Jump to content

"do The Mods Intimidate The Posters?"


sept1c_tank

Recommended Posts

Ironic this topic came up, as I suggested to another cacher on the phone the other day to post a message seeking assistance from the community. The response? "Nah, they'd just close it."

 

That's sad...but then I realized I've done the same.

 

Intimidation is too strong a word--but there's an expectation...

 

Randy

Link to comment
Ironic this topic came up, as I suggested to another cacher on the phone the other day to post a message seeking assistance from the community. The response? "Nah, they'd just close it."

 

If it was geocaching related, I sincerely doubt a mod would close thread opened as an earnest request for assistance. If anybody could show examples of this I'd like to see them, because in 3+ years here I've never noticed it.

Link to comment
If it was geocaching related, I sincerely doubt a mod would close thread opened as an earnest request for assistance. If anybody could show examples of this I'd like to see them, because in 3+ years here I've never noticed it.

 

Me neither.

Always had my queries answered both by moderators and 'users'.

 

Never had a problem! :o

Link to comment
Well, sometimes you see a lot of red padlocks on the thread listing and I guess that's kinda discouraging for some people.

Sometimes the OP locks his/her own thread.

 

I do. If I have asked a question, had a couple of responses that adequately answer my query, then I close the thread. Moderators have nothing to do with that.

 

I'm sure there are a lot of other posters who do the same, so the red padlock indicator is not a good indication of moderator involvement.

 

In addition, if you go and have a look at a moderator-closed thread - more often than not, it has been locked because of a transgression of the guidelines, has devolved into a flame war, or has received warnings that have been ignored.

 

Obey the 'rules' and all will be well ........ :o

Link to comment
Having said there are mods that intimidate I’d like to say that Carleenp and Keystone Approver are two examples of how to do it right. I think their profession has taught them the value of showing a little courtesy and respect when you work with people and that they take time to understand a persons angle makes them more effective in getting their own point across. Only one is a mod, but the other would be as good as it gets. They could teach me a thing or two, and the a few other mods and TPTB could stand a lesson or two as well.

RK, that is so nice. But as Hydee said, I won't do the job here. If I did, I would aim for some of KA's levity. I like his cute animal pics when he closes a thread! I am a sucker for cute animals! :P

 

As a general thread response: The moderators have different styles. So do forum posters. That is because human beings have different styles. Some, both moderators and posters, come across more heavy than others. They can even vary from day to day. Sometimes it also comes down to how the people involved read it. Most important, I have met some of these people and I generally love them all. Their given "styles" make them unique and interesting people. You might see them just on the forums, but they have real personalities: Some are strong, some nice, some funny etc. Often it is a mix of things. And all of it fits them perfectly. They are good people and real people and they have feelings. You can disagree with a "style," but they don't deserve some of the hatred they get at times (both mods and most posters). I have seen some nasty stuff at times. Even if I would agree that a mod or a poster was "heavy handed" I have seen criticism that went beyond that into pure nastiness that made me step back and rethink my opinions of the person criticizing. And I am a pretty darn forgiving person! Maybe someday I will meet some of those few people that made me "step back" (none are mods btw), but at some point the nastiness makes a person desire to not go there.... I find that unfortunate. B) Fortunately that is only a very few people and generally not the normally vocal, yet respectful, critical ones that we see here quite a bit. I respect honest criticism, but not when voiced as hatred.

 

So instead of intimidation.....

 

In the end we are all responsible for our posts. I have never been warned (well... there was that one warning, but it doesn't count...), yet I have flamed people. You know why I have never been warned when I flamed people? I wrote, I stopped, I reflected, and I never posted it. Self moderation is a good thing. I wrote and got it out of my system and then knew better. Sometimes I never posted at all. Sometimes I edited and posted a version that would be OK. I have never felt more than fleeting angst from that. If I don't like a thread or a forum, I quit reading it. Why bother? This is a fun game. Not hateful angst land! Interesting and informative to read angst? Fine! Hateful angst? Forget it!!!! B)

 

