Why Was 'closed Topic' Closed?

December 2, 2003

Although I championed this whole 'heavier moderation' experiment since it's inception, I have now been driven to the other side and believe it's a failed policy.

This topic was a piece of satire commenting on the prolific moderation with lots of discussion. All of it fit within these posted forum rules.

Although the opinions shared in that satire wasn't overtly critical of GC.com, that's the only reason I can imagine it was closed, which is specifically contrary to this (quoted from the guidelines):

"Please understand that we are not attempting to censor any messages or opinions posted, but this is a moderated discussion forum. We simply want to preserve the spirit of an open, interactive discussion without offending participants. This means that we (Groundspeak and the volunteers for Groundspeak) reserve the right to edit/remove inappropriate messages, or to lock a discussion thread. Before taking any of these actions, a moderator will attempt to steer the discussion back to the topic, if this is possible and appropriate."

The topic never strayed off topic. Only opinions were posted. There was interactive discussion with nothing offensive at all (not even directly toward GC.com). The moderators never tried to 'steer it back on topic' as it never left.

I respectfully request to know how the said topic conflicted with the forum guidelines.

Thanks,

Randy

PS: I do find it VERY amusing that the closure of said topic walked right into the satire--point proven I guess. (FYI GC.com: This strikes me as a future PR problem as we've already had new folks complaining, the quality of forum posts has drastically degraded, and significant topic closures have inhibited discussions.)

9.4k · December 2, 2003

Seriously... How long did it take for you to compose this post? Was it worth it?

24.7k · December 2, 2003

The serious message behind satire is often missed. Sometimes things need spelled out.

RJFerret did a good job moving the original intent beyond the satire into a more maintstream post. I think his effort was worth it. If not for the members then for the staffers.

December 2, 2003

The topic was not closed because it had moved off the original topic. The topic was posted under "General Geocaching Discussions" this topic and many others have been closed because they have nothing to do with Geocaching, Benchmark hunting, GPS Usage, or Groundspeak related GPS Gaming. There are thousands of other forum boards out there to discuss other topics.

The forum guidelines clearly 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."

Topics that do not fit within the goals of the Groundspeak forum may be closed or deleted.

Edited December 2, 2003 by hydee

December 2, 2003

I can only shake my head. And mumble "Oh brother".

December 2, 2003

The topic was relevant to geocaching in that it was a discussion about Geocaching.com forum policy. It should have simply been moved to the Geocaching.com forum instead of being locked. It is certainly difficult to have the open forum discussion that is being advocated, without being able to discuss forum policy.

December 2, 2003

Topics that do not fit within the goals of the Groundspeak forum may be closed or deleted.

sigh...

December 2, 2003

Hmmmm, seems like anymore you have to wear a suit and tie just to put a message on the board. I didn't know that getting a new message board meant getting a NEW attitude from people as well. It seems like anymore that if you dare get off the geocaching topic BAMM BAMM BAMM, you get slapped on the wrist and the topic gets locked down. I don't know, maybe its me but I think the message board is getting a bit prude these days and that some people that have the power to play "god" with the topics are getting carried away with locking down threads. If people don't want to read a thread, then they don't have to read or respond to it. Even if a topic isn't technically a geocaching topic, as long as there isn't any swearing, bashing, or anything else negative, wheres the harm in it. I almost think that getting a topic in here to stay open is about as hard as getting permission from a landowner to put a cache.

Edited December 2, 2003 by The Weasel

2.1k · December 2, 2003

What gets me, I've heard it said before and then just in another thread that was nailed shut by a moderator, but that the purpose of the message board is to get people out caching...that doesn't make since. I think the message board is to keep us here posting, debating and and not going after caches. I remember the comment on the website when the board was down, that there was an influx of found caches with a snide remark to follow. So, having no message board is what really gets people out caching...

Then the "on/off topic" thing...puh lease....There are many topics alive and well over here that has nothing to do with geocaching, with exception the word geocahing might be in it.

December 2, 2003

If only Keenpeople.com listed caches... they would have everything.

December 2, 2003

What gets me, I've heard it said before and then just in another thread that was nailed shut by a moderator, but that the purpose of the message board is to get people out caching...that doesn't make since. I think the message board is to keep us here posting, debating and and not going after caches. I remember the comment on the website when the board was down, that there was an influx of found caches with a snide remark to follow. So, having no message board is what really gets people out caching...

