? and suggestion regarding various threads

[Dakota]

First off, I am not stiring the pot and if any mods feel like locking this, that is fine.
I feel various thread the Turtle thread recently are just ludacris<sp>
This site offers a few thing that are important. First and foremost it offers people who want to get into expediting and people who already are in expediting a place to get questions answered. This site does a mighty fine job.
Second, it is a place for us to get together and network.
Third, it is a place to pass the time and entertain ourselves.

This question is for Lawrence and Moderators.
The meat of this site, question and answers is valuable and need to be archived, but there are section of this site that should be removed or at least have an expiration date. Do we really need 5 years worth of Soapbox? Also if a thread is locked for diffferent reasons, one member attacking another. Why not delete it in full. It would clear up space and declutter the boards.
I am sure there are some who will bring up freedom of speech and censorship issues. This site is a private business and not under the same rules the we as Americans follow.
I am looking at this more as a business move. Some of the threads are very unprofessional and I wonder what an outsider would think when they read some of them. I also know I am not innocent as I have contributed to some of this unprofessionalism.
Thank you for your time, Rant over!!!

 

[fastman_1]

Yea what he said!

 

[Dakota]

Another thought, yeah I know I'm thinking way to much
Do we really need the location threads archived? After the month is over it's just wasted space. I don't know much about websites and all that, but do all these threads take up space in the servers memory and does it cost more to archive all these useless threads forever?

 

[greg334]

All they have to do is setup the system to lock all threads over 30 or 60 or 90 days or what ever number they want. It is simple, quick and easy. Some individual threads can be unlocked as needed and actually if there is a list of threads that need to remain open, they can make a list of those and close the others.

 

[cheri1122]

Dakota: the problem with deleting threads was pointed out by Turtle [I think], is that it makes it easier for those who like to change their 'version' of things later, as others have no way to prove the lie. [Unless they've kept independent records, which most of us don't]
As you mentioned entertainment as a function of EO, the Soapbox serves that purpose for those who enjoy it. That it can descend into acrimony is lamentable, but not unexpected, given that those who participate do so precisely because they care deeply about the issues under discussion - or maybe just like the challenge of debate. But I'm firmly convinced that the 'yawn factor' will kill a good site a whole lot faster and surer than controversy will, ok?
The problem, IMO, is that the large and able crew of moderators who should be moderating are apparently mostly absent, and the few who are present either participate, or just lock the threads - not much help there.
EO needs mods who can be firm, fair, and as objective as humanly possible, and who do the job they signed on to do.
Just sayin....
PS As to what an outsider might think, I'd hope they'd think we are a group of folks who are both knowledgeable and passionate about expediting, and a few other things as well. Because we are. [Even tho it gives Dale Excedrin headaches at times, for which I'm really sorry.]

 

[Dakota]

One of these expo's Dale is going to come in completely gray from all the stress we cause him

 

[greg334]

Dakota,
I can explain how this forum works if you want but don't worry, things are not kept in memory but in a database which actually doesn't take up a lot of space.

Cheri,
You are right, but I'm afraid I'm also right about it all getting out of hand, it has for the most part. As Leo pointed out in another thread, maybe we need to shut up, maybe we need to take his threats seriously.

I contend that there is a serious issues with some here, personalities clash, people get ****ed off but while others may not see some of the cause or real underlying issue, they continue on focusing on the wrong things as mods and not take any corrective action.

 

[RLENT]

That it can descend into acrimony is lamentable, but not unexpected, given that those who participate do so precisely because they care deeply about the issues under discussion - or maybe just like the challenge of debate.

Or possibly both ......

But I'm firmly convinced that the 'yawn factor' will kill a good site a whole lot faster and surer than controversy will, ok?

Faster than just a little controversy, yes, surely ......

Faster than total anarchy ..... and outright, unrestricted, complete nuclear war .... mebbe not .....

Under such conditions, a world (or a community) which is composed only of combatants, engaged in such a war, eventually fails to have any population left ....

The problem, IMO, is that the large and able crew of moderators who should be moderating are apparently mostly absent, and the few who are present either participate, or just lock the threads - not much help there. EO needs mods who can be firm, fair, and as objective as humanly possible, and who do the job they signed on to do. Just sayin

I think a legitimate question to ask is: What training, methods, procedures, or guidelines moderators have been given to do their job ?

Not being an EO moderator, I have no idea of what may exist or have been done, beyond the Code of Conduct.

The above question is not posed to denigrate any moderator in any way - all of them are decent people of goodwill at heart (I think ) - but simply to point out that any job is difficult to do, if one lacks the training, or has no definite parameters or guidelines on which to operate ..... no standard techniques or procedures to apply to situations.

