Jump to content

Moderating


richary

Recommended Posts

Must be that Godwin's Law thing again :rolleyes:

"In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly."

 

You lost. :ph34r:

He called us Nazi's in the first post, thereby invoking Godwin's law. The battle was over in the first post.

 

whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
Link to comment

I've stayed quiet on this but I'm just going to add my .02 worth.

 

This forum is for discussions regarding Geocaching. The forum guidelines here state:

 

The goal of the Groundspeak Forum is to promote the activity of Geocaching and GPS Usage. It is an open forum sponsored by Groundspeak Inc. for discussing all aspects of Geocaching, Benchmark hunting, GPS Usage and Groundspeak related GPS Gaming.

 

If it doesn't relate to geocaching it belongs in the Off Topic section.

 

The guidelines also state:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

The volunteers who moderate this forum are some of the best people I've ever had the chance to meet and cache with. They do not enjoy closing threads or modding people. In fact they do their best to avoid doing just that.

 

Finally I'll ask you to remember what your mothers always told you:

 

If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all
Link to comment

The forum mods and cache reviewers are all here as volunteers, they all do this "job" for the same reasons. For the sport of Geocaching and the Geocaching Community.

 

They are asked to do job to the best of their abilities, and they are trusted to do what they feel is right in each and every situation. Even if that goes against what they 'want' to do, they make the decisions based off what they feel is best for the site, the team, the community and the sport. They are not asked to become inhuman, so being human we all make mistakes at times. At times they may be overzealous in closing threads. There are times they may be too lenient. There are times they make perfect decisions. Considering the number of decisions they are faced with on a daily basis I would say they do an incredible job. I applaud them.

 

So thanks to the moderating team for doing all you do, being on the front lines having to take a lot of hits.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

Thank you, Hydee, for your thoughts--I couldn't agree more. In my view, the mods have done an exceptional job at keeping things (relatively) civil. Posts like the original one in this thread serve as a great example of the need to have vigilant moderators.

 

I commend those who have willingly stepped forward to take on this responsibility. I'd MUCH rather have the moderators make decisions that I might occasionally disagree with...than have to moderate these forums myself. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

There are two issues worth mentioning here:

 

1. The moderators are not elected by geocaching communities but selected by Groundspeak. Therefore, they are always loyal to Groundspeak and those company interests are more important to them than the interests of geocachers (those that are not loyal enough will sooner or later resign; we have seen this already). This results in closing/locking all the threads that contain discussion pointing out Groundspeak's mistakes or any information they find embarrassing. Also, moderators are reviewers, too, so any threads raising objections to reviewers' decisions are easily closed/locked by those reviewers that are affected.

 

2. Again, since the moderators are not elected by the cachers but appointed by Groundspeak, they are not rotated. It's always the same old guys for years and years who always think and act the same way and however disliked they are by many cachers they cannot be removed or retired.

 

It's part of the reason why I cancelled my premium membership.

 

Basically this is not a forum where you can have a free, uncensored discussion of Groundspeak's policies or specific, controversial events. There are other forums on the net where this can be done.

Link to comment
This results in closing/locking all the threads that contain discussion pointing out Groundspeak's mistakes or any information they find embarrassing.

Horse crap.

I hope you are right, but the level of censorship here does point the other way...

moderating a forum is one of the hardest things you you can do, you allways upset somebody. Trust me, I know what I am talking about.

But blindly closing any thread that talks about a perticular topic isnt the sollution..and to me spells censorship..

This is groundspeaks forum so they can do what they want with it, but I'd appreciate some clarity.

Caches get approved (after the approver speaks to the other approvers the check things), then they suddenly get archived....mmm weird at least.

Approvers/moderators who feel like they dont get any backup from their collegues and fear anything they do can get overruled at will without discussion.. weird again.

Things seem to get censored, but if people say they do it gets denied.. very confusing..

 

The hitler thing was way out of line, but richery does bring up some interesting points though.. I would appreciate if they get answered by GS crew..

 

p.s. Angst is also fear in Dutch, thats where the english (more limited meaning) probably originates from.