So don't be intimidated. Just have fun. Self moderate when needed and take a break when needed. Mostly, don't sweat what should really be small stuff about a fun game! And remember that we are all human. But also remember that you are judged by your actions and words. I think the forums and the mods have pretty forgiving and short memories for heated topics. So if you slip up and get moderated (or even purposely get moderated in the "heat of the moment"), no biggie if it was in the heat of the debate. But for true hatred (especially when repeated) it takes longer. So before you truly bash a person in hatred instead of polite disagreement or heated debate, think about it. That can go a long way. If you don't stop to think and repeatedly post hateful things, you likely deserve the judgment that you get. Over time I have seen both posters and moderators that I disagree with at times, but highly respect because they understand this, and even when "heavy handed" or "heated," they were not "hateful." But then, unfortunately, I have seen a few posters whose hatred made me throw away previous thoughts of credibility because they were just plain so hateful and mean. In the end there are plenty of people who seem to disagree, both mods and posters, but I like and respect them. And then there are those who are just plain hateful. I don't count any mods in the hateful category. I would hope to not have to continue to hold a very small few of posters there. ;) I would rather see them as respectful heated debaters. Heated debate, even with angst, can be fun to read at times. But hatred and meaness is just plain nasty and unbecoming to the person posting it.

 

Regardless, remember that this is geocaching and have fun. Remember that the forums are not caching! There are no "real" coordinates or boxes in the park in the forums! Those are out there in the "real world" for you all to go find! Go find them and be happy! We are all cachers after all. We have that in common! B)

Link to comment
All we need now is a do the regualrs intimiate the mods? topic.

 

or

"Do the regulars kiss a** to the mods?"

B)

 

j/k

I'm too new here to a**ume anyone does that here like all the other forums I frequent.

I have no idea if the regulars intimidate the mods. I doubt it, and I also doubt that a topic on that would see many mod responses. So I say dont go there! I can say that I would not want to mod forums with any "angst" (whether "good" or "bad" angst). Not because of an intimidation factor, but because of a lack of fun factor. Or the equivilent high "bad angst" factor! ;)

 

With the next comment in the quote, some do and some don't, and some do part of the time and not part of time etc. etc. In reality I think it comes down to simple agreement and disagreement at various times and not "____ kissing." I think things are generally too complicated for simple "____ kissing." :P

 

P.S. That is true on almost all the forums that I read except for the ones that pay mods and are hiring (not this one)! The "___ kissing" there is unbelievable!B)

Link to comment
...I can say that I would not want to mod forums with any "angst" (whether "good" or "bad" angst). Not because of an intimidation factor, but because of a lack of fun factor. Or the equivilent high "bad angst" factor! :o

 

Carleen, could you explain the difference between "good" and "bad" angst one more time? :rolleyes::D:o:o

Link to comment
angst  (ängkst)

n. A feeling of anxiety or apprehension often accompanied by depression.

I'm not sure where the "good" part of this is.

 

OT: If logic and reasoning do not work, and Mods cannot use intimidation, Then what tools should they use? Closing redundant topics can only go so far.

Link to comment
...I can say that I would not want to mod forums with any "angst" (whether "good" or "bad" angst). Not because of an intimidation factor, but because of a lack of fun factor. Or the equivilent high "bad angst" factor! :D

 

Carleen, could you explain the difference between "good" and "bad" angst one more time? :lol::o:lol::rolleyes:

It does sound rather silly when I re-read it! :o

 

By "good" angst, I mean the heated debate stuff. People can get rather "angsty" there, but normally not hateful. I find that stuff interesting and fun to read at times, although I often don't take part. By "bad angst" I mean the truly hateful and mean spirited stuff. I tend to skip that type of thing when possible.

 

Of course I also tend to stretch the definition of "angst" in general. That way it has more uses. Angst is such a good word! :o

Link to comment
By "good" angst, I mean the heated debate stuff. People can get rather "angsty" there, but normally not hateful. I find that stuff interesting and fun to read at times, although I often don't take part. By "bad angst" I mean the truly hateful and mean spirited stuff. I tend to skip that type of thing when possible.

