Disappearing Posts

[lexmano]

I originally posted this in the Suggestion Box 2/10. It was moved to a private thread. I have asked to have it placed in a public spot so the issues raised can be addressed. It has not been. So, since I still do not know why it was deemed inappropriate I am reposting it.

If that is deemed inappropriate, please allow this to be discussed openly.

My original post.

" Posts disappearing Earlier today I noticed a post that made the assertion that the Board makes no decisions. This is simply not true.

I followed that post with a copy of the Board's announcement that it had determined that Chadd Roper was not eligible to serve on the Board and they were going to exclude his name from the list of candidates. Perhaps I am naive, but that seems like a decision to me.

My post was cordial, not profane or offensive in my opinion.

The post I respond to and my reply have been deleted. There has been no communication with me concerning the posting. I have not been advised why it was apparently deemed inappropriate.

I did not make a copy of the post in question as I had no expectation that it would provoke such a response. I have learned, and I will keep a copy of this. I request that this matter be reviewed.

My suggestion for the future is that when the moderators, board or whoever determine a post needs to be deleted that the poster be advised clearly why the action is being taken. This could avoid situations like this where I have no idea what was found so offensive that my post needed to be removed.

What a more appropriate response might have been was for the poster who asserted that the Board takes no actions to admit he was incorrect and clarify the record.

Ed"

[shuman road searchers]

My suggestion for the future is that when the moderators, board or whoever determine a post needs to be deleted that the poster be advised clearly why the action is being taken. This could avoid situations like this where I have no idea what was found so offensive that my post needed to be removed.

I would hope that if any person posted something here that was found to be offensive by the moderators, especially if it was an isolated incident, that the moderators would let that person know why.

[brdad]

I moved the original copy of this post to the feedback area, and Lex was told why and that it was going to be left to Rick to move it back if he thought I erred in my decision to do so. I have his backing on my actions.

I knew I had not deleted any posts and never noticed the posts in question. So I searched for them with no luck, but this morning I found them (thanks Brad). The problem is, Lexmano, you replied the posts were in Foxglove's thread, but they turned out to be in the My thoughts thread.

Specifically, this is the post Lexmano replied to:

I know as for myself since the Board's "tone" has changed I have posted far less than I have in the past . . .

Sheesh, Jake! "The Board's "tone" has changed"???

Show me where the Advisory Board has stated a position on anything! LOL!

That post still exists. Lexmano's reply was deleted by Rick, and included a title of "Bruce, this looks like a position, stated loudly!" and the post was simply a quote from the voting thread stating a member was not on the ballot and that inquiries on that matter should be addressed to the feedback area.

Perhaps your post did not have to be deleted, that is Rick's place to decide. But I am not sure why you (Lexmano) insist a post made in jest by another member needs to be corrected? IMO, you are taking this post out of context.

[dubord207]

I think the point that Ed makes that might be lost in the "technical" version of what did or didn't happen is that his post was "moderated" for lack of a better term and no explaination was offered. That is just a bad practice and one that shouldn't happen again. A private note to the poster from the moderator or board as to the reason for a deletion needs to be the prescribed way to do this in the future. I think a few folks got overly "caught up" in the issues generated by Chadd's status and thus the haste to quiet things down.

I don't see a need to debate the specifics of what happened to lexmano's post. It was something the members here couldn't see, thus he should have been promptly provided with a reason for this decision. I would hate to see this happen again as loosing a great and thoughtful cacher like Jim Horowich is not a good thing. II hope the new board addresses this quickly and completely and provides clear guidance as to what will be expected of folks that post and those charged with the responsibility of scrutinizing the posts.

[JustKev]

I've been trying to stay out of this in hopes that it would die down and we could move on to more topics revolving around geocaching.

I saw both posts in question and, even if it's not the popular line, I agree with actions taken. I had no way of knowing, before now, who removed the original post of Lexmano's. When it first hit the forum my immediate feeling was that it was a post that would have been more appropriate if it had been addressed to the board behind the scenes. I understand the decision that one of the nominees was deemed to be ineligible was an incredibly controversial decision. However, the only way that decision could have come to the conclusion it did was by a majority of the board members votes. If Rick removed the post, it would appear that he felt it was inappropriate.

Moving the second post to the board's area would appear to be a move to try to keep a hot issue from becoming all consuming. I understand the request was made to the board area that it be moved back to the open forums. It's obvious that request hasn't had the answer expected or desired otherwise this thread wouldn't be here. Makes me think of a scene from a movie: "I object." "Overruled." "I strenuously object."

