Closing threads

[Drybones]

I understand that these forums must be managed to keep some of us, especially ones like me, from going off on political, religious, or other topics that just dont fit the intent of the forum, but when someone makes a post about something relative to hiking that could potentially be a safety concern for other hikers, I believe it should be allowed to continue if at all possible...IMO.

[Dogwood]

Safety concerns, as in knocking over hoo doos that might fall on innocent children? :)

[Seatbelt]

I understand that these forums must be managed to keep some of us, especially ones like me, from going off on political, religious, or other topics that just dont fit the intent of the forum, but when someone makes a post about something relative to hiking that could potentially be a safety concern for other hikers, I believe it should be allowed to continue if at all possible...IMO.

If you are referring to the recently closed hostel thread, I agree. I guess I didn't see the harm in this thread. Past threads describing conditions in certain locations can become irrelevant in later times.

[Drybones]

Safety concerns, as in knocking over hoo doos that might fall on innocent children? :)

I've seen first hand what a person hooked on drugs will do to support a habit, just about anything, and how they may act if they dont have drugs, do just about anything...like being bi-polar, they can be great one day and totally different the next.

[Coffee]

I find first hand reviews to be very informative. I'm not sure how it is any different from Yelp or TripAdvisor where many opinions are voiced and then you make a decision. On the recent thread, the positive reviews seemed to far outweighed the negatives. It wasn't even close.

[snifur]

This thread is likely to get shutdown for being argumentative. Drybones, it is hit or miss what topics are acceptable from day to day. I agree with you completely regarding this subject and the thread in question, however it is not you or I who deems a thread acceptable. The mods have a responsibility to express their subjectivity on such topics and close threads that may instigate quarrels, appear damaging to a business, or are contrary to the TOS. This is not a place to express democratic ideology openly. Tread carefully...

[Sailing_Faith]

It is generally poor form to criticize moderation efforts (I have served as mod and admin for many forums over many years going back to dial in BBs)....

10 mods can look at a thread 10 ways. Ideally there is a discussion in the mod forum about these actions, but not always. Forums are run by people, and people are flawed.... This place is pretty darn well run. We are a difficult population, with a variety of weird ideas and most of us are (slightly more then a little bit) outside the mainstream. ;)

Might I suggest that when one has an issue with a specific action they either use the "reported post" icon on the thread, or the PM system to speak with the person directly? My experience is that people react well to constructive discussion... And better then well when that discussion takes place somewhere other then the stage of a thread like this one.



Peace,

[Rasty]

It is generally poor form to criticize moderation efforts (I have served as mod and admin for many forums over many years going back to dial in BBs)....

10 mods can look at a thread 10 ways. Ideally there is a discussion in the mod forum about these actions, but not always. Forums are run by people, and people are flawed.... This place is pretty darn well run. We are a difficult population, with a variety of weird ideas and most of us are (slightly more then a little bit) outside the mainstream. ;)

Might I suggest that when one has an issue with a specific action they either use the "reported post" icon on the thread, or the PM system to speak with the person directly? My experience is that people react well to constructive discussion... And better then well when that discussion takes place somewhere other then the stage of a thread like this one.



Peace,

Vote with dollars instead.

[Sailing_Faith]

Vote with dollars instead.

Absolutely,

(as one donating member to another I guess we already have). :)

[coach lou]

Absolutely,

(as one donating member to another I guess we already have). :)

Yes, indeed. We have, in the past.

[Studlintsean]

I've seen first hand what a person hooked on drugs will do to support a habit, just about anything, and how they may act if they dont have drugs, do just about anything...like being bi-polar, they can be great one day and totally different the next.

Or even worse someone who has kicked a drug habit unknowingly putting themseleves in a poor situation.

[Feral Bill]

Unmodereted forums quickly become wastelands of hateful and irrelevent rants. In general I think the mods here are very restrained about closing threads, even if I sometimes disagree with their decisions.

[atmilkman]

I've seen first hand what a person hooked on drugs will do to support a habit, just about anything, and how they may act if they dont have drugs, do just about anything...like being bi-polar, they can be great one day and totally different the next.

Or even worse someone who has kicked a drug habit unknowingly putting themseleves in a poor situation.

This is when you may have to white knuckle it if you can't call your sponsor and get out of there.

[CarlZ993]

Whiteblaze was quite instrumental in the planning my 2013 thru-hike (along w/ AWOL's Guide). I stayed at numerous hostels based on some of the posts here. I don't recall any negative posts on the 'Unnamed Hostel in Question' other than it wasn't a good place to resupply (limited food to purchase; but, I found it to be better than I expected).