 

Of course I also tend to stretch the definition of "angst" in general. That way it has more uses. Angst is such a good word! :huh:

Angst is a fun word to say that sounds like what it means. Although it comes from German for "fear" or "anxiety" the current meaning is more about the tension between our conflicting actions and ideals. That seems very appropriate here! Those conflicts can be expressed in many ways from polite and humorous (such as Prarie Home Companion) to nasty and depressing (such as grunge). The former is generally preferred in a public forum. Too much negative angst causes ennui--another good word.

Link to comment
Has anyone every been kept from a good, decent, worthy post because of the moderation

Yes.

Ditto.

Why?

Because once a mod begins to get heavy handed in a thread I become disinclined to participate further in that thread. If the level of moderation, or my perception of the unreasonableness of the moderation, becomes too unacceptable to me I become less inclined to even participate in other unrelated threads.

Link to comment
(briansnat @ Jan 18 2005, 03:20 PM)
(Gorak @ Jan 18 2005, 04:52 PM)
(fizzymagic @ Jan 18 2005, 01:43 PM)
(Robespierre @ Jan 18 2005, 12:55 PM)

Has anyone every been kept from a good, decent, worthy post because of the moderation

 

Yes.

 

Ditto.

 

Why?

 

Because once a mod begins to get heavy handed in a thread I become disinclined to participate further in that thread. If the level of moderation, or my perception of the unreasonableness of the moderation, becomes too unacceptable to me I become less inclined to even participate in other unrelated threads.

Leaves me with another thought: IF said moderation had not happened, do you suppose that you would never be similarly "intimidated," and "become less inclined to even participate." In other words, do you "back off" when you see some undesirable conflict happening? I know that I "control my urges" very often and stay clear of it, and often refuse to read certain threads.

 

I'm suggesting that there are "types" of people, personalities if you will, who pretty much react consistently. People who take offense easily, people who want to dominate the conversation, people who would rather not be involved...etc. Some want to be a martyr, some a hero. For example, if we asked the OP which of his personal "leanings" he is following by starting this thread, could he tell us? I suggest that: A.) if a certain element is intimidated, and the result is a much more civil thread, then that's a good thing, and B.) if others are also intimidated, then they might likely have been intimidated by the behavior of that other element anyway.

Edited by Robespierre
Link to comment
I suggest that: A.) if a certain element is intimidated, and the result is a much more civil thread, then that's a good thing ...

Only if "civility" is the primary expectation one has from a thread. I would prefer to see the presentation and exploration of a wide variety of ideas and viewpoints. It's nice when the tone of a thread remains "civil," but in my opinion the harvesting of useful information is of far greater importance. I suppose we therefore need to consider what that "certain element" has (directly or indirectly) brought to the thread/discussion.

 

... and B.) if others are also intimidated, then they might likely have been intimidated by the behavior of that other element anyway.

 

Then it would probably be best for everyone involved if those "others" who bruise so easily remained "lurkers" instead of participants. The problem clearly lies within themselves.

Edited by Bassoon Pilot
Link to comment
Leaves me with another thought: IF said moderation had not happened, do you suppose that you would never be similarly "intimidated," and "become less inclined to even participate." In other words, do you "back off" when you see some undesirable conflict happening? I know that I "control my urges" very often and stay clear of it, and often refuse to read certain threads.

In my case, I'm not intimidated by conflict or "strong personalities" who participate in a discussion. In fact, my disinclination to participate in a thread when I feel the moderation has become unreasonable, hypocritical or just plain silly probably has less to do with intimidation and is more likely a product of simple disgust. Which probably means I'm off topic since the topic is moderator intimidation. B)

Link to comment
...The problem clearly lies within themselves.

This is true. And it also applies to most any instance where moderation might have caused intimidation. Intimidation is perceived.

 

This topic is not only about mods intimidating posters; it is also about posters being intimidated by mods.

 

...if we asked the OP which of his personal "leanings" he is following by starting this thread, could he tell us?