Then the "on/off topic" thing...puh lease....There are many topics alive and well over here that has nothing to do with geocaching, with exception the word geocahing might be in it.

I agree totally. I still do not, nor will ever understand what harm is leaving a topic open even if its not on topic. I have met and talked to several people who I never would have if I didn't open a off topic thread. Whats next, pregenerated topics. I guess I will seriously re-consider if I want to renew my membership next time around if I can't speak my mind. I know, I know, my "dues" do not reflect the message board, but ya know what, who cares. If my ideas,thoughts, and posts don't matter (even in a off topic thread), then my money must not matter either. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way, but just needed to vent a little bit. I just think people need to have a little constrain while they are slinging their rightious paintbrush closing threads and treating this like a geo daycare!!

Edited December 2, 2003 by The Weasel

1.4k · December 2, 2003

Seriously... How long did it take for you to compose this post? Was it worth it?

Probably longer then it took you to criticize him for it.

2.1k · December 2, 2003

Seriously... How long did it take for you to compose this post? Was it worth it?

Probably longer then it took you to criticize him for it.

You forgot to ask him if it was worth it...

1.4k · December 2, 2003

Seriously... How long did it take for you to compose this post? Was it worth it?

Probably longer then it took you to criticize him for it.

You forgot to ask him if it was worth it...

Oh, was it worth it?

Thanks Juggler.

9.4k · December 2, 2003

ROFL

(2 secs)

2.1k · December 2, 2003

I agree totally. I still do not, nor will ever understand what harm is leaving a topic open even if its not on topic. I have met and talked to several people who I never would have if I didn't open a off topic thread. Whats next, pregenerated topics. I guess I will seriously re-consider if I want to renew my membership next time around if I can't speak my mind. I know, I know, my "dues" do not reflect the message board, but ya know what, who cares. If my ideas,thoughts, and posts don't matter (even in a off topic thread), then my money must not matter either. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way, but just needed to vent a little bit. I just think people need to have a little constrain while they are slinging their rightious paintbrush closing threads and treating this like a geo daycare!!

Well whether or not your payment affects the message board, your experience here affects your payment. I would gather to say that the premium membership fees do help out a great bit now, seeing as a new server was puchased and different software. I also think that if enough people were "affected" and they let it "affect" their pockets, then the site would be "affected" as well.

As Hydee put it. There are thousands of other message boards out there, were you can talk about off topic stuff. Hey some even let you talk about geocaching too!

Just ask around, they will tell you were you can go...I mean ask another member here. I know if you ask TPTB where to go, you might not like the answer...lmao

1.4k · December 2, 2003

ROFL

(2 secs)

careful you might get warned for being uncivil...oh wait..you wouldn't mod yourself so oh well.

1.1k · December 2, 2003

This whole Mod War thing needs to get hammered out. Some mods are saying 'thanks for your input, we are working on a better policy' but I also see what I perceive as a heavy handed 'it's my sandbox' attitude from others.

Can someone tell me:

Am I a guest who has absolutely no input or recourse for my complaints.

OR

Am I a customer who has a right to contribute my views and encourage change.

If TPTB can answer this question I can stop worrying about every post and make a choice.

1.4k · December 2, 2003

What bugs me the most is that when a topic is closed moderators are pretty quick to hand out advice when it is really not their place or their business. For instance in one of the warnings that I received because I was speaking my mind (on topic btw), I was sent this:

"Do something more constructive outside of the forums"

I'd really like to know why moderators have the idea that their authority now runs *beyond* the scope of the forums and that they have some right to tell us what do do with our lives. Frankly, to the modertor who used the anonymous "Admin" username to send me a warning -- it's none of your damned business how I spend my time and you were way, way, way beyond your authority.

But I guess when you're just a mere "ankle biter" you've got to expect to be treated with disrespect by those who are incapable of attaining the respect that they feel should come automatically because they hold the title of moderator.

Moderators, lighten up -- you're taking this far too seriously -- topics that wander soon lose their appeal and rapidly drop away quietly -- without any heavy-handed actions. The psychology is pretty easy to figure you but you must be able to view what you are doing from the perspective of those that you are doing it to.

*****

3k · December 2, 2003

Moderators, lighten up -- you're taking this far too seriously --

This is advice that applies to everyone involved in these forums, not just the moderators. Its good advice

FRANCIS

1.4k · December 2, 2003

umc wrote:
This is advice that applies to everyone involved in these forums, not just the moderators. Its good advice

No disrespect to yourself, but you misquoted me and left the heavy-handed part out -- that was rather important.