I stayed at the 'Unnamed Hostel in Question' on my thru. It was at the end of a long day for me (longest mileage day on the AT up to that point). If I knew then what I know now, I would have avoided it and planned my itinerary accordingly. I would have appreciated reading in advance of some of the downsides of the hostel. Negative reviews may harm this hostel (people like me who wish to avoid that kind of stuff) or help it (people who gravitate to that kind of stuff). So be it. I like being an informed consumer.

[Cro-Mag]

I find it interesting that the thread in discussion was closed but the thread about asking for donations to support a triple crown attempt has been left open, even though there has been little to no positive posts in the donation thread.

[Just Bill]

My opinion only- It seems that closed threads seldom have to do with the topic- but the behavior of those discussing the topic. There are a few cut and dry TOS violating topics- but the reactions, comments, personal fights, etc. seem to be the main issue. Be polite, don't speak directly about people or business doing illegal things, don't make it personal, use some common sense- less threads will get closed.

The place in question is a questionable place if you want to be honest. (Overzealous defense is an issue too.) That is pretty common knowledge among the regulars- but not for new folks- and that's how they learn- by posting and sharing.

Because I knew what the place was about, I was able to enjoy my stop. If I had just wandered in- I may have had more issues. Because I was forewarned- I took the place for what it was, enjoyed the characters that work and play there. Ate a microwaved breakfast sandwich and cold pop and left at 8pm in a pouring rain. The main reason- When I asked if they had any beer I was told, "We're out till Wednesday" as he took a pull from his Bud.

Not every thing on the trail is for everyone- but there is something for everyone on the trail.

[imscotty]

The question seems to be should the moderators allow first hand accounts identifying establishments along the trail where drug use or alcohol abuse is prevalent?

On one hand some hikers, especially those with children or recovered abusers, would find this information of great value so that they may avoid establishments with this reputation. This is a valid safety concern. On the other hand many hikers would hate to see the owners of these establishments harmed by public postings of this information that might bring unwanted attention by law enforcement. Some of these owners are good people who have contributed much to the AT experience. This concern is also very real and valid. I imagine there are also some who wish to partake themselves in the activities such establishments may offer and do not want the good times to come to an end.

The Moderators face the difficult quandary on how to best serve the valid and sometimes conflicting interests of our diverse Whiteblaze community. Perhaps topics such as these are better left to 'word of mouth' or the 'AT grapevine'. I think we need to recognize the difficult choices the moderators face and respect their decision. Polite disagreement with these choices (such as that voiced by the OP) is understandable and should be expressed, but in the end it is the Moderators call to make.

[HikerMom58]

Unmodereted forums quickly become wastelands of hateful and irrelevent rants. In general I think the mods here are very restrained about closing threads, even if I sometimes disagree with their decisions.

I really agree with this & like this comment. I will add this... I do feel "stifled" sometimes.

And this.... Smear campaigns should not be tolerated. I believe it is prudent to distinguish between what is and isn't. Here are some of my favorite quotes.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

“Tell the truth, or someone will tell it for you."

"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”

[Hill Ape]

this is not a democracy, it is the gator nation. he does a fine job, i won't second guess him even it is me he sometimes takes action against. but vague accusations of narcotic manufacturer does more than just border on defamation. there may be a couple lawyers in here, i don't know, but it seems to me that sort of thing would expose whiteblaze to civil litigation. the original, original, thread was closed and deleted. resurrected all that time later for what reason exactly? what purpose did it serve? and now here we are, in yet another thread thread, violating TOS by talking about two previously closed threads. moderations decisions are final, there is no appeals process. this issue has been settled. let it go.

[ChinMusic]

1. Legitimate OP
2. Some posters take issue, post crap
3. Whole thread killed due to #2, not #1

It's a common pattern

[QHShowoman]

the original, original, thread was closed and deleted. resurrected all that time later for what reason exactly?

I don't know the history of the thread in question, but in general, if a thread has been deleted, there's really no way users would know not to create a redundant thread.
And if the TOS were strictly and universally enforced, the post count would be severely depleted just on the "no hijacking" or "no off-topic posts" rules alone.

Having been around the world of BBSes since the days of Telnet and having moderated a few of my own, I will say that this is one of the more subjectively moderated forums I've participated in. And I will add that the "subjective" part probably has a lot to do with the role that users play in reporting or calling out threads. But if the moderator chooses to close or delete a thread brought to his/her attention, s/he really needs to make sure that the same actions are taken on threads with similar violations.

