(http://www.geocachingmaine.org/forum/showgroups.php)A Question for Rick……

And I ask this respectfully (its not intended to be confrontational)
Q: Why is it that the members do not also vote for the Moderator and the Administrators? The Panel
(http://www.geocachingmaine.org/forum/showgroups.php)

I know you own this Website, the Domaine and pay out of your own pocket the expenses that keep it running. Understandably you are probably very protective of this site and don’t want to give just anybody administrative privileges/access to the behind the scenes modules that none of us can see. But would it hurt to recycle this part of the “panel” once in a while too? When I refer to the “panel” I am referring to the Moderator/Administrators AND Board Members. It appears that their roles all overlap into eachothers assigned tasks. Are these the only people you really think can effectively moderate, block spammers and update front page content? Surely there are other trustworthy people on this site that have the skills to do that as well. Its not rocket science.

I tried to find the history of who has served as administrators and moderators on the site since the birth of the forum and I couldn’t find anything which leads me to believe it’s always been the same people.
I find it hard to believe that these are the only three members on this forum that you trust. If that’s the case..…it is very sad and I think you are putting all your eggs in one basket. If its not the case then why not replace the whole entire panel this year? Why not just clean house and start fresh? Isn’t it time? Can it get any worse? As a result I’ll bet you would have a lot more donating members and the site would pay for itself. I’m sure its not about the money for you but is change such a bad thing?
Again I am not trying to be confrontational. I am asking a legitimate question because I am curious as to why the members don’t vote for the Moderator and Administrators too or why you won’t swap these people out yourself every couple years.

A Question for Rick……

And I ask this respectfully (its not intended to be confrontational)
Q: Why is it that the members do not also vote for the Moderator and the Administrators? The Panel (http://www.geocachingmaine.org/forum/showgroups.php)
(http://www.geocachingmaine.org/forum/showgroups.php)

I know you own this Website, the Domaine and pay out of your own pocket the expenses that keep it running. Understandably you are probably very protective of this site and don’t want to give just anybody administrative privileges/access to the behind the scenes modules that none of us can see. But would it hurt to recycle this part of the “panel” once in a while too? When I refer to the “panel” I am referring to the Moderator/Administrators AND Board Members. It appears that their roles all overlap into eachothers assigned tasks. Are these the only people you really think can effectively moderate, block spammers and update front page content? Surely there are other trustworthy people on this site that have the skills to do that as well. Its not rocket science.

I tried to find the history of who has served as administrators and moderators on the site since the birth of the forum and I couldn’t find anything which leads me to believe it’s always been the same people.
I find it hard to believe that these are the only three members on this forum that you trust. If that’s the case..…it is very sad and I think you are putting all your eggs in one basket. If its not the case then why not replace the whole entire panel this year? Why not just clean house and start fresh? Isn’t it time? Can it get any worse? As a result I’ll bet you would have a lot more donating members and the site would pay for itself. I’m sure its not about the money for you but is change such a bad thing?
Again I am not trying to be confrontational. I am asking a legitimate question because I am curious as to why the members don’t vote for the Moderator and Administrators too or why you won’t swap these people out yourself every couple years.

If this were truly a question for Rick, you could have sent it to Rick via PM or email. :rolleyes: Let's at least follow your previous post (re: walking and talking like a duck) and call it what it is. con·fron·ta·tion (khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.giffrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ubreve.gifn-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn) n. 1. The act of confronting or the state of being confronted, especially a meeting face to face.
2. a. A conflict involving armed forces: a nuclear confrontation.
b. Discord or a clash of opinions and ideas: an age of ideological confrontation.

3. A focused comparison: an essay that brought elements of biography, autobiography, and general European history into powerful, meaningful confrontation.

conhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.giffron·tahttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.giftion·al adj.
conhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.giffron·tahttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.giftion·ist n.