Link to comment
This results in closing/locking all the threads that contain discussion pointing out Groundspeak's mistakes or any information they find embarrassing.

I have to be honest. I have not found this to be the case. Have threads been closed that discuss Groundspeak's mistakes and embarrassing choices? Yes -- but I have found that the real reason is something else and not because of those points. Trust me when I say I have been one that has pointed out many of the faults I find in Groundspeak but I can say that I have not had my meter spiked for that. For other reasons yes but not for that.

 

It's always the same old guys for years and years who always think and act the same way and however disliked they are by many cachers they cannot be removed or retired.

True enough in some and maybe even many cases, but not all. I think some of the mods are more heavy handed than others. But there are some that do a good job. I may not agree with them but there have a company policy they are charged with enforcing. Would there be some I would get rid of -- without a doubt, but remember many are being the public face of others and it is not their doing. Yes they have the option to not be a mod but they have made a choice to do so and feel the good outweighs the bad I guess.

 

It's part of the reason why I cancelled my premium membership.

Good move I applaud you for doing this. I think that is the best way to voice your problems with TPTB. And one which over time will be a real motivator for change.

 

Basically this is not a forum where you can have a free, uncensored discussion of Groundspeak's policies or specific, controversial events.

Very true. But it is their site. They do allow discussions to go on. But they do not allow free and uncensored discussion. But if you do discuss things in a manner that is generally within the guidelines it does go on. Do I agree with all of those guidelines, of course not. But a large amount of dissent can be had even within them. Do I think that all mods are fair and everyone is treated the same, again of course not. But that is par for the course.

 

Is there a point to all of this, probably not. But please know there are some that are not big fans of Groudspeak that have learned to work within their system and make it work for us. To be honest I don't know that I have come across any company that I think is doing everything right. The only company that could do that is one that I own. But you end up taking the good with the bad and use them as much as you can against themselves.

Edited by GrizzlyJohn
Link to comment
I have to be honest. I have not found this to be the case. Have threads been closed that discuss Groundspeak's mistakes and embarrassing choices? Yes -- but I have found that the real reason is something else and not because of those points.

Well, if that's true that's good news. However, it seems to me that when a thread gets too inconvenient to Groundspeak, the mods usually have no difficulty finding a reason why it should be closed (along with a strong message to the point of "don't dare to reopen"). With threads having contents favorable to Groundspeak, they are a lot more lenient and they just let them go on even if it's filled with off-topic messages.

Link to comment

sweet. a hitler reference in the VERY first post in the thread, followed by immediate derailment and THEN a whole buncha snooty cancellation stuff and more baseless accusations!

 

that's what i like to see.

 

it is fully possible to be a dissenting voice here. it's done all the honkin' time. them whut don't play nice get shut down pretty quick, though, and whining only gets met with derision.

 

so... did everybody have a nice day?

Link to comment

Has anyone stopped to think why we need moderators? Maybe it's because we can't police our selves. There will always be some people that cause problems, those people will make the rest suffer.

 

I've never seen this site close a topic because it showed GC in a bad light...quite the opposite. I'm tired of the bashing. If you don't like this site go somewhere else. There are several alternatives, but they won't like you either.

 

This site is made up primarily of good people that want to cache. They don't want to hear your petty bull crap complaints. If you can't tell, I'm tired of it. Take it some place else. :huh:

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
This site is made up primarily of good people that want to cache. They don't want to hear your petty bull crap complaints. If you can't tell, I'm tired of it.  Take it some place else. :lol:

As someone whom interacts in other flora (two in particular which are dominated by Americans (not that is a negative by any means) and have 2,000 + members each) I have never encountered such ill feeling and agression as I have here and not just in relation to this thread or related ones. :huh: And this is a game?

 

I was shocked at the approach some people take to others ideas and thoughts, whatever the topic, geocaching or not. Gee how hard is it to be nice? We can disagree, but we can do it nicely.

 

It was sad to see someone post a question in another thread on a geocaching related topic and see them add a closing comment requesting no "bashing!"

 

Regards

Andrew

Edited by Aushiker
Link to comment
This results in closing/locking all the threads that contain discussion pointing out Groundspeak's mistakes or any information they find embarrassing.