For example, a recent thread advertising an AT related film because admission was charged was called out as a violation of the "no commercial post" rule in the TOS by a user (I don't know if he went as far to report it), but everyone is seemingly excited and happy about the thread advertising the new AT Passport you can purchase. If people like you or your ideas, users are likely to ignore any violation of the TOS you committed ... if not, you're basically ranted at until you or your post goes away.

I am not advocating an unmoderated forum, because they don't work. But I do think it's probably time for the admins to review the TOS and clarify some of the rules further so there's less of a gray area surrounding some of them.

[HikerMom58]

I don't know the history of the thread in question, but in general, if a thread has been deleted, there's really no way users would know not to create a redundant thread.
And if the TOS were strictly and universally enforced, the post count would be severely depleted just on the "no hijacking" or "no off-topic posts" rules alone.

Having been around the world of BBSes since the days of Telnet and having moderated a few of my own, I will say that this is one of the more subjectively moderated forums I've participated in. And I will add that the "subjective" part probably has a lot to do with the role that users play in reporting or calling out threads. But if the moderator chooses to close or delete a thread brought to his/her attention, s/he really needs to make sure that the same actions are taken on threads with similar violations.

For example, a recent thread advertising an AT related film because admission was charged was called out as a violation of the "no commercial post" rule in the TOS by a user (I don't know if he went as far to report it), but everyone is seemingly excited and happy about the thread advertising the new AT Passport you can purchase. If people like you or your ideas, users are likely to ignore any violation of the TOS you committed ... if not, you're basically ranted at until you or your post goes away.

I am not advocating an unmoderated forum, because they don't work. But I do think it's probably time for the admins to review the TOS and clarify some of the rules further so there's less of a gray area surrounding some of them.

BOOM... you said a mouthful right there. That is true.

I think that the less gray areas the more successful a forum like this would be....

I hold this thought, right now. I "got the memo" that the admins and a lot of the "vocal membership", on this site, do not want to know/hear about anything negative pertaining to service providers along the trail.

If this is true, I believe that everyone should get that memo so as not to rain down condemnation on themselves.. it's the only fair thing to do for everyone concerned.
Personally, I would like to be informed but if things don't change I don't think that knowledge is worth it at all.

I would like to see that posted in the rules.

New rule: No negative stories (first hand or otherwise) or comments will be allowed about any service providers along the trail.

[Bronk]

New rule: No negative stories (first hand or otherwise) or comments will be allowed about any service providers along the trail.That was wingfoot's rule on his forum...hmm...

[hikerboy57]

these are the types of posts that get a thread like that shut down


I've seen first hand what a person hooked on drugs will do to support a habit, just about anything, and how they may act if they dont have drugs, do just about anything...like being bi-polar, they can be great one day and totally different the next.


[QUOTE=Drybones;1814628]I've seen first hand what a person hooked on drugs will do to support a habit, just about anything, and how they may act if they dont have drugs, do just about anything...like being bi-polar, they can be great one day and totally different the next.[/QUOT

Or even worse someone who has kicked a drug habit unknowingly putting themseleves in a poor situation.

there was never any mention of hard drugs in the op's post.as far as people quitting drug habits, alcoholics have a far worse time avoiding alcohol, which is much much worse along the trail than any other drugs.
the point is that these reactionary posts paint a picture far worse than it is.
perhaps the moderators would allow a "group",subject to the same rules as the forum, but where service providers could be invited into the discussion, so that, like fox news, the reports are fair and balanced.

[Hill Ape]

i am a tattooed former heroin user. judge me all you need to make yourself feel superior. until you know, you really don't know anything

[Cro-Mag]

:confused:

Maybe I'll just stick to hiking haha

[QHShowoman]

these are the types of posts that get a thread like that shut down
perhaps the moderators would allow a "group",subject to the same rules as the forum, but where service providers could be invited into the discussion, so that, like fox news, the reports are fair and balanced.

This part is a joke, right? It's hard to tell on here, sometimes.

Maybe WB should only allow "news" about service providers to be posted. No reviews -- positive or negative -- will be permitted.

For example, users can post updates such as "The grocery store outside of Caledonia SP closed this summer. Next closest resupply is the Sheetz gas station down the road." Or "Kent Laundry is no longer allowing hikers to use their facility," but posts commenting on how the owner hates hikers, how hikers brought this upon themselves, yadda yadda yadda are prohibited.