Adj.1.confrontational - of or relating to confrontation

I am curious as to why the members don’t vote for the Moderator and Administrators too or why you won’t swap these people out yourself every couple years.

Actually, he does. And the administrators/moderators are usually known to Rick only. Lately Brdad has been "outed" as a moderator because of the problems with one member. I've been "outed" as an administrator because of the problems we've had with spammers, and my discussions of what we've been doing to keep them out.

Other current moderators/administrators are not publicly known, nor are previous moderators/administrators. I think this is a good idea.

:D:D

Good comment, Duzfor! :D:D

Good comment, Duzfor! :D:D

I think that was a legitimate question. It seems that there is alright for some people on here to post comments and personal slams when it benifits them, but of others do it the get banned. It seems to be if you are part of "click" or "in crowd" it is ok to do or say what you want.
With all of the negitive comments going on in these forums I wonder how many people that visit the site for the first time never come back. Who would ask a question when they are afraid of getting a response like that. This has been a great place to get information and help. Everyone has always been helpful to me so I know they are a great group of people, But if this was what I read when I first found the forums I might have been reluctant to ask anything. A little respect would go a long way.

If this were truly a question for Rick, you could have sent it to Rick via PM or email. :rolleyes:

First of all this question was for Rick because it is his answer and only his answer that I am interested in and there may be others out there that would like to know as well. It was not a private question therefore it did not warrant a private message to Rick.


Let's at least follow your previous post (re: walking and talking like a duck) and call it what it is. con·fron·ta·tion (khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.giffrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ubreve.gifn-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn) n. 1. The act of confronting or the state of being confronted, especially a meeting face to face.
............................................

This was a legitimate question and if you think this one was confrontational you obviously have not been a member of this site long enough to see what REAL confrontation is and that every thread that is controversial will get confrontational at some point. It’s the nature of the beast. So I suggest you copy and paste your little dictionary word and put it away for safe keeping so you can use it again down the road when its becomes really appropriate.

This post is separate from my other one and thats why I put it in a new thread. There is a forum called Suggestions and my thread fits quite nicely in this forum because it is both a non-private question and a non-private suggestion for everyone to see.

If you want to see REAL confrontational threads start perusing the forums that date prior to you becoming a member. You may be enlightened if you think my post was bad. Every member of this forum has posted a confrontational (according to your dictionary) comment at one time or another. So please don’t single me out here.

the question was for Rick….I expected comments from others but you both could have at least waited and let him reply first? Sheesh….:D

If this were truly a question for Rick, you could have sent it to Rick via PM or email. :rolleyes: Let's at least follow your previous post (re: walking and talking like a duck) and call it what it is. con·fron·ta·tion (khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.giffrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ubreve.gifn-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn) n. 1. The act of confronting or the state of being confronted, especially a meeting face to face.
2. a. A conflict involving armed forces: a nuclear confrontation.
b. Discord or a clash of opinions and ideas: an age of ideological confrontation.

3. A focused comparison: an essay that brought elements of biography, autobiography, and general European history into powerful, meaningful confrontation.

conhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.giffron·tahttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.giftion·al adj.
conhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.giffron·tahttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.giftion·ist n.

Adj.1.confrontational - of or relating to confrontation

Now present the other side

ques·tion (kwhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifchhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn)
n. 1. a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.
b. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture.

2. A subject or point open to controversy; an issue.
3. A difficult matter; a problem: a question of ethics.
4. A point or subject under discussion or consideration.
5. a. A proposition brought up for consideration by an assembly.
b. The act of bringing a proposal to vote.

6. Uncertainty; doubt: There is no question about the validity of the enterprise.

v. ques·tioned, ques·tion·ing, ques·tions
v.tr. 1. To put a question to. See Synonyms at ask (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ask).
2. To examine (a witness, for example) by questioning; interrogate.
3. To express doubt about; dispute.
4. To analyze; examine.



