departure

[squidvicious]

Anyone who's spent any time moderating a forum has seen pretty much that exact post before (the OPs), along with an assortment of other forms of "moderators are nazis," and should immediately recognize it as BS.

I did try to avoid his posts, but what I saw of them, combined with lack of participation in anything but his own topics, this less-than-honest exit post, and some other factors, left the feeling of someone more interested in disrupting than enhancing the community. To be honest I was relieved to see this "departure," as I've been less and less inclined to come in and click on my unread posts.

I think the idea of creating a single legislative or similar topic is a great one and could still be implemented, with or without the OP. But it would be even nicer if there were then a way to just block that thread from showing up in your unread. I see a way to subscribe to threads and forums, but not a way to filter particular things out. I don't suppose that exists somehow and I just haven't figured it out?

[5th]

I would prefer that this type of content go in a Politics sub-forum instead of a single sticky thread. Right now this is the biggest topic in backpacking IMO. I wouldn't want to have to trawl a huge thread to find the specific content I was looking for. We already have that issue in other threads.

Unfortunately, I don't expect anyone to step up and replace Rand Man, so I guess it doesn't matter anyway. He inspired me to start reading this forum more actively again.

Does anyone know where other people are posting similar information anywhere else (since it isn't welcome here)?

[Bosterson]

Does anyone know where other people are posting similar information anywhere else (since it isn't welcome here)?

I would again suggest you consider the aforementioned difference between a post's content and a poster's manner. No one has implied that discussing hiking-related legislation isn't welcome here. If you have things you want to talk about here, talk about them!

[5th]

I understand, but with all due respect there is no discussion to have without the links. I don't have time to run all that down. And I wasn't asking to find this somewhere on OregonHikers.org.

I was specifically asking about content elsewhere in the link-only manner. I get your point, but you completely miss mine: If this forum is going to be antagonistic toward posts like what Rand Man provided, I'll need to go elsewhere to get that type of post. I don't plan to stamp my feet and walk out or anything. I'm just not a one-forum-only kind of guy. It's not personal, and you clearly have a right to run the forum as you choose. I'm simply frustrated that what I consider to be the best current source of content on the site has been shoo'ed away, and I have no idea where to find a replacement. So I am asking.

Trip reports are great and all, but they do not rise to this level of relevance for me. I am sorry that you feel differently.

[Lurch]

IMO, posting multiple threads where the only content is a link, and no actual discussion is akin to spamming the boards. As it would be considered just about anywhere else. When I see 5 or 6 threads, posted by the same person, minutes apart, with only a link in the body, it's frustrating, and annoying as a forum user. As a mod/admin (I'm not on here) it's particularly troubling when that is a significant portion of someones total posts.

This is a discussion board, where there should be discussion. I see no problem with the request that was supposedly made. Although I'm slightly curious how a mod sent an 'anonymous' PM..

5th: If you'd like to find current federal bills you can always search https://www.congress.gov/ a simple 'National Forest' query in current legislation is going to populate 600+ results though.. Or Oregon specific at https://www.oregonlegislature.gov

I would imagine you would agree the above posting style would be an issue if it was over 600 individual threads?

[retired jerry]

Somewhere I read about internet etiquite, probably in Scientific American

If you post something, like just a link. to a bunch of people, it takes a small amount of your time, but a lot of time for everyone else (multiplied by the number of people) to look at the link and figure it out

It's better for the poster to read the link, distill it to a short paragraph, and post that along with the link. Then, each reader can quickly determine what it's about, then go to the link if they're interested in more information. It takes more time for the poster.

With the former, the time required by people gets exponentially multiplied until civilization will be spending all their time chasing down links that people post. One poster can consume a huge amount of people's time with a quick post.

[5th]

I would imagine you would agree the above posting style would be an issue if it was over 600 individual threads?

I would agree in that circumstance. However that is not what happened.

One poster can consume a huge amount of people's time with a quick post.

Only if you allow it. In this world, you are only offended if you choose to be so.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

We disagree, and that is OK. I found nothing bad in either what or how Rand Man posted, but I don't make the rules, so I don't have standing. I take those links as the opening of a discussion, and any added links contribute to that discussion. To me, a forum is source of information first, and a social experience second. Netiquette is heavily dependent on context, and nowhere near universal. I'm a very utilitarian person, and I find the definition of 'discussion' and the netiquette in use here to be pretty restrictive. But that's OK, because I can always move on to a thread that doesn't bother me. No one has the right to be free from offense so I do not try to lay claim to it.

Does anyone have contact info for Rand Man? I sent a PM but I don't expect a reply. I don't need direct contact data if you prefer to relay for me to protect Rand Man's privacy.

[retired jerry]

I don't have a problem with randman

I was just relaying what I read somewhere, and the mathematics of it.

If someone posts just a link, and maybe a "this is interesting", I tend to move on

But, I try not to do that. I try to add something to say what the link is. Maybe with a "and here's a link to more info if you're interested" to relieve any reader of a burden to click on the link just to be respectful to me

[Aimless]

No one has the right to be free from offense so I do not try to lay claim to it.

Rand Man should have been so wise. As a newly minted moderator I am able to read the text of the PM that was sent. It was very far from saying his posts were not welcome. To my thinking, it was about as mild as such a message could have been. Sorry I can't quote it in full, but Personal Messages are personal and should stay that way.

Since I individually posted twice in the past few weeks requesting Rand Man to modify his posting habits, I should add that none of my posts on that subject were written when I was a moderator or had even considered being one here. Nor did I write the "anonymous" PM he cites. My mod status only just became official. It may have been today. I'm not sure.

I should also explain that moderators have the opportunity to discuss these actions before they are taken and there is a PM account designated only as "Moderator", through which the mods as a whole may communicate a group decision to a forum member. That anonymity, which seems to have upset Rand Man, is both useful and sensible, in that all the mods also post here as themselves, for themselves. If Rand Man had been able to identify the PM as coming from one person alone, would it have improved anything? More likely it would just have allowed him to focus his resentment upon that individual, rather than on the moderators as a whole. That doesn't help anything.

Finally, if anyone has not discovered it, the list of moderators is available by following a link at the bottom of many pages. The link is called "The team". I expect we are all pretty approachable, if you want to discuss anything about the board.

[Rand Man 2]

Does anyone have contact info for Rand Man? I sent a PM but I don't expect a reply. I don't need direct contact data if you prefer to relay for me to protect Rand Man's privacy.

5th - What did you want to contact me about?