 

Interesting observation in a thread that was started specifically to be critical of Groundspeak. :lol:

Good point. I still have not figured out what the golden BB is for a thread. Some die and you know they are going to be locked and killed, and others live on and you could of sworn they had everything in common with the dead thread.

 

Aushiker: Everyone has their bad days. El Diablo too. :huh:

Link to comment
Good point. I still have not figured out what the golden BB is for a thread. Some die and you know they are going to be locked and killed, and others live on and you could of sworn they had everything in common with the dead thread.

One observation is that if Jeremy posts to a thread the probability of it getting closed soon drops to a fraction of the previous value because the mods think he might want to add another comment later.

Link to comment
One observation is that if Jeremy posts to a thread the probability of it getting closed soon drops to a fraction of the previous value because the mods think he might want to add another comment later.

You're building quite the large horse pile.

 

Actually I usually step in when the poor moderators are at the end of their ropes. My approach is different than some moderators in that I would rather see one topic active then shut it down and see the eventual craptastrophe that occurs when user 1 posts "Help help! I'm being repressed!" while another poster shrieks "Infamy! Horror!" and so on ad nauseum.

 

Then the pundits come in and try to make a comment like it was fact. "The Groundspeak folks do x because of y and x" says the faithful seer.

 

After 5 years of moderating forum its practically a formula.

Link to comment
One observation is that if Jeremy posts to a thread the probability of it getting closed soon drops to a fraction of the previous value because the mods think he might want to add another comment later.

I for one have seen a few threads that jeremy has posted to get closed......maybe you have just missed them.....

Link to comment
(If it did apply to private speech, you could never wash your kids mouth out with soap for using dirty words -- like "Navicache").

I want to remind you that this is a family-friendly forum and, although I am not a moderator, I would like to warn you strongly against using such terms.

 

My children not only DO NOT use that term; they have NEVER been exposed to it in their entire lives.

 

Please, for the love of all children everywhere, protect them from such dangers.

 

Thank you.

 

Momma Marauder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:huh:

Link to comment
I for one have seen a few threads that jeremy has posted to get closed...

Sure, especially if Jeremy posts that this topic should be closed, has no value, etc.

 

But I have seen a number of topics that were sensitive from the beginning and everyone was sure it was going to get closed very fast. Then if Jeremy posts something actually related to the subject then it kinda legitimizes the thread and it doesn't get closed for a long time.

Link to comment
and you point is?

It's just an observation that might help explain why certain threads get closed quite fast and some very similar ones don't. This was the question Renegade Knight was wondering.

 

I'll leave up to you what other conclusions you want or don't want to make.

Link to comment

Might help explain........I hardly think there is any explaining to do.....the man owns this site and if he or his representatives want to close a subject, then that is the end of it. For everyone on the positive side there is going to be someone on the negative, ........I dont know why some people have a hard time dealing with this, and think that explanations are due them, as nothing will appease them in the long run. In controversial threads it is a given that the thread may end at any time.....

Link to comment
Might help explain........I hardly think there is any explaining to do.....the man owns this site and if he or his representatives want to close a subject, then that is the end of it. For everyone on the positive side there is going to be someone on the negative, ........I dont know why some people have a hard time dealing with this, and think that explanations are due them, as nothing will appease them in the long run. In controversial threads it is a given that the thread may end at any time.....

I don't really see your point. If you find that there are two threads with the same topic (not in the same time) and one gets closed really fast while the other is let go for a long time, aren't you curious what the reason for this striking difference might be? If you aren't or if you think "it's just the way it is" is a satisfactory explanation, probably you don't have an enquiring mind. I think it's just natural for humans to look for patterns and explanations of the phenomena they encounter.

Link to comment
If you find that there are two threads with the same topic (not in the same time) and one gets closed really fast while the other is let go for a long time, aren't you curious what the reason for this striking difference might be?

 

I find the ones that get closed quickly usually have strayed off topic despite the moderator's pleas to keep it on topic, or degenerated into a flame war.

Link to comment
I find it very disappointing the moderators need to censure posts. Thanks mtn-man I think it was.