I question who is being confrontational .:rolleyes::(

I thought the question was appropriate as well. I have known over time who several of the moderators were, but don't claim to know who all of them were (or are at the present), but my impression was that as life moves on and people get busy with other components of it, they pass moderation back to Rick who finds another appropriate member to help out. I thought that there was a cycle of people helping out with this job.

Actually, he does. And the administrators/moderators are usually known to Rick only. Lately Brdad has been "outed" as a moderator because of the problems with one member. I've been "outed" as an administrator because of the problems we've had with spammers, and my discussions of what we've been doing to keep them out.

Other current moderators/administrators are not publicly known, nor are previous moderators/administrators. I think this is a good idea.

:D:D

The link I posted in my original post lists the current "panel". Except for Medawisla being on the list it appears to be a current list.
Somebody's falling asleep at their computer if they aren't keeping links and content updated..... Didn't you just say the moderators and admin were not publicly known? Well then why is your name on this link? No wonder people are confused on this site. Everyone is giving a different answer
Sheesh :D

I am very tired right now so let me try to word this so as not to make it sound mean and disrespectful.

There are a lot of trustworthy people that I trust on this site in the geocaching community. I have always done the moderating and administration myself up until the beginning of last year (2010). There were a couple of reasons for this. Prior to that no one had ever volunteered to help and at the time there was really no need to have much moderation done on the site, we had no users trying to stir the pot or cause trouble, everybody seemed to get along. The reason I assigned another administrator at the beginning of last year was because I was leaving to hike the Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine (from Mar thru Oct). I could not leave the web site without an administrator for seven months. I had to find someone that I thought was trustworthy and knowledgeable enough with the software to take care of it for seven months. I did a little research and picked the person I thought would do a good job and had knowledge in web site software. I also assigned another person to keep the spammers of the web site so it would relieve the load off the administrator. Believe it or not there is a lot to researching IP addresses and other things to keep the spammers from coming back and registering on the web site. It may not be rocket science but being an administrator and/or the person taking care of the spammers is not an easy as you may think.

As far as moderators are concerned we really do not have any right now. The administrator that I assigned was the only one that was doing any moderation until I returned from my hike this past October. I could assign a few moderators but then no matter who I picked there would be someone whether it is you or someone else that would not like my choice. Then there is the other side of this, where does the person draw the line as to what a user has to do before they get there posts removed, moderated or even get themselves banned? What I think is different from what you think or what Jane or Jack may think. Some people think that users should be able to post whatever they want with the idea that this is a free country and we should have free speech, I totally disagree with that.

You have raised an issue that probably needs addressing. I should look into assigning a few moderators. This way the Administrators can strictly stick to administrating the software and help when moderators need help. I will wait until the new board members are elected and then I will address assigning a moderator or two with the new board members and we will work on some guidelines about editing, deleting, removing and banning members. Thanks you for bringing that to my attention.

On the other side of this and not to be disrespectful but if you or anyone else has had a problem with any one person or individual that has been moderating, administrating or taking care of the spammers why did I not hear about it in a private message before? Why am I all of a sudden hearing about it now?

... ... ... Some people think ... ... that this is a free country and we should have free speech, I totally disagree with that.... ... ...

hehehehe. I liked this part. I thought we were a free country with freedom of speech preserved in the Bill of Rights?? :eek::eek:

Litchfield is the seat of sedition, dang!!! Whowudda thought? :D:D

I so often see people claiming the right of "freedom of speech" when they are being antagonistic or trying to stress their opinion over the opinion of others. Yes there is a right to free speech. You can say anything you want to say. There are, however, places where you can't say those things. Try yelling "Bomb!" in an airport terminal right about now and then using the defense of "freedom of speech".

I know that's not even close to comparing to the forums here in the general scheme of things but the basis remains the same. None of us really wants to see links to volitile issues far removed from geocaching in a post dealing strictly with geocaching. Not really. I've been guilty of posting something that went a little beyond the pale and saw numerous posts from people I really like saying I was wrong to have posted. I was guilty of crossing the line and posting something that was politically hot and I shouldn't have, even though it was an attempt to make a point and (I'll freely admit this...) very poorly worded for the point I was trying to make.