 

Just call me an (only occasionally intimidated) information nut. :smile:B)

Link to comment
...The problem clearly lies within themselves.

This is true. And it also applies to most any instance where moderation might have caused intimidation. Intimidation is perceived.

Yep.

 

We don't moderate people for fun, not in the least. It is generally a last resort or is done because of immediate action needed (such as profanity, objectionable photos or links, cross posting messages or spamming with ads, etc.).

Link to comment
...The problem clearly lies within themselves.

This is true. And it also applies to most any instance where moderation might have caused intimidation. Intimidation is perceived.

Yes, but half of the issue is whether or not the writer made any effort to, or had any intention of, "intimidating" anyone. As I suggested in my earlier post, in many, if not most, cases I believe there was neither an attempt nor intent by anyone to "intimidate" anyone; the problem was with the reader's (mis)perception.

 

But the topic of this particular thread is indeed "Do the Moderators intimidate the posters?" And very clearly, there have been many instances, both public and highly-visible and behind the scenes, in which moderators have.

 

For example, some of the moderators are known to send "warning" PMs and/or e-mails to people when the moderator simply did not like the content or tone of a post, even if the post had violated no guideline nor "the spirit of any guideline." Clearly, that can be viewed as an attempt to modify or control the behavior of an individual through intimidation. Would the intimidation be real or perceived, or some combination of the two?

 

Another example: During the days when the "warning meters" were visible, the moderators frequently used them (in what many people believed to be an apparently abritrary manner) as a means of controlling people (both individuals participating in a thread as well as those merely "watching from the sidelines") with the implied threat that any individual could be barred from posting to the forums at the moderator's whim. Clearly, that can also be viewed as an attempt to intimidate people. Real or perceived? I don't know, but it would certainly be interesting to pose that question to people who have been barred from posting to the forums, or whose posts are/were subject to moderator review prior to posting.

 

As both of the preceding examples have occurred in these forums on many occasions, it would appear to be true that, in some cases, moderator-induced intimidation of posters has not been merely perceived, but may very well have been the moderator's goal.

 

We don't moderate people for fun, not in the least.

 

I can't tell whether you are using the word "moderate" to mean "to intimidate" or "to ban." I'm sure the moderators don't enjoy banning someone. But you would have a pretty hard time convincing me that the moderators didn't relish "kicking it around" with Duane, and Lord knows Duane wasn't intimidated by the moderators.

Edited by Bassoon Pilot
Link to comment
...some of the moderators are known to send "warning" PMs and/or e-mails to people when the moderator simply did not like the content or tone of a post, even if the post had violated no guideline nor "the spirit of any guideline."  Clearly, that can be viewed as an attempt to modify or control the behavior of an individual through intimidation.  Would the intimidation be real or perceived, or some combination of the two?

 

...it would appear to be true that, in some cases, moderator-induced intimidation of posters has not been merely perceived, but may very well have been the moderator's goal.

 

In the past, I have been intimidated privately. I'm sure it was more than perceived.

 

In fairness, most of my communications with the mods are very helpful, friendly, fair and supportive. B):smile:

 

Edit: to get the quote right.

Edited by sept1c_tank
Link to comment
...The problem clearly lies within themselves.

This is true. And it also applies to most any instance where moderation might have caused intimidation. Intimidation is perceived.

Yep.

 

We don't moderate people for fun, not in the least. It is generally a last resort or is done because of immediate action needed (such as profanity, objectionable photos or links, cross posting messages or spamming with ads, etc.).

Or when someone posts something a mod doesn't like or doesn't agree with.

Link to comment
We don't moderate people for fun, not in the least. It is generally a last resort or is done because of immediate action needed (such as profanity, objectionable photos or links, cross posting messages or spamming with ads, etc.).

I would suggest that perhaps you are speaking only for yourself or, at the very least, stating your opinion as to the motives of most reasonable moderators. My experience with another moderator would suggest otherwise. I've even received PM's from a moderator gloating over the fact that they just moderated me. I know others that have recieved similar PM's from a particular moderator. In my experience, some of the moderators have a mean streak and enjoy exercising it under the guise of forum moderation.