[Seatbelt]

I haven't seen any reviews or discussions or quarrels - or whatever you want to call them, for a very long time, that even come close to some of the old threads on here where it was quite dicey to say the least, not to mention entertaining!! :)

[Rolls Kanardly]

1. Legitimate OP
2. Some posters take issue, post crap
3. Whole thread killed due to #2, not #1

It's a common pattern
Would a Mod ever delete offending post(s) rather than a whole thread or would that be more trouble than it is worth. I could see where one post might be the start of something going awry but the post itself is ok or at least borderline. Mods do have a tough job. I applaud them. Rolls

[Wise Old Owl]

Mods have at times have a love hate relationship - yes a lot of soft deletes happen as well as removing an occasional sentence. So when a soft delete happens the mod checks for quotes and other take offs from that post. Hope that helps Rolls.

[Malto]

My two cents..... The moderators are just about right. They are taking flack from both sides which means they are probably right about on target.

[HikerMom58]

My two cents..... The moderators are just about right. They are taking flack from both sides which means they are probably right about on target.

Well, I'm impressed that we've been able to share our thoughts & feelings. I've enjoyed reading everyone's comment. Would I like a moderators job?? NO WAY!! :eek:

[MuddyWaters]

The issue at stake is that if the site encourages, or possibly if even allows, public statements that could be damaging to a business or person, it can be sued. How does it make sure in every case that what is being said is actually true? Or even how can it?

It cannot. So it could risk having to pay for legal defense fees, because it allowed a forum user to say something, whether true, or not. Possibly damages even if it couldnt prove what was thrown around was true.

Its a no brainer, you simply dont allow it and you avoid the potential problems. Imagine if it were YOUR site and YOU were responsible. What would YOU allow?

[QHShowoman]

The issue at stake is that if the site encourages, or possibly if even allows, public statements that could be damaging to a business or person, it can be sued. How does it make sure in every case that what is being said is actually true? Or even how can it?

It cannot. So it could risk having to pay for legal defense fees, because it allowed a forum user to say something, whether true, or not. Possibly damages even if it couldnt prove what was thrown around was true.

Its a no brainer, you simply dont allow it and you avoid the potential problems. Imagine if it were YOUR site and YOU were responsible. What would YOU allow?


That's not really accurate.

Freedom of speech is a well-protected right, whether that speech is online or in any other form. As a result, users are well within their rights to express their opinions and relate their true experiences. The handful of businesses who have pursued the "nuclear option" of suing someone over a negative online review have met with little success, high legal bills, and a lot more attention focused on the negative review than they originally bargained for. So most opt not to pursue it.

This is why "review" sites such as Yelp are successful. In fact, Yelp has had far more success suing business owners over posting their own fake reviews to boost their reputation than business owners have had in suing Yelp or its users over negative reviews.

[MuddyWaters]

Freedom of speech is not that simple. You cannot just say or print anything you want.

What you say has to be true, or you can be guilty of libel and damages.

If sued, you may have to PROVE what you said publicly was true.

When YOU make a public statement YOU assume the responsibility that it is true.

When the site ALLOWS you to make that statement here, it bears some of the responsibility as well.

How much risk should it assume for things it doesnt know for sure, or cant verify? If allegations are serious enough to damage a person or businesses reputation, its foolish to assume that risk.

The truth is, your freedom of speech about some things, can be only as good as your pockets are deep.

The problem is, the site doesnt have a dog in the fight , but they could suffer repercussions.


I like to point out the historical example of MuscleMedia 2000. Bill Phillips (known for Body for Life primarily today) was a steroid guru for bodybuilders and weightlifters 25-30 yrs ago, he published the Anabolic Reference Guide, detailing how to spot fakes, what was real, what wasnt, along with detailed drug information and suggested cycles, etc. He also published a pamphlet de-bunking the entire supplement industry (ALL of it is a scam).

Well, after the feds made steroids a schedule III offense (like cocaine and narcotics), and shut down the illicit supply of "good" fakes from Tijuana Labs in Mexico, the US steroid black market shrank by about 90%.

Bill started a GREAT muscle magazine called Muscle Media 2000. It was about ...steroids, and supplements, and TRUTH. It didnt use steroid physiques to sell the mag, and then pretend they were natural like every other magazine out there. It only used certified steroid free models.