I really like the point Rick made, if there's been a problem revolving around anyone working behind the scenes to support this site - why is he just now hearing about it and all expressed in the public forums?

hehehehe. I liked this part. I thought we were a free country with freedom of speech preserved in the Bill of Rights?? :eek::eek:

Litchfield is the seat of sedition, dang!!! Whowudda thought? :D:D

We DO have freedom of speech in our country. What we don't have is freedom of speech EVERYWHERE. If I go in your house and say things that offend you, you have every right to boot me out. I can stand outside (on the public sidewalk) and say those things, but not on your property.

A private website (a domain purchased by an individual) is the same thing. The forums are open to the public and comments and ideas are welcome, discussed and debated. The site owner does have the right to moderate, guide or censor any discussion he or she wants, for any reason. There are websites that offend me greatly in their speech. I don't visit them.

As an example, our site has always seemed to keep away from politics and religious topics, as they can quickly snowball into arguments and have little or nothing to do with geocaching. People have the freedom to discuss those topics, but this site owner and moderators try to keep threads focused on caching and related topics.

Firstly, I understood Rick's intent. The fact that it was a faux pas on Rick's part was not lost on me and I was making light of it. Secondly, the fact that my pointing out the faux pas was used out of context, twisted and spun into some kind of political statement on my part is exactly what is supposedly being discouraged. Ironic!! Jeff Foxworthy would have been tried and hung should he come here. That's your sign!!

I did not make this an issue of freedom of speech. I will continue to point out faux pas and erroneous assumptions only because I think they are funny not to debate semantics.

Again, Rick encourages input and input is reciprocally discouraged by a few because it doesn't fit into the "groove" they think it should.

Oh, I know Rick is not a subversive nor do I think he is evil or ill-intented. Just the opposite of the spin that is presented. If Rick was the only voice here I think he comes closer to my line of thinking than all those that think they are defending his virtue.

the fact that my pointing out the faux pas was used out of context, twisted and spun into some kind of political statement on my part is exactly what is supposedly being discouraged.
You proved your point , do you feel better now?

I think that a lot of discussions have come to light recently and seating a new board is part of that. I would ask that those who think change is necessary, wait till a new board is voted on and see what happens. Then you can all post you thoughts so they can be addressed.

Thanks to those who asked questions and to Rick for making it clear to me.

Looks like 2011 will be a very interesting year here at Geocachingmaine.org

The current discussions suggest to me that the new board will need to address transparency, what moderators are supposed to "moderate" and what happens to members who cross the line. A lot happened today that the current board and moderators haven't shared. That's part of the problem. Were they right to ban Chadd for life? If a cacher with the integrity of Lexmano posts questions and his questions are promptly placed in a area on this site, is that right? I don't know. What was said to result in those drastic results? Can this be shared? Should it be shared?

I've made myself clear that I'd like to see a much higher level of civility here and a site more focused on geocaching, but in the meantime, unless the post are grossly personal, I'd like to see what folks are saying and thinking, in the "board room" and out. Hard for me to decide if what went on today was addressed fairly without seeing what was said and why it was promptly hidden from the rest of us. If I'm a new board member, this won't EVER happen!

You have raised an issue that probably needs addressing. I should look into assigning a few moderators. This way the Administrators can strictly stick to administrating the software and help when moderators need help. I will wait until the new board members are elected and then I will address assigning a moderator or two with the new board members and we will work on some guidelines about editing, deleting, removing and banning members. Thanks you for bringing that to my attention.


I think that is a great idea Rick and certainly a positive step in the right direction. And I think waiting for the new board to be put in place first is a good idea as well. That way we can start all fresh and new. The moderator(s) need to be totally separate from the Administrator/Board Members. A non-geocacher that does not know the history of controversy on this site would be ideal. Someone who can make non-biased decisions about what he perceives as “over the line” content and treat everyone equally.