 

This is a hobby. Why can't we have discussion about it. They call America the land of the free, and free speach is protected by one of the amendents to your constituion. But obviously anyone who disagrees with the cache gods will get slapped down.

 

I've got no bones with Kylee who appears sympathetic and has donated. The rest of you US moderators slapping down on things can go and enjoy your Hitler status. Yes, I expect to get moderated or banned for this post. Tell me if I care.

 

Richary

I put the following on my discussion boards:

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

 

First and foremost, only the government can "censor" with respect to the 1st Amendment.

 

The First Amendment gives us the right to speak and write our opinion and share our views. It does not give anyone the right to command that others listen to or publish or distribute what we say, write or produce.

 

To clarify this, imagine you've written an opinion piece to your local newspaper. If the newspaper declines to publish your letter it is in no way abridging your First Amendment rights, nor is it engaging in censorship. It is instead exercising its right to choose what it will and won't publish at its own expense. This is also how the board operates.

 

Posts may be intentionally edited, moved or deleted on occasion, and people may be banned from participation. This is not infringing on "Freedom of Speech" nor is it "censorship".

 

Action needed in the form of editing, moving or deleting posts and/or banning accounts is the sole discretion of the administrators and moderators, and is on a case-by-case basis.

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

 

We had a SUPER caching weekend! Took and left some really cool junk! :huh:

This is actually not true. If you open a site, newspaper , T.V. Station or Radio station and it can be proved you have colluded/discriminated to supress somoeone's civil liberties even the private sector can be sued to allow the editorial and/or for damages.

 

Just thought you would want to get it right, I am sure it was an ovesight on your part.

No problem, glad I could help.

 

:lol::lol:

Link to comment

Oh I have an enquiring mind.........but I can see where one thread is a trainwreck coming, and another of the same subject has not degenerated into name calling and slinging insults....thats the difference. Plus the fact that there are known pot stirrers, and when they start posting to one thread, the degree of closer rises sharply.

Link to comment
And this is a game?

 

Andrew

Your are right....this is a game. Not a political or a charitable platform. Why pepole want to interject this is beyond me. We are here on this site to cache...right?

Yes it is a game, but so is cricket :huh:. But that is another issue for another forum. Please don't have a go at me about this one sentence.

 

My concern is with the behaviour I have observed and can't see being justified in various threads, NOT just this one or related ones.

 

My "no bashing" comment was in relation a geacaching related thread on TBs. How sad is that? Why do people participate in verbal bashing when it is a game? Why can't there be a reasoned discussion? I thought this was a family orientated game and discussion forum, not a school ground.

 

Regards

Andrew

Link to comment
Just thought you would want to get it right, I am sure it was an ovesight on your part.

No problem, glad I could help.

You're confusing civil rights with civil liberties.

 

Civil liberties are protections from the power of governments. Examples include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and trial by jury. These are usually created and protected by a constitution.

 

- Wikipedia

 

I don't think Groundspeak is a government entity.

 

(edit: grammar)

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment
This is actually not true. If you open a site, newspaper , T.V. Station or Radio station and it can be proved you have colluded/discriminated to supress somoeone's civil liberties even the private sector can be sued to allow the editorial and/or for damages.

Ahh, a matter of defamation or slander I assume.

 

Andrew

Link to comment
If you find that there are two threads with the same topic (not in the same time) and one gets closed really fast while the other is let go for a long time, aren't you curious what the reason for this striking difference might be?

Frankly it's often random, and depends on when I get invited into the fray. Stop being paranoid and trying to find patterns that aren't there. Most of your assumptions have been wrong so far.

Link to comment
Horse crap.

...

You're building quite the large horse pile.

Ummm... don't you happen to be violating the forum guidelines?

 

If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Where are the moderators now?

 

You know, if I commented on someone else's thoughts like you just did, I would immediately get a warning and at least one week of moderation. You obviously won't. This is not a level playfield so I'm not going to debate you.

 

I'm not sure it's good for your business that you participate in these forums. You are not exactly a customer relations person. But it's your company, you do as you wish.