The lightening up does need to start with the moderators.

*****

9.4k · December 2, 2003

"Do something more constructive outside of the forums"

Thank you for not quoting out of context. This was the full quote (from me)

Enough. At the request of incoming emails to the contact address, and several reported posts, you have been put on 48 hours time-out. Do something more constructive outside of the forums.

This was your 4th warning at the time. Don't act the martyr. Most of the vets here have tired of you pulling that card.

3k · December 2, 2003

No disrespect to yourself, but you misquoted me and left the heavy-handed part out -- that was rather important.

The lightening up does need to start with the moderators.

*****

I didn't misquote you, I just quoted what I wanted from your post.

As far as the lightening up needing to start with the mods, I wouldn't have a problem with that but you must understand that it was rather "dim" in here for us to be made mods in the first place.

9.4k · December 2, 2003

Am I a guest who has absolutely no input or recourse for my complaints.

OR

Am I a customer who has a right to contribute my views and encourage change.

I suppose first I'd have to look at your complaint. As Keystone Approver indicated, there is work being done on a moderator code of conduct. People do make mistakes and there are different strokes for different folks. Hopefully most of that will get hammered out when a code is formed.

Healthy debate is great, but some fundamental decisions will not change. We do listen to people's recommendations, opinions, and criticisms, but we can't please everyone every time. Nor can every decision be perfect in every case.

5.9k · December 2, 2003

Am I a guest who has absolutely no input or recourse for my complaints.

OR

Am I a customer who has a right to contribute my views and encourage change.

I suppose first I'd have to look at your complaint. As Keystone Approver indicated, there is work being done on a moderator code of conduct. People do make mistakes and there are different strokes for different folks. Hopefully most of that will get hammered out when a code is formed.

Healthy debate is great, but some fundamental decisions will not change. We do listen to people's recommendations, opinions, and criticisms, but we can't please everyone every time. Nor can every decision be perfect in every case.

I'll be ever so angry if I'm not included in the forming of the "code"...

1.4k · December 2, 2003

Am I a guest who has absolutely no input or recourse for my complaints.

OR

Am I a customer who has a right to contribute my views and encourage change.

I suppose first I'd have to look at your complaint. As Keystone Approver indicated, there is work being done on a moderator code of conduct. People do make mistakes and there are different strokes for different folks. Hopefully most of that will get hammered out when a code is formed.

Healthy debate is great, but some fundamental decisions will not change. We do listen to people's recommendations, opinions, and criticisms, but we can't please everyone every time. Nor can every decision be perfect in every case.

Jeremy when you have this many disgruntled people something is wrong. It was never like this in the past. We are not just making stuff up. I am sure GC.com would like it to be one or two people that they can just can for causing trouble but it isn't like that. There are a great number of people who seem (based on the threads and posts) to be upset with the way things are being conducted at GC.com.

December 2, 2003

I think the question remains: Does GC consider us as 'guests' or as 'customers'? There is a clear-cut distinction between the two and IMHO has very little to do with the nature of one's question/complaint/statement.

Distinguishing between 'guest' and 'customer' will also allow posters to know what rights, if any, they can reasonably expect when frequenting the Groundspeak sites.

December 2, 2003

There are a great number of people who seem (based on the threads and posts) to be upset with the way things are being conducted at GC.com.

Like what? Quit being melodramatic.

December 2, 2003

I think the question remains: Does GC consider us as 'guests' or as 'customers'? There is a clear-cut distinction between the two and IMHO has very little to do with the nature of one's question/complaint/statement.

Distinguishing between 'guest' and 'customer' will also allow posters to know what rights, if any, they can reasonably expect when frequenting the Groundspeak sites.

IMO, if I'm paying for a membership, I should be considered a customer. But the question is, am I a customer to the entire site or am I just a customer to certain areas?

December 2, 2003

There are a great number of people who seem (based on the threads and posts) to be upset with the way things are being conducted at GC.com.

Like what? Quit being melodramatic.

Cool - a moderator sock puppet!

1.4k · December 2, 2003

There are a great number of people who seem (based on the threads and posts) to be upset with the way things are being conducted at GC.com.

Like what? Quit being melodramatic.