On the other side of this and not to be disrespectful but if you or anyone else has had a problem with any one person or individual that has been moderating, administrating or taking care of the spammers why did I not hear about it in a private message before? Why am I all of a sudden hearing about it now?

As for your last question? With all due respect I don’t believe you are hearing about this now for the first time. I know for a fact that some members on this site have made complaints in the past against a certain admin member who is allowed to post whatever he wants. There are times when he should have been banned too. So how do you ban one of your own? You don’t. That’s why you do not make one of the top instigators on this site a member of the panel. It’s a bad idea.
Your above solution would solve that issue by making sure this admin person is accountable like everyone else….and not just slapped on the hand so he can turn around and do it over and over again just because he is who he is and he can. You need to set an example if you want people to feel like they are being treated equally. I see that as one of the biggest flaws in your current system. So for all the above reasons is why I never sent you a PM. Why bother?

So… As others have commented in the past few weeks…
”If you don’t like the sight then go away because your legitimate questions and observations are not welcome here” That’s the message I keep hearing over and over again to anyone who challenges the panel in any way, shape, or form.
So I will do just that. I will slap the Scarlet letter on my back and quietly go back to my little corner of the world.

I sincerely want you to know Rick that I have nothing against you personally. You are obviously a decent guy. I just think you have made some bad choices in terms of your website that’s all. I hope proposed resolution above works out and the site can get back to the good geocaching content it used to have back in the early days. I really hope it does.

This is my last post….and since apparently the only say any of us really have on this site is the ability to lock our own thread… that is what I am going to do.

Nuff’ said

Dang it! …except apparently the jokes on me….. because the instructions on how to do that are not even valid. http://www.geocachingmaine.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3416 The thread tools at the top of my post do not give me the option to lock my own thread yet this link says I have the power in me. :rolleyes: When did this feature get taken away from us? :confused:

Project suggestion for new board when the time comes. For cryin’ out loud update the links and update the content on these pages.



(http://www.geocachingmaine.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3416)
Since I can’t do it myself …Rick can you please lock this thread for me? Thank you.

I personally hope he doesn't lock the thread. The discussion is pertinent and current. In the long run, I suspect the site will improve as a result of these discussions.

I personally hope he doesn't lock the thread. The discussion is pertinent and current. In the long run, I suspect the site will improve as a result of these discussions.

Yes, but it's Foxgloves' thread, and he (she?) should be able to lock the thread f desired. Not sure why he (she?) can't...

As a previous moderator here on this site I can honestly say we have been down this road on more than 1 occasion. It's good to see the sustainable interest in anything that brings people together even if it sometimes takes an uncanny twist along the way.

I don't know if the method to close threads got intentionall removed or if it accidentally was removed but I think that the ability should be available to the person starting the thread if it's something that can be restricted to the author of the thread and administrators. If anyone has the ability to close any thread, I can see where that might not be so advisable.

Yes, but it's Foxgloves' thread, and he (she?) should be able to lock the thread f desired. Not sure why he (she?) can't...

I went to a thread I started and there's nothing there for me to close or lock the thread with.

And I think (ephasis on think) Foxgloves is of the feminine persuasion.

yup, I'm tired of this nonsense, too...no need to ban me, I won't be coming back...
The current discussions suggest to me that the new board will need to address transparency, what moderators are supposed to "moderate" and what happens to members who cross the line. A lot happened today that the current board and moderators haven't shared. That's part of the problem. Were they right to ban Chadd for life? If a cacher with the integrity of Lexmano posts questions and his questions are promptly placed in a area on this site, is that right? I don't know. What was said to result in those drastic results? Can this be shared? Should it be shared?

yup, I'm tired of this nonsense, too...no need to ban me, I won't be coming back...
Your right, this is nonsense. This is going to stop now.