In fact, such a situation (no training/guidelines/methods) might make one reluctant to do their job .... due to uncertainty.

Yesterday, in another thread, I pointed out one method - suggesting or requiring the parties involved in a conflict to take the matter private - which can be used, if not to defuse a situation, to at least prevent others taking sides and being drawn into it, and having the matter escalate beyond the specific individuals originally involved, potentially avoiding any pot-stirring, intentionally designed to keep the matter going for nefarious purposes. I am surprised it is not used more.

Since it is a near-absolute certainty that conflicts between particular individuals will never resolve without further communication, a focus, as far as moderation is concerned (beyond just maintaining good order and civility within the community as a whole), should be to allow and/or ensure that such communication can take place.

The outright stopping, inhibition, or suppression of communication only, as "moderation" is rarely, if ever, a completely workable solution.

Of course, the above assumes several things: 1. the parties in question are men (or women) of good will, 2. they are at least adult enough to be willing to try and resolve any conflict through honest communication - even if it is with someone who they consider an avowed enemy and the lowest of low - and even if that communication has to be done privately, and even if it means foregoing what may be a public (and perhaps Pyrrhic) victory.

Of course, it is unfortunately sad, but true, that there are people who will forever hold a grudge and maintain ill-will towards someone, who was, at one time, an opponent in a battle of ideas, fought with words. Such folks deserve only pity, for they live in a hell of their own making.

PS As to what an outsider might think, I'd hope they'd think we are a group of folks who are both knowledgeable and passionate about expediting, and a few other things as well. Because we are.

Well, one could hope that all one wants .... in some cases it would be true .... but honestly, sometime we (certainly with myself included) don't represent ourselves (and by extension, our community) all that well.

Who in their right mind would want to knowingly step into the middle of an all-out war ?

[Even tho it gives Dale Excedrin headaches at times ....]

Probably far more than any of us will ever know .....

 

[RLENT]

You are right, but I'm afraid I'm also right about it all getting out of hand, it has for the most part.

You are correct (IMO)

As Leo pointed out in another thread, maybe we need to shut up, maybe we need to take his threats seriously.

In the particular instance to which you are referring, Leo's admonishment was, in my opinion, timely and entirely appropriate - if only for that particular, specific situation.

And it might well have been appropriate at an earlier point (with somewhat less force behind it) as well.

I contend that there is a serious issues with some here, personalities clash, people get ****ed off

No doubt - as we all suffer from the human condition - how could it possibly be otherwise ?

but while others may not see some of the cause or real underlying issue, they continue on focusing on the wrong things as mods and not take any corrective action.

Bingo.

 

[greg334]

In the particular instance to which you are referring, Leo's admonishment was, in my opinion, timely and entirely appropriate - if only for that particular, specific situation.

Timely?

Not really it was out of control long before that.

Maybe post number 11 someone should have said enough?

Appropriate?

Not nearly. I think it would have been better to say this "OK done - locked" instead of his little rant about people shutting up which does not help matters and sometimes fuels things.

 

[RLENT]

Greg,

I respect your opinion on this matter, but I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree, at least somewhat. But your points are well taken.

Timely? Not really it was out of control long before that.

No argument there ..... I suppose I meant timely as opposed to letting it continue any further.

But you are correct - it was out of control long before that.

Maybe post number 11 someone should have said enough?

Maybe ..... although I actually think that what transpired in post number 7 should have been enough to get a moderator/administrator to step in and act .....

At the point where people start playing around, doing "cute" stuff trying to "game" the system with multiple screen names, it ought to be game over - at least as far as that particular identity is concerned.

I do not know the actual identity of the screen name DieselDogg, or really even have any good data with to make an educated guess about who it actually is - but I think it is a multiple ..... and the purpose (however sly and covert it may be) is very obviously something other than participating in the same appropriate manner that most on here are seeking to do.

Appropriate? Not nearly. I think it would have been better to say this "OK done - locked" instead of his little rant about people shutting up which does not help matters and sometimes fuels things.

Generally, I would agree with you - that it is not the best way to handle things. In 99.9% of the cases it isn't needed or called for - provided that one acts quickly enough before things get too far out of hand.

However, there are instances where things have been allowed to progress to a point where a higher level of force is required to get folks to knock off and stop what they are doing .....

I believe at the point where LDB inserted himself for the final time was such a time.

 

[cheri1122]

I don't know who the member calling themselves Diesel Dogg really is, but the first post was a huge red flag, IMO. Under the circumstances, [possibly unknown to those who avoid the Soapbox, but not the mods, one hopes], it was another cheap shot at Turtle, and consequently, unacceptable. If you have to hide your identity [even the known username], then you are almost certainly in the wrong.
I trust that the mods will now act responsibly, banishing the guilty party/parties.