Yeah lets act all naive and it will all go away. I am not being melodramatic, I am stating a fact. How many of these threads have yall canned so far? And how many have there been in the past, not many, other then about stats.

Melodramatic? lets just put our heads in the sand and censor everything and that will make it all better.

1.4k · December 2, 2003

There are a great number of people who seem (based on the threads and posts) to be upset with the way things are being conducted at GC.com.

Like what? Quit being melodramatic.

Cool - a moderator sock puppet!

Can't voice that opinion themselves so they hide behind another name. What a waste of oxygen.

9.4k · December 2, 2003

IMO, if I'm paying for a membership, I should be considered a customer. But the question is, am I a customer to the entire site or am I just a customer to certain areas?

Sorry. I switch between Admin and jeremy a lot.

Kind of a tightrope, eh? Where spending money is concerned (including time costs), I look to the people who financially support the web site as customers. So things like new maps (which cost licensing fees) or pocket queries (that create massive bandwidth) I look to the financially supporting members for feedback, issues, etc.

Where policy is concerned, that has been traditionally the folks who help approve their caches regionally and organized geocachers who provide feedback to implement those policies. Hydee has come to be the contact for that, and I stay away from those policy issues for approving/disapproving caches. In this area we look to all geocachers for feedback, but rely heavily on regional experts and land managers.

The forums are interesting, as they both provide an excellent place for feedback (read: the Geocaching.com discussion area that I moderate) and a general gathering place for discussing geocaching, travel bugs, gps and benchmark hunting. In this area I consider everyone a "guest," just like I would expect a guest to act when they come to my house for dinner. Polite and constructive. It should not be a hostile environment for anyone.

At some dinner parties, a bell is on the table for people to ring if they want the discussion to change. This is how the moderators should act. If topics are going off-topic (or stop off-topic) they should be closed.

9.4k · December 2, 2003

Yeah lets act all naive and it will all go away.

You are being melodromatic. Quit ignoring the question and please put into one sentence what, specifically, is your complaint. Indicate an on-topic post that was canned, or anything. Please.

1.4k · December 2, 2003

Jeremy wrote:
(Jomarac5 @ Dec 2 2003, 02:23 PM)

"Do something more constructive outside the forums"

Thank you for not quoting out of context. This was the full quote (from me)

Nothing out of context here -- I was quoting the erroneous statement made in the warning -- that's what my entire post referred to and it was not improper to quote only that part of the message as the rest of the warning was not relevant to the point I was making. No one is being a martyr.

Very nice how you ignored the rest of my post.

*****

9.4k · December 2, 2003

Cool - a moderator sock puppet!

Admin is me. Sometimes I post while logged in as the admin account. Sorry for the confusion.

1.4k · December 2, 2003

There are a great number of people who seem (based on the threads and posts) to be upset with the way things are being conducted at GC.com.

Like what? Quit being melodramatic.

He's not being melodramatic -- what he says is true. A lot of people are upset -- a lot more than you are recognizing. Ignoring people is not going to make the problem go away.

*****

9.4k · December 2, 2003

Very nice how you ignored the rest of my post.

You didn't have anything to respond to.

9.4k · December 2, 2003

He's not being melodramatic -- what he says is true. A lot of people are upset -- a lot more than you are recognizing.

Still waiting on a specific complaint to address. What are they getting upset about?

1.4k · December 2, 2003

Jeremy wrote:]
You didn't have anything to respond to.

And you wonder why there are problems. Good reply. <sigh>

*****

1.4k · December 2, 2003

He's not being melodramatic -- what he says is true. A lot of people are upset -- a lot more than you are recognizing.

Still waiting on a specific complaint to address. What are they getting upset about?

Are you reading the same forums as the rest of us?

*****

December 2, 2003

For the most part, I'm a lurker and only rarely toss in a post here or there. Having said that, I believe that the recent micromanagement of the forums has been heavy handed and is the root cause for the current meltdown that exists. Since I'm not too heavily involved with writing opinion pieces in these forums, it isn't a big deal for me to simply drift away for a while. I control my involvement in the forums, the forums don't control me.

Hopefully while I'm gone for a while, the forums will settle down and get back to being the enjoyable place they have been for so many. I wish you luck in creating your "moderator code". I will state that from my experience in the amateur radio world where I play a "real time moderator" as a control operator of a few radio repeaters, the best approach is a hands off approach. Save getting involved in moderation for the times when it is really needed, and in those times, don't moderate publicly. Often a simple message "off the air", so to speak, is the best solution.