Do these posts and this controversy help or hinder geocaching?

Rick has stated that this is our forum, not his. Still, Rick is the person behind the scenes that's keeping this forum online. Here's a "what if" for everyone to ponder. What if Rick comes to the point where all this controversy isn't worth the time and effort he puts into our forum? Who is going to step and and still do the marvelous job Rick has done and never complain about what it's costing out of their pocket?

Let's just move on and get the vote done for the board and keep this forum on track with what it was intended for, the advancement of geocaching in Maine. This isn't the proper place to air differences of opinion over proper cache placement, it isn't the place to air differences of opinion over how poorly moderated the forum is, it isn't the place to belittle other cachers in any fashion. Just like momma used to say, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

[brdad]

I think the point that Ed makes that might be lost in the "technical" version of what did or didn't happen is that his post was "moderated" for lack of a better term and no explaination was offered.

There is a provision in post editing and deletions to state why they are moderated, but it is not mandatory (must like the subject in an email is not mandatory). I think it is a good idea and do my best to state the reason, but it does get skipped sometimes. Sure, the process can be improved upon, but in hectic times things can happen, we are all human.

[pm28570]

I've been trying to stay out of this in hopes that it would die down and we could move on to more topics revolving around geocaching.

I saw both posts in question and, even if it's not the popular line, I agree with actions taken. I had no way of knowing, before now, who removed the original post of Lexmano's. When it first hit the forum my immediate feeling was that it was a post that would have been more appropriate if it had been addressed to the board behind the scenes. I understand the decision that one of the nominees was deemed to be ineligible was an incredibly controversial decision. However, the only way that decision could have come to the conclusion it did was by a majority of the board members votes. If Rick removed the post, it would appear that he felt it was inappropriate.

Moving the second post to the board's area would appear to be a move to try to keep a hot issue from becoming all consuming. I understand the request was made to the board area that it be moved back to the open forums. It's obvious that request hasn't had the answer expected or desired otherwise this thread wouldn't be here. Makes me think of a scene from a movie: "I object." "Overruled." "I strenuously object."

Do these posts and this controversy help or hinder geocaching?

Rick has stated that this is our forum, not his. Still, Rick is the person behind the scenes that's keeping this forum online. Here's a "what if" for everyone to ponder. What if Rick comes to the point where all this controversy isn't worth the time and effort he puts into our forum? Who is going to step and and still do the marvelous job Rick has done and never complain about what it's costing out of their pocket?

Let's just move on and get the vote done for the board and keep this forum on track with what it was intended for, the advancement of geocaching in Maine. This isn't the proper place to air differences of opinion over proper cache placement, it isn't the place to air differences of opinion over how poorly moderated the forum is, it isn't the place to belittle other cachers in any fashion. Just like momma used to say, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Well said. Period.

[WhereRWe?]

Earlier today I noticed a post that made the assertion that the Board makes no decisions. This is simply not true.

Actually, I was just being facetious. I did not recall the fact that the board had determined that CARoperPhotography was deemed to be ineligible to be a candidate for Advisory Board or I would not have made that statement. Old age is creeping up on me...

[dubord207]

In all due respect to my friends Kevin and Paul, these discussions, though tedious at times, relate to the once a year election of a board to this site. Clearly the who and how of this selection process has little to do with geocacaching and more to do about what the members expect of this site. To the extent that the new board will no doubt have to at least try to come up with guidelines so this crap doesn't happen again, then it's relevant, to a "t." I think it's not unfair to ask prospective board members if they feel the elegibility issue and subsequent response to inquiries was handled both fairly and within some stated guidelines.

If the response is that these decisions were made only by Rick, then that's the end of it.

In my world, decisions made by the judges are supported by facts and rules so maybe it's just my profession driving my curiosity.

[WhereRWe?]

To the extent that the new board will no doubt have to at least try to come up with guidelines so this crap doesn't happen again, then it's relevant, to a "t."

Keep in mind that the Advisory Board was not established to "run" the website. It was established to be the final arbiter on questions raised by the GCM.org members, such as selection of design for a GCM.org geocoin. The establishment of guidelines should be done by a poll of GCM.org members, managed by the Advisory Board, i.e., suggesting guidelines to be included in the poll. I would actively oppose any expansion of the Advisory Board's purview.