 

[RLENT]

One other thing that I forgot to mention, concerning the timeliness of moderation ..... EO is a big place with a limited number of moderators ..... who have other things to do besides just sit around observing what goes on here .....

As a practical matter, it's probably unrealistic to expect that there will even be someone available at times to observe what is going on - to say nothing of enormity of monitoring all post traffic in anything approaching near real-time - particularly when it's busy.

However, having said that, there is no legitimate excuse for failure to act where a moderator is participating (but not moderating) in a thread, that should be moderated.

 

[RLENT]

I trust that the mods will now act responsibly, banishing the guilty party/parties.

One can only hope ...... the use of multiple screen names - like deliberately posting something which one knows to be false - is something that has the potential to create all kinds of mayhem.

It is not being done for any legitimate, good reason - and it does not further the interests of the community as a whole.

 

[DieselDogg]

http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/4/45/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

 

[letzrockexpress]

I can't believe I have to be the one to state the obvious but if you want to put an end to the subject of this thread and ones like it,( I think this about the 4th generation post on the same subject) QUIT POSTING REFERENCES TO IT!!! I like a good train wreck as well as anyone but I also know when it's time to put the car in gear again and get on down the road...besides, why anyone really cares who said what, under whatever identity is hardly important. When we have moderators or administrators who play favorites and either ignore what certain individuals post or attack and ban others for various and sundried offenses, ridiculous acronyms, or whatever, It's hard to respect any kind of rules set forth, agreed to when joining or not..That kind of respect goes both ways. When we don't receive it, why should we give it? Just about every last poster here uses some sort of moniker other than their real name. Unless everyone were to resort to posting using their true identity, under their real name, every time, what the heck is the difference? In the grand scheme of things however many ID's someone has is totally irrelevent. If you are capable of seeing the big picture you know what I mean...

 

[Dakota]

I didn't mean for this thread to become another ****ing match, it was a serious question and suggestion to Lawrence and the Moderaters. At this point it is ready to be locked.
Maybe that is another suggestion, the original poster should have the power to lock their post!!!

 

[Doggie Daddy]

Maybe that is another suggestion, the original poster should have the power to lock their post!!!

I really don't see that as a very good option,as the OP could set the topic,stir things up real good get the last word in and then lock the thread. (I think I just inadvertently described some of the EO mods.)

 

[Dakota]

I really don't see that as a very good option,as the OP could set the topic,stir things up real good get the last word in and then lock the thread/QUOTE]

Good point, I didn't think of it in that way.

 

[Dreamer]

Dakota,

Thanks for the question, and sorry for the late reply. Been tied up with some family issues this weekend.

I do try to give the Moderators guidelines, but as RLENT pointed out, some are hesitant to jump in, trying to give folks the leeway to be semi-adult, and work it out.

Others do jump in quick, and then get accused of censorship.

I used to remove controversial threads entirely.. but then, people demanded to know why they were removed, and why I was picking on (Insert random member name here) LOL.

Honestly, it's a toss-up. You'd think after having this job for 5 years I'd have it all figured out... but nope. LOL. Unfortunately... I do have to take credit for creating the Soapbox, which is where most of the hate and discontent come from. MANY people have suggested in be removed, including current and former moderators.

As a former Moderator, Cheri indeed knows the headaches I go thru trying to walk that middle line. That line is the reason I don't often join in certain conversations. I do indeed have STRONG opinions on subjects, but if I enforce the rules from those standpoints.. certain folks (such as Turtle LOL) would never get to speak! It's hard to separate my personal feelings from my responsibilities here.

I do TRY to enforce the rules without bias. I'm not perfect, neither are any of our mods... well, maybe one or two are .

All I have asked for the Soapbox is that people TRY to debate the issues, not the person.. however, that is again, a fine line. Myself, when religious issues are debated, it's hard for me to separate when people insult beliefs that I hold dear, even tho they're not directly insulting ME. Some would be surprised to find out how conservative my beliefs are after meeting me LOL.

Anyway, I'm rambling...

Point is.... we TRY to be fair, and allow discussion... especially in the Soapbox. We give more leeway THERE ONLY.. because it was created for such a purpose. I leave some threads, so people can see WHY they were locked. But.. then certain people can't drop it... and the hammer drops.

Sheesssshhhhh..... didn't start out to write a book.. but hopefully.. things will calm down a bit!

Thanks for your patience folks. PLEASE.... can we try to back it down a notch or two... I'm running low on Advil.


Dale