Well, one of the highlights of Muscle Media was that they lab tested all supplements that wanted to advertise in it. Remembering that most of the supplement industry is a scam, a supplement had to contain 90% of what it claimed to be accepted for advertising, and recieve the magazines "seal of approval". There were some that did. There were some that didnt.

A few that were LAB TESTED to not contain what they claimed, were refused advertising. These companies sued Bill and Muscle Media. HE LOST. In the end, he HAD to accept advertising from them, even though they were fraudulent products. In some cases the compounder was actually screwing the parent company by intentionally leaving out ingredients that were claimed, and they had no idea.

So what happened,? Muscle Media 2000 died out. The basis of his magazine was a source of information you could trust, and the courts decided that was not fair to unscrupulous companies. Even with several random samples of store stock that were LAB tested, he could not voice publicly that these products did not claim what their labels said.

So Bill abandoned the steroid/supplement truth angle, and started the Body for Life, to convince people to eat and diet correctly, the way bodybuilders do, and achieve results they never thought were possible, and became enormously succesful with that . He also had EAS supplements, which was started as the ONE brand you could trust to contain what it was supposed to.

[QHShowoman]

Freedom of speech is not that simple. You cannot just say anything you want.

What you say has to be true, or you can be guilty of libel and damages.

When YOU make a public statement YOU assume the responsibility that it is true.

When the site ALLOWS you to make that statement here, it bears some of the responsibility as well.

How much risk should it assume for things it doesnt know for sure, or cant verify? If allegations are serious enough to damage a person or businesses reputation, its foolish to assume that risk.



I work with the ACLU. This is entertaining.

[HikerMom58]

Okay so now this is ridiculous! Alligator- will you please set everyone straight on what the real deal is here???

[MDSection12]

I find it odd that the rules are so difficult to find on this site... I've been looking... Still haven't found them.

[Tuckahoe]

http://journalism.about.com/od/ethicsprofessionalism/a/libel.htm

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=27

[aficion]

I work with the ACLU. This is entertaining.

Fatuous and unentertaining.

[Train Wreck]

I find it odd that the rules are so difficult to find on this site... I've been looking... Still haven't found them.

They're filed on the home page under "Odds and Ends"
:confused:

[Alligator]

The poster is responsible in most cases for the content of their post, not the website. See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

WB has to balance the information needs of our users against the economic livelihood of the service providers reviewed. We don't always know what is true and what is not, who has a grudge, who had a truly bad experience, etc. I know another hostel owner who used to get beaten on pretty badly who had a user come on and say they were ripped off by the hostel owner. It turned out to be admitted fabrication. Also, we have a user agreement that has been put in place to keep the place running smoothly and civilly. We do expect a reasonable level of compliance with it. As other posters mentioned, how the thread is presented and responded to is important to keeping the thread open.

[Just Bill]

You don't like it- leave.
You like it- stay.
You think you can do better- start your own.

There are some problems here- not a single one of them has to do with the Mods.
:clap :clap :clap MODS :clap :clap :clap

[mfleming]

The question seems to be should the moderators allow first hand accounts identifying establishments along the trail where drug use or alcohol abuse is prevalent?


The Gator did list which violation of the TOS got that thread closed by number.

[Tuckahoe]

They're filed on the home page under "Odds and Ends"
:confused:


The Gator did list which violation of the TOS got that thread closed by number.

The only issue I really have is that our user agreement are not prominently listed on the site. A forum member really has to hunt for them and where the only link for the agreement resides is under "Odds and Ends." The user agreement is not even linked in the registration process for new members, when they are suppose to confirm they have read the rules.

The user agreement should be just as obvious as the link to donations.

[HikerMom58]

The poster is responsible in most cases for the content of their post, not the website. See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

WB has to balance the information needs of our users against the economic livelihood of the service providers reviewed. We don't always know what is true and what is not, who has a grudge, who had a truly bad experience, etc. I know another hostel owner who used to get beaten on pretty badly who had a user come on and say they were ripped off by the hostel owner. It turned out to be admitted fabrication. Also, we have a user agreement that has been put in place to keep the place running smoothly and civilly. We do expect a reasonable level of compliance with it. As other posters mentioned, how the thread is presented and responded to is important to keeping the thread open.

Okay... thank you very much! So post #33 and #35 is not accurate. Good to know.

Your comment has cleared up a lot of things for me.