Link to comment

I wasnt going to say anything.... ...but i'm gonna bite...

 

Intimidate me? No.

 

Over-moderate? Sometimes.

 

Moderate inconsistently? Sometimes.

 

I'd started a thread here, a while back. I asked a legit question about how many people take a certain kind of pet with them Geocaching. I think I got 2 "real" replies. The rest were smart-alec replies, though amusing.

 

There have been a number of threads about taking pets caching (particularly dogs). I was asking a similar question in regards to ferrets.

 

The thread was closed, without a warning to "keep it on topic". It was mentioned to move the thread to the off-topic forum. I feel that this was out of line for a couple of reasons:

1) It was a thread about taking a pet Geocaching.

2) The off-topic forum is not available to everyone, and I felt that would exclude someone from providing some input about taking their pet with them.

 

I'll say this much: I'm hesitant to respond to a thread now, and even more hesitant to start a thread. My post count is under 10 messages (and not likely to go above that number for a while, i'm sure. I'm sure i've read at least 100 times that number of posts. But it's not about the numbers - its about enjoying a hobby/pastime/obsession.

 

I think I'll go back to caching & lurking. The control freaks can do what they like with my posts. I dont need them to make my day bright & cheery.

Link to comment
I've even received PM's from a moderator gloating over the fact that they just moderated me. I know others that have recieved similar PM's from a particular moderator. In my experience, some of the moderators have a mean streak and enjoy exercising it under the guise of forum moderation.

What? You mean like this?

 

You didn't even let a discussion foster one bit before you broadened the discussion. The second post in the topic, your first post, was actually on topic. The third post in the topic, your second post, went into the normal Groundspeak bashing that is your trademark.

 

Maybe this will teach you a lesson. Stay on topic.

 

...

 

Personally, I honestly don't understand why you hang around since you seem to hate everything about the site, the people that run it and the volunteers that assist. I assume that you enjoy stirring up controversy. My opinion in that matter makes no difference regarding the issue though.

 

The closed topic will stay closed.

(From a PM I still have in my INBOX)

Link to comment
We don't moderate people for fun, not in the least.

 

I can't tell whether you are using the word "moderate" to mean "to intimidate" or "to ban." I'm sure the moderators don't enjoy banning someone. But you would have a pretty hard time convincing me that the moderators didn't relish "kicking it around" with Duane, and Lord knows Duane wasn't intimidated by the moderators.

I mean neither really. I don't want or expect people to fear me. I just want them to respect me, each other and be civil to each other and follow the guidelines. I can show examples of forum posters intimidating other people (including you) just as you can show examples of moderators intimidating forum posters (including me). I just don't think that is a constructive use of this topic.

 

Regarding Duane, he is a prime example to me of someone intimidating the moderators and other forum posters to the point where something had to be done (and was). We gave him every chance to be nice in the forums and be a member of the community. Instead, he constantly attacked people and did not descriminate between mods and regular readers. He constantly created sock puppets, even using sock puppets in his own ranting topics to be a "yeah, that!" voice where there were none backing him up. I personally went to the wall for him with Hydee only to be stabbed in the back in the end. Using him as an example is just about the worst possible example you could use.

Link to comment
It seems that the least intimidated posters are the ones who are dominating this thread. Maybe I'm not the only one that sees the irony in this.

Perhaps they're attempting to speak for those who are too intimidated to post in this thread? :P

 

Are you suggesting that the posters "dominating" this topic are making all this up? That there really is no problem and that it is a figment of some people's imaginations reinforced by a small segment of overly dominant posters? :huh:

 

Or am I reading too much between the lines and you simply just find the topic amusing? :huh:

Link to comment
I can show examples of forum posters intimidating other people (including you) just as you can show examples of moderators intimidating forum posters (including me).

Really? Was I doing the intimidating, or being intimidated?

 

Were you the victim of a forum moderator, or are you saying that, as a moderator, you might have intimidated forum posters? It's not at all clear.

