bring up the numbers. Nothing personal.

Link to comment

This thread is not meant to be an open forum for all things about moderators. It is a topic about closing posts in a professional manner. So far, Keystone is the only moderator to comment and seems to agree with my suggestion. I would like input from the other moderators, or from others that would like to contribute to this topic.

Link to comment
In a perfect world it would be as you say.

 

All the moderators do their best and keep improving their best.

I have noticed the improvement, thank you.

 

In a perfect world, the Broncos would have shown up last weekend in Indianapolis. Actually, in a perfect world they would have had a bye week and home field advantage... :tongue:

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
I think its a fine idea to close a thread with a simple note stating why.

 

I also think its a fine idea for people to check themselves before they go worrying about everyone else.

Before you remove the splinter from your brother's eye, you must first remove the log from your own.

 

---somewhere in the Bible---

Link to comment
I think its a fine idea to close a thread with a simple note stating why.

 

I also think its a fine idea for people to check themselves before they go worrying about everyone else.

Before you remove the splinter from your brother's eye, you must first remove the log from your own.

 

---somewhere in the Bible---

Nicely quoted there Sparky...I went right to it in the Bible. Who would have known "somewhere in the Bible" could be such an exact reference. :DB)

Link to comment
I think its a fine idea to close a thread with a simple note stating why.

 

I also think its a fine idea for people to check themselves before they go worrying about everyone else.

Before you remove the splinter from your brother's eye, you must first remove the log from your own.

 

---somewhere in the Bible---

Nicely quoted there Sparky...I went right to it in the Bible. Who would have known "somewhere in the Bible" could be such an exact reference. :DB)

Yeah, it's right there between that "Let there be light" thing and that part about the "Beast with Seven Heads rising from the ocean".

Link to comment
Closing thread as many people have made their opinion known and this is not popular. Withdrawing the idea. Start another thread if the discussion is important to you.

Here's an example of a topic starter closing his own thread. While the rest of the post did contain a 'parting shot', the thread was closed for a specific reason and no one is left wondering. Had SE7EN not added this thread closing statement, some people might have thought a moderator had closed it because of a developing argument.

Link to comment
This thread is not meant to be an open forum for all things about moderators. It is a topic about closing posts in a professional manner. So far, Keystone is the only moderator to comment and seems to agree with my suggestion. I would like input from the other moderators, or from others that would like to contribute to this topic.

Getting back to the topic of "Closing Topics", I have no problem with your suggestion Saxman. I don't think I have closed any topics with a parting shot except for one time. That was the "continue with five words" topic that spiraled out of control. As KA said, we are trying to do a better job and take concerns such as your in mind as we do our job.

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