I have one more comment. I mentioned this to you in a PM one time. Soo...I noticed that someone started a thread on Wildlife. It was a good thread. Someone went on the thread and "crapped all over it", meaning they started posting comments that was clearly in violation of the rules. (political stuff) The thread was closed because of the irresponsible poster. So if someone gets their kicks out of doing that, they win. The OP has to take the hit as well. That doesn't seem fair.

I would think that the irresponsible poster's comments would get deleted so there would be no reward. Also, a forced thread ban would be an option as well. It seems like you have a lot of "tools" but you may not have the time.

Thanks for allowing us to talk & gain understanding. It has been helpful.

[googlywoogly]

"freedom of speech" doesn't even come into play in this scenario. This is a privately owned site and the owners can restrict any speech that pleases them. The 1st amendment protects us from the Govt, not the owners of White Blaze. If the feds where mandating a post be deleted (an absurd premise in my opinion) then we would have a "freedom of speech" issue.

[Marta]

Okay... thank you very much! So post #33 and #35 is not accurate. Good to know.

Your comment has cleared up a lot of things for me.

I have one more comment. I mentioned this to you in a PM one time. Soo...I noticed that someone started a thread on Wildlife. It was a good thread. Someone went on the thread and "crapped all over it", meaning they started posting comments that was clearly in violation of the rules. (political stuff) The thread was closed because of the irresponsible poster. So if someone gets their kicks out of doing that, they win. The OP has to take the hit as well. That doesn't seem fair.

I would think that the irresponsible poster's comments would get deleted so there would be no reward. Also, a forced thread ban would be an option as well. It seems like you have a lot of "tools" but you may not have the time.

Thanks for allowing us to talk & gain understanding. It has been helpful.

If an irresponsible/ill-natured person (or bot) makes a single bad post, that post is deleted. That person can be given a time out (put on moderated status) for a length of time. If they make a habit of causing trouble, they can be banned from the site altogether.

However, if one bad post has led to another and another and another, it's best to just close down the whole thread. If it's an important topic, another thread can be started as Straight Forward, or some other way to keep the good parts and clamp down in the bad parts.

For example: a thread entitled "What is your favorite Bible/Gun/breed of dog for the Trail?" is just too labor-intensive to moderate unless it is in the Straight Forward forum...and maybe too much trouble even then.

[RCBear]

You don't like it- leave.
You like it- stay.
You think you can do better- start your own.

There are some problems here- not a single one of them has to do with the Mods.
:clap :clap :clap MODS :clap :clap :clap

5 pages on the subject when this will suffice just fine??

Its pretty much that simple folks.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

[rocketsocks]

lots a sniveling goin on24755

[Train Wreck]

Hi Rocketsocks

[rocketsocks]

Hi Train Wreck, been awhile.

[10-K]

Would a Mod ever delete offending post(s) rather than a whole thread or would that be more trouble than it is worth. I could see where one post might be the start of something going awry but the post itself is ok or at least borderline. Mods do have a tough job. I applaud them. Rolls

You're not *truly* a member of WB until you've had a post deleted. :)

[mfleming]

The only issue I really have is that our user agreement are not prominently listed on the site. A forum member really has to hunt for them and where the only link for the agreement resides is under "Odds and Ends." The user agreement is not even linked in the registration process for new members, when they are suppose to confirm they have read the rules.

The user agreement should be just as obvious as the link to donations.

I agree wholeheartedly. I was tempted to look up the TOS and see the description for the #'s Mr. Gator referred too.

[Rasty]

You're not *truly* a member of WB until you've had a post deleted. :)

Your only a junior member at that point. When you have threads deleted your a full fledged member. Not that I know anything about that. :rolleyes:

[FarmerChef]

However, if one bad post has led to another and another and another, it's best to just close down the whole thread. If it's an important topic, another thread can be started as Straight Forward, or some other way to keep the good parts and clamp down in the bad parts.

Thanks for this clarification, Marta. I agree. And before I state my question, I want to say that I fully support the Mods and what they have to do. I'm not at all trying in any way to be combative. Rather, I'm trying to avoid running afoul of the TOS in the future.

What I don't quite understand is how we do what you (Marta) mention (bolded) without running afoul of TOS #3: "Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status."

Perhaps I haven't seen enough closed threads to know if the Mod's put a closing post that tells why the thread is closed. How would we know when it's ok to try again or whether we should leave the sleeping dog lie. Any help or explanation would be appreciated. Again, I'm trying to avoid doing something wrong, NOT argue about whether it is or isn't. :)

[Sailing_Faith]

I find it odd that the rules are so difficult to find on this site... I've been looking... Still haven't found them.