 

(How often are similarly flawed posts [by anyone; it is not my intent to single out mtn-man] at the root of forum maelstroms?)

Edited by Bassoon Pilot
Link to comment
It seems that the least intimidated posters are the ones who are dominating this thread. Maybe I'm not the only one that sees the irony in this.

 

In my opinion no one is dominating this topic. But, by dominating this topic, I assume you are referring to those participants who have stated they feel no, or little intimidation from the moderators.

 

If that is the case -it is not surprising at all- once bitten, twice shy. If someone has previously experienced intimidation, why would they expose themselves to the possibility of more “angst” in a topic like this that is surely being scrutinized by those very people who may have threatened them originally?

 

I’m sure there are very few participants in these forums who are intimidated aggressively by the mods. Most of the time, the mods don’t realize the extent of their “powers.” Most of the time, the mods are just doing their jobs. Most of the time, the average poster may not realize that intimidation is probably what defines the limits of his posts. That’s why, I think, most posts require no moderation (plus the fact that the virtues and integrity of many geocachers automatically fall within the perimeters of our forum guidelines).

 

But there are some of us who need to be watched. Sometimes calmed. Maybe even guided or coached a little.

 

Intimidation is perceived, not handed out. But anyone with any power at all still has the option to attempt to intimidate. Politicians and teachers do it. Moderators and policemen do it.

 

Intimidation by moderators (or other posters) is not a huge problem on these boards, in my opinion, but there is some evidence that it occurs. The natural intimidation that seems to always accompany authority is inherent and acceptable. Attempts by some volunteers to force intimidation are regrettable.

 

To clarify, I see no irony. :huh::huh:

Link to comment
I can show examples of forum posters intimidating other people (including you) just as you can show examples of moderators intimidating forum posters (including me).

Really? Was I doing the intimidating, or being intimidated?

 

Were you the victim of a forum moderator, or are you saying that, as a moderator, you might have intimidated forum posters? It's not at all clear.

 

(How often are similarly flawed posts [by anyone; it is not my intent to single out mtn-man] at the root of forum maelstroms?)

I post less and less in these type of topics. Basically I see the post I quoted here as trying to split hairs to start an argument. I'm not going to bite. Feel free to go back and read the whole topic. If you don't get it, well, sorry.

 

I do understand why people hate these forums and avoid them... and just go geocaching. My gut told me not to post a single thing in this topic. I should have listened to that instinct.

 

I guess I have been intimidated enough to say bye-bye to this one.

 

:P:D

Link to comment
The question was raised (I believe tongue-in cheek) in another thread. The more I think about it, the better the question becomes.

 

Now let’s not start bashing the volunteers (or TPTB), but answer the question honestly. Put more precisely, have you ever thought you had something relevant to add to a topic, but you didn’t because you guessed your opinion would not be well received by the forum moderators? :P:D

No. I've never been afraid to say what I really thought, although I've tempered it a bit sometimes.

Link to comment

Cops can be intimidating.

 

This thread is intimidating, could just be the topic.

 

Math can really be intimidating

 

What if you're a timid person by nature? That could really spell trouble.

 

Typing can be intimidating to someone who doesn't know how to type.

 

The same is true for reading.

 

What was the original question?

 

oh

 

"do The Mods Intimidate The Posters?"

 

Depends on who you ask as we see here.

 

How about "do The Mods Intimidate You?"

 

Me?

 

No, not so much

 

Cops can at times though.

Link to comment
... Basically I see the post I quoted here as trying to split hairs to start an argument.    I'm not going to bite.  Feel free to go back and read the whole topic.  If you don't get it, well, sorry.

I do, in fact, get it. My apologies for having intimidated you.

 

I made neither an attempt "to split hairs" nor "start an argument." I was merely trying to figure out what you intended to say, and used it as an example of how miscommunications frequently occur in these forums. The reader is not necessarily at fault for misperceptions. And of course, on many occasions people deliberately post messages written in an unclear manner hoping to cause friction. Isn't that what you did?

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