Link to comment
Oh I have an enquiring mind.........but I can see where one thread is a trainwreck coming, and another of the same subject has not degenerated into name calling and slinging insults....thats the difference. Plus the fact that there are known pot stirrers, and when they start posting to one thread, the degree of closer rises sharply.

Sure, often this is the case. I just offered another factor that seems to play a role, all others being equal.

Link to comment
Ahh, a matter of defamation or slander I assume.

These are within the category of tort which is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. This has nothing to do with civil liberties.

I understand that difference, I just didn't pick up on the use of the words "civil liberties", something which is not strongly debated in our community - it has not been necessary to date. Rather I was going with the theme of the posting, or rather what I assumed was the point being made by the poster.

 

But thanks for the clarification; always good to learn more about another culture and its language.

 

Regards

Andrew

 

EDIT:> Grammar and tone.

Edited by Aushiker
Link to comment

Ummm... don't you happen to be violating the forum guidelines?

No. I'm not commenting on your "ideas" - you're providing statements as fact and I'm calling your statements horse crap.

 

I'm not sure it's good for your business that you participate in these forums. You are not exactly a customer relations person. But it's your company, you do as you wish.

 

You're right about that. I tell it straight which isn't the normal MO for companies. Sorry I don't sound apologetic.

 

(Get it? An ironic statement).

Link to comment
Just thought you would want to get it right, I am sure it was an ovesight on your part.

No problem, glad I could help.

You're confusing civil rights with civil liberties.

 

Civil liberties are protections from the power of governments. Examples include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and trial by jury. These are usually created and protected by a constitution.

 

- Wikipedia

 

I don't think Groundspeak is a government entity.

 

(edit: grammar)

I am not confusing the two at all. No entity can deny anyone any of the rights known as the bill of rights. There is no real difference between the two, civil rights or civil liberties, Although civil liberties are more inclusive. A good lawyer can make any case for anything.

 

Again glad I could help and I am sure it was an over site on your part . :wub::laughing:

Link to comment
I am not confusing the two at all. No entity can deny anyone any of the rights known as the bill of rights. There is no real difference between the two, civil rights or civil liberties, Although civil liberties are more inclusive. A good lawyer can make any case for anything.

 

Again glad I could help and I am sure it was an over site on your part . :wub::laughing:

Wow, can I call crap too? Or only Jeremy gets to use that word?

OF COURSE a private company can "deny" you the bill of rights.

I have a first amendment right to free speech. A store owner has a right to not allow me to swear, curse, insult customers, or say anything he doesnt like.

I have a second amendment right to carry a firearm. A store owner has a legal right to not allow me to bring a firearm into his store.

I have a right to freedom of religion. A private group has a right to not let me join if I dont belong to the one they like.

Link to comment
No. I'm not commenting on your "ideas" - you're providing statements as fact and I'm calling your statements horse crap.

You know, by the time I could offer this as an excuse to a moderator I would have gotten my warning.

 

Create a sockpuppet account and try to use this same tone with others as a ordinary user. It would be interesting to see how long you would go without getting a warning.

Link to comment
I am not confusing the two at all. No entity can deny anyone any of the rights known as the bill of rights.  There is no real difference between the two,  civil rights or civil liberties, Although civil liberties are more inclusive.  A good lawyer can make any case for anything.

 

Again glad I could help and I am sure it was an over site on your part .  :)  :laughing:

Wow, can I call crap too? Or only Jeremy gets to use that word?

OF COURSE a private company can "deny" you the bill of rights.

I have a first amendment right to free speech. A store owner has a right to not allow me to swear, curse, insult customers, or say anything he doesnt like.

I have a second amendment right to carry a firearm. A store owner has a legal right to not allow me to bring a firearm into his store.

I have a right to freedom of religion. A private group has a right to not let me join if I dont belong to the one they like.

All good examples. Your also not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, so can you find examples of the bill rights being denied? Yes. Even the government can in some instances deny you these rights. Just read the Patriot Act. Can you make a case for any of your examples and sue and win? Yes. That is the point. The poster made it seem that only the government can be in violation of denying you your civil rights/civil liberties. Wrong. Your bill of rights cannot be infringed upon by anybody. That was my point.

 

Again glad I could help.

 

:wub::)

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...