Here is a link; WhiteBlaze User Rules/Agreement (http://whiteblaze.net/cmps.php?page=agreement)


and here is a link to a discussion about their visibility on the forum (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?99543-The-User-Agreement).

[hikerboy57]

Thanks for this clarification, Marta. I agree. And before I state my question, I want to say that I fully support the Mods and what they have to do. I'm not at all trying in any way to be combative. Rather, I'm trying to avoid running afoul of the TOS in the future.

What I don't quite understand is how we do what you (Marta) mention (bolded) without running afoul of TOS #3: "Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status."

Perhaps I haven't seen enough closed threads to know if the Mod's put a closing post that tells why the thread is closed. How would we know when it's ok to try again or whether we should leave the sleeping dog lie. Any help or explanation would be appreciated. Again, I'm trying to avoid doing something wrong, NOT argue about whether it is or isn't. :)
this type of post would be hard to put into straight forward, as straight forward threads are by nature specific questions looking for a specific answer.the phrasing of the question, though, should be enough for a moderator to determine whether its valid or not.the other course would be as i mentioned before; to open a group and discussions within the group.these can be moderated by both the group leader and the moderators.

[Marta]

Thanks for this clarification, Marta. I agree. And before I state my question, I want to say that I fully support the Mods and what they have to do. I'm not at all trying in any way to be combative. Rather, I'm trying to avoid running afoul of the TOS in the future.

What I don't quite understand is how we do what you (Marta) mention (bolded) without running afoul of TOS #3: "Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status."

Perhaps I haven't seen enough closed threads to know if the Mod's put a closing post that tells why the thread is closed. How would we know when it's ok to try again or whether we should leave the sleeping dog lie. Any help or explanation would be appreciated. Again, I'm trying to avoid doing something wrong, NOT argue about whether it is or isn't. :)


For the most part, it's best NOT to try to reopen a closed topic. But if you feel there is still valuable discussion to be had, you could PM moderators and administrators about re opening a Straight Forward discussion. The reason that rule is in there is that there have been a number of incidents in the past where people who have had posts deleted spend a completely crazy amount of their time trying to get some sort of weird revenge by proliferating threads.

For example, if you are trying to decide whether to attend one of Warren Doyle's ATI sessions and innocently start a thread about the topic, which turns into a hate-fest and gets closed, you might ask to open a Straight Forward thread on the subject, to get feedback from people who have actually attended one.

[FarmerChef]

For the most part, it's best NOT to try to reopen a closed topic. But if you feel there is still valuable discussion to be had, you could PM moderators and administrators about re opening a Straight Forward discussion. The reason that rule is in there is that there have been a number of incidents in the past where people who have had posts deleted spend a completely crazy amount of their time trying to get some sort of weird revenge by proliferating threads.

For example, if you are trying to decide whether to attend one of Warren Doyle's ATI sessions and innocently start a thread about the topic, which turns into a hate-fest and gets closed, you might ask to open a Straight Forward thread on the subject, to get feedback from people who have actually attended one.

Perfect. That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks, Marta! :D

[Wise Old Owl]

Well Marta if you are still here -its time to put this to bed,,, all questions have been answered. Honest its always good to see your posts.

[hikerboy57]

Well Marta if you are still here -its time to put this to bed,,, all questions have been answered. Honest its always good to see your posts.
you're asking for a thread about closed threads ​to be closed?

[aficion]

you're asking for a thread about closed threads ​to be closed?

How could a human, or even a moderator, possibly resist the temptation?

[hikerboy57]

i think the mods have shown remarkable restraint in keeping this thread open.

[Rasty]

Well Marta if you are still here -its time to put this to bed,,, all questions have been answered. Honest its always good to see your posts.


you're asking for a thread about closed threads ​to be closed?


How could a human, or even a moderator, possibly resist the temptation?

the infinite thread theory states that if this thread is closed no one can close another thread because closing a thread would be referencing the closed closed thread thread. It's pure genius!

[hikerboy57]

very closed minded thinking

[aficion]

i think the mods have shown remarkable restraint in keeping this thread open.

The moderators are always remarkable.

[Kookork]

Can a closed thread be re opened upon request of certain numbers of WB members?

[atmilkman]

i think the mods have shown remarkable restraint in keeping this thread open.

I agree, and I agree with the others on here that they do a good job of moderating the entire site. (even gator but don't tell him I said that) I'll admit I was a little miffed when they closed the original café but then again they did go through great length to create the groups which takes some getting used to but does serve the purpose and that is appreciated. Thanks mods - you too gator.

