How to Contact Administrators:

[Jack Tarlin]

I hope this is the appropriate place for this question; above it says "If you need help moving around on Whiteblaze, this is the place to post it."

On several occasions, I have been publicly or privately told by moderators to stop posting certain things or certain topics.

On several occasions, these folks (and it certainly isn't always the same person) have told me "Take your stuff to Personal Messages; if you wish to continue a dialogue with someone, take it to PM."

On more than one occasion, upon reflection, I've realized this is good advice.

Recently, I had a post of mine edited by a Moderator, and he probably had a legitimate point. So I sent him a very civil explanatory note, in which I expressed regret for giving him cause to edit my post, but I added that I still felt that what I'd actually written in the post was absolutely truthful.

The simple reply I got was "I'm not interested in this subject."

I sent back a brief reply, where I very briefly stated that someone's refusal to discuss facts doesn't necessarily negate them; I further said that I respected his feelings about the subject and that the matter was concluded, i.e. there'd be no further correspondence from me on the matter.

I just got back a very blunt letter, warning me about "abusing" the PM privilege.

So here's a simple question: When one is admonished about posts and told to "take it to PM" or when someone is told "Problems with website administration should be taken to the Moderators," well this is fine. I have no problem with this.

But what happens when Moderators aren't interested in what you have to say?

Where does one go then? How can one defend the worth or validity of one's comments here if the people who moderate them aren't interested in discussing them with you?

I would be curious to hear some other opinions, assuming this post and thread don't disappear.

I would also, of course, like to hear from Moderators, too.

(Please note: The purpose of this post is not to point out any specific person, nor is meant as a wholesale attack on website administration or moderation. Anyone who comes here regularly knows that I've frequently defended admin. and moderators here and have frequently said that I think the website is moderated quite well. The purpose of this post is very simple and revolves around a simple question: How does one get to discuss the validity or appropriateness of one's posts here if the people who pass judgment on them refuse to discuss them, even in private? I think it's a fair question, and I'd have sent this along as a personal message, but first off, Rick's out hiking, and secondly, I've been warned not to "abuse" the PM privilege. So this seemed like the only place to discuss this. I hope this thread is allowed to continue; I further hope that it stays civil).

[Lone Wolf]

huh?.........

[Spokes]

Yes, who moderates the Moderators?

[Heater]

These guys

[Lugnut]

This isn't going to last long. Dissent is not permitted here.

[neighbor dave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg

[Two Speed]

This isn't going to last long. Dissent is not permitted here.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll see.

[Lone Wolf]

well maybe a moderator/administrator should just answer the question then close the thread

[scope]

Had a similar experience, was admonished and replied with an explanation of my intent and that I understood why my post was removed. Got back a reply that I frankly consider to be as bad as or worse than what I posted.

I don't really blame moderators for not wanting to get into discussions with folks on why they've been moderated, but it would seem that there needs to be an overall better attitude from these people. Maybe its just a few of them, I don't know, I haven't really pushed the boundary that much.

[JAK]

I would have to agree with Jack that if a moderator sees fit to edit a specific post he should provide some sort of an explaination, and be willing to discuss it, unless of course it was a clear cut and obvious indiscretion. In Jack's case, if it was the one I think it was, it was deemed political, and it was rather sketchy. Jack used the term 'liberal', but it was in the generic or lower case sense of the word, and not in reference to members of any political party or idiology. He might just as well have used the word 'academic', but 'liberal' was more accurate. It wasn't an attack on liberals either, but more of a constructive criticism or observation. Most liberally minded people would not have been offended, and many would actually have been in aggreement, as I was.

That said, I understand moderators have limited time, and have to call them as they see them, and more or less fire from the hip. Jacks post was a case of unfortunate collateral damage in my opinion. It happens.

There might be some misunderstanding here also. Not sure, but when a moderator says take it to PM, I think they mean with some other poster, someone like myself, and not with the moderators. Sometimes the moderators are willing to discuss things by PM, but sometimes they are either too busy, or wish to remain more detached, like an umpire, and I get that.

[Jack Tarlin]

I have to disagree with you, Wolf. While I'd like to hear from Moderators on this subject, I think it'd be worthwhile to be able to hear the opinions of other folks, too.

A pre-mature closing of this thread would merely indicate, regrettably, that there are certain things that simply can't be discussed here, either publicly or privately.

And that would be a great shame.

[bigmac_in]

I"ve never heard of this happening on WB before, is this something new?

[JAK]

idiology - My Freudian slip is showing again. Sorry. No offence intended. lol

[warraghiyagey]

I"ve never heard of this happening on WB before, is this something new?

I've never noticed it either. . . .

[Mags]

YOu know what I do? I remind myself it is a just freakin' website...

Then I go hike, ski, bike, climb, cook some great food, enjoy the company of my friends, play with their children who I absolutely adore and feel ever closer to this wonderful woman in my life.

Now, it is time to drink coffee. Cuase that's all that this dude is gonna say (no really. That's all I'm gonna say. )

[Spokes]

From the About WhiteBlaze.net page:

"We are the first of its kind to have open free speech forums dealing with the Appalachian Trail. We do not dictate or try to force our views on others. That was why the site was created, to let everyone shares their views and ideas openly without persecution from others. We do this by honoring the freedom of speech rule. But we do have limits to the freedom of speech. I think that is self-explanatory......

The free sharing of information and experiences is why this site was created and it is why it is one of the best sites on the web......"

I gotta feeling the "self-explanation" is: it's all subjective.........

[Alligator]

Jack,

You posted a political piece that got edited out. You decided to continue on about your political post through PM. I told you I wasn't interested in that discussion. It was definitely political and would have invited further bashing on the subject of liberals and conservatives. You are well aware of the no politics rule. You returned another PM still arguing the same topic. If you were truly done with the topic you wouldn't have added on two additional paragraphs about how it was the "truth". Generally it's called beating a dead horse. I simply wasn't interested in continuing a political debate that you weren't able to just let go. We're not going to spend round after round arguing why a post was edited, particularly when the material was about politics. Ultimately, a decision needs to be made regarding a post or a thread. The moderators are not required to debate it ad nauseum. I will also add, directed at no one in particular, that they are not required to sit through cheap shots and abuse when discussing something that has been moderated.

Your post was simply edited, there were no other reprecussions for the post, there was no need to argue it as it was political and should not have been there.

Sometimes the moderators say "take it to PM", this is most times meant for the debating parties to take it to PM amongst themselves.

I'm taking LW's advice.