Hasta la vista for a while,

Ken

9.4k · December 2, 2003

Are you reading the same forums as the rest of us?

Apparently not. Perhaps you should enlighten me.

1.4k · December 2, 2003

Jeremy wrote:
Apparently not. Perhaps you should enlighten me.

Perhaps you should go back and read the past few days of posts (including the ones where I was unable to post) instead of trying to brush the issues that you wish to ignore under the carpet.

*****

9.4k · December 2, 2003

Perhaps you should go back and read the past few days of posts (including the ones where I was unable to post) instead of trying to brush the issues that you wish to ignore under the carpet.

It seems you have my ear now. I'm not sure what is so difficult about pointing out one complaint to address.

December 2, 2003

Good explanation, Jeremy, and yes, it is a tightrope. Please take this as constructive criticism and not just a poke.

How can you consider folks to be your 'customers' only "Where spending money is concerned" and not when it comes to policy or forums? They all go hand-in-hand. I think that it is a bit insulting to Groundspeak's paying customers, of which I'm one. It is certainly not a business model that very many successful businesses would adopt, unless of course they have a virtual monopoly on their chosen business.

However, if it works for you...

9.4k · December 2, 2003

How can you consider folks to be your 'customers' only "Where spending money is concerned" and not when it comes to policy or forums? They all go hand-in-hand. I think that it is a bit insulting to Groundspeak's paying customers, of which I'm one.

Are you saying I should ignore non-paying customers' opinions, criticisms, etc? Maybe you can delve deeper into this so I understand what you believe should change.

Geocaching.com as a web site and service is functional as a free site. All input is encouraged as long as it is constructive.

1.4k · December 2, 2003

Perhaps you should go back and read the past few days of posts (including the ones where I was unable to post) instead of trying to brush the issues that you wish to ignore under the carpet.

It seems you have my ear now. I'm not sure what is so difficult about pointing out one complaint to address.

Lift carpet. Move broom.

If you need to be directed to the posts where people are saying they are unhappy with the heavy-handed moderation I doubt that it will help. The complaints are painstakingly obvious and it appears that you are trying to derail this issue.

But just to appease you, how about reading the post that started this thread?

*****

38.2k · December 2, 2003

How about you two take this offline, lest UMC steps in and puts the hammer down.

Edited December 2, 2003 by briansnat

21.9k · December 2, 2003

I wish you luck in creating your "moderator code". I will state that from my experience in the amateur radio world where I play a "real time moderator" as a control operator of a few radio repeaters, the best approach is a hands off approach. Save getting involved in moderation for the times when it is really needed, and in those times, don't moderate publicly. Often a simple message "off the air", so to speak, is the best solution.

Thanks very much for your input. The reason I volunteered to be a moderator is to keep the forums enjoyable for geocachers like yourself, who come here to read about geocaching from time to time.

I did wish to correct a possible misunderstanding. The "moderator code", which I am helping to write based on input from the community at large and from fellow Groundspeak volunteers, deals only with the conduct of the moderators. For example, if I posted a personal attack against another geocacher using my personal account, and that geocacher then attacked me right back, it would be inappropriate for me to then switch over to my moderator account and issue a warning to the person who attacked me, or to delete his post. It would also be inappropriate for me to write a personal attack in the first instance, as this violates the same Forum Guidelines which I am attempting to help everyone follow. It is these issues and others like them, relating to forum moderating as well as the cache approval process, which will be dealt with in the Code of Conduct.

On the other hand, the Forum Guidelines are already published and are available for reference by clicking on the link at the top left corner of each Forum page. I am not aware of any plan to update these guidelines, which were written very recently.

I agree wholeheartedly with your observation that a hands-off approach to moderation is best, and that moderation is sometimes best done privately. I wish that the community would be self-moderating so that my job was not even necessary. I write numerous messages to individual geocachers about the Forum Guidelines. The "Warn Meters" are another purely private tool which are used for communicating the moderators' expectations. You will never see me state that I've issued a warning to someone, but you will frequently see the recipients of those warnings complain loudly about them.

At other times, it is important to make a public statement within the thread, in an effort to bring it back to an on-topic, civil discussion, or just to let folks know that we are responding to their complaints about posts that do not conform to our published Forum Guidelines.

I hope that this explanation is helpful.

Why Was 'closed Topic' Closed?

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