[kayak karl]

Can a closed thread be re opened upon request of certain numbers of WB members? in the past, threads that were derailed, then closed have been reopened with instructions to be civil.

[kayak karl]

i don't think people are upset when a thread is closed because they feel they could of learned more from it , but because "I had so much more I wanted to say :("

[Don H]

However, if one bad post has led to another and another and another, it's best to just close down the whole thread. If it's an important topic, another thread can be started as Straight Forward, or some other way to keep the good parts and clamp down in the bad parts.

Is this not a violation of Rule #3?
3. "Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status.

[HikerMom58]

i think the mods have shown remarkable restraint in keeping this thread open.

I think the mods are awesome for letting us express how we feel, ask questions & trust us enough to know that no one will get too crazy. For the most part members have done well, IMHO. The real problem comes when members start wailing on each other. I will never understand that.....


Is this not a violation of Rule #3?
3. "Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status.

I can see both sides of this "once a thread is closed thread rule". If you don't have this rule in place then what's the point in closing a thread? On the other hand, it can cause feelings of not being heard, cared for, listened too or not wanting to know. I agree with Rasty... pure genius when you "work it".

[mfleming]

Is this not a violation of Rule #3?
3. "Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status.

I think I remember Mr. Gator saying something to the effect that while a new thread is very similar to a previously closed thread the new one is different enough to stand on its own merits. However, if the new one drifts into what got the old one closed.......

[Alligator]

Can a closed thread be re opened upon request of certain numbers of WB members?We are not looking to have a voting process on every closed thread. Most times it will be a reconsideration of the topic, not the thread. (see mfleming's post below)


in the past, threads that were derailed, then closed have been reopened with instructions to be civil.Yes, this happens and we may also add comments/instructions about what particular parts of the discussion to steer away from that were causing the incivility. It might have been a minor comment or a veering off the topic that kills the thread.


Is this not a violation of Rule #3?
3. "Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken. Failing to comply with this policy can result in being placed into moderated status.Sometimes the topic is phrased poorly and needs more stringent clarification in order to proceed. Sometimes a new person starts a thread not knowing about the closed thread so we may let it run and see if it proceeds more calmly. Sometimes we can give a topic a second chance if the OP is set up with the needed caveats, such as in Straight Forward.


I think I remember Mr. Gator saying something to the effect that while a new thread is very similar to a previously closed thread the new one is different enough to stand on its own merits. However, if the new one drifts into what got the old one closed.......This is why we can sometimes let the new thread run. It might have been a specific post or several that drifted the thread the wrong way. It could be a comment or statement made that while it did not break the user agreement, it was the critical turn for the worse.

Also, please note, we always consider first how we might keep the thread open. We issue clarifications, warnings, edit or remove a post, and we can remove a problem poster. Sometimes that is not enough. On the other hand, at times, it is often better to take the negative hit on the moderation team's part and nip a thread before every one gets too invested in it, if there is strong justification under the user agreement to do that.

We also do not read every post. There are times we are late getting to a hot thread so options can be limited by the thread progression. If you are assuming we have been reading all the way along and making real time decisions, that might not be the case. Flip side is, we may have more inside knowledge then the members are aware of. We might know of cross thread issues, pot stirrers and trollers, members acting negatively in concert, and past moderation of other threads and/or users.

[aficion]

As Queekstraw McGraw once said...."That's a lotta 'splainin' Baba Looey." Thanks Gator!

[FarmerChef]

As Queekstraw McGraw once said...."That's a lotta 'splainin' Baba Looey." Thanks Gator!

Indeed. Thanks, Gator!

I really appreciate the restraint mods have shown, not to mention going the extra mile to help us understand the rationale. I, for one, really appreciate it.

[Wise Old Owl]

you're asking for a thread about closed threads ​to be closed?


very closed minded thinking

When panning for gold once you exhaust the spot one needs to hike...

I really appreciate the restraint mods have shown, not to mention going the extra mile to help us understand the rationale. I, for one, really appreciate it.[/QUOTE]

[coach lou]

I for one, feel so much better now.

[atmilkman]

I for one, feel so much better now.:clap:bse Good for you.:)

[Wise Old Owl]

Its just 12 steps towards a life without cheesecake ..

How ya doing coach? stop in the groups area.

[Dakota Joe]

Just mention my name and they will close the thread!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[canoe]

hey Joe are you still on the trail?