Why can't we discuss it?

[mjones12]

Of course I will honor the request to not open another thread about dogs in campgrounds. But could we discuss why this is?

Is the site team too sensitive or are the rest of us just incapable of discussing an issue that affects most of us almost every time we go camping?

So many interesting and important issues have been throttled on here, often because it is feared that someone might be offended.

Where should we go to discuss such sensitive matters? Could such things like the dog discussion be moved to an area of the forum where the faint of heart will know not to venture?

Hope I'm not in trouble for suggesting we look for ways that adults can discuss even controversial camping subjects.

[lugoismad]

I was going to message the mods, because quite frankly it made me mad they closed it, like we are children or something.

The mod who closed it referenced me going off topic and discussing dogs in walmart. No, I was discussing how people with small dogs seem to think how "no pets allowed" signs don't pertain to them.

But, you know what, I've been on other forums that are very nasty, and have a lot of rude, mean, and badly mannered people around. If this is what it takes to make the site friendly, I'll take it.

[timfromma]

Because it may start polite but will degrade rapidly. The site owners have decided that this site is for polite family friendly discussions. They own the site and can operate it as they see fit.

[mjones12]

Right. I'm thinking it would be better for them to remove the offending comments and let the rest of us continue the discussion.

[wmtire]

The site team is gathering some reference material and will post some information to this thread in short order, as normally we don't discuss site team actions in the open forums, but it appears there is some misunderstandings as to how the site team operates....and will hopefully clear up these misunderstandings. We are going to need to close this thread while it's written up, then will reopen the thread.

Give us some time to discuss this and draft it all. Thanks

[wmtire]

It seems as though some members may not be aware of how the site team operates. From what we are reading and getting responses from, several members seem to incorrectly think that the site team doesn't operate as the name implies (site team) and that one individual acting unilaterally is who decides to close/edit threads or send PM's to members. This couldn't be further from the truth.

We operate by consensus, and then once a course of action has been determined by the team, a spokesperson contacts the member or posts a note to a thread FOR the site team. Depending on how the rotation works, who all is online, who volunteers to write it up, etc...depends on who you will see as the site team spokesperson.

This previous similar thread with posts #7 and #9 may let everyone who isn't already aware, fully understand how the team operates in reaching decisions, and how problems are reported to us. Our forums are largely self-policing.

http://www.forestriverforums.com/for...ted-96271.html

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

Now the next thing is, since you now know the site team or one person isn't out to get you....is why are certain threads shut down. It's been correctly mentioned above that things that start out politely will degrade. This dog topic is exactly one of those that did. There have been many others with the exact same subject matter that also did. It was all explained in the closing note from the SITE TEAM, who I was the spokesperson for and volunteered to write it up.

Not picking on the OP of the dog thread, as his post above is appreciated and shows he is an upstanding member, he may not be aware that he also violated our guidelines with his last post. He classified a certain size of dog with an unacceptable expletive. This also is offensive to members who may not like their size dog being called that. Fur kids are an emotional topic. We turned on the hot topic warning to hopefully make people think first before posting, but this thread devolved into stuff about kids, trucks, and other. There was just too many things that upset people in this thread.

We are a friendly forum, and if anyone wants to take the time to read the site guidelines, you will see the guidelines we hope everyone will stay within so we all remain friends.

http://www.forestriverforums.com/for...ork&page=rules

If it is so important for a member here, to find enjoyment in upsetting others or arguing, there are other avenues available for that, but just not on FRF. We hope you will find the guidelines work for you, as they do the vast majority of all the other members...who don't come here to read vents about things they can't change.

Now we will will discuss vent threads, which are OK as long as they stay within the guidelines...which cannot be of a baiting, argumentative, or rude type. Once they devolve into that, they will be closed.

It was also asked why the site team just doesn't remove the posts that are guideline violations and keep the thread open. The site team is volunteers who are trying to help fellow RV'ers as well as keep the playground happy for the majority. Vent threads like this one, that have no solution, and are just going to keep requiring site team interventions....are too time consuming. The more time we keep having to expend on a problematic thread by discussing complaints and/or editing guideline violations, that's less time that can be spent helping fellow RV'ers with problems that are solvable. That's a total waste of our time/resources and really is selfish for others to think we should just keep on monitoring a thread that is going to keep on needing such.

If history and experience has shown that the topic is going to need constant supervision, then it's "really" not a topic suitable for the forums. The best solution is to close it and everyone stays friends where they can continue to aid/educate one another. Hopefully everyone will now understand this and the way the site team operates.

We do want everyone to be as happy and satisfied as they can be with FRF.

Your FRF Site Team

[mjones12]

Originally Posted by wmtire

It seems as though some members may not be aware of how the site team operates. From what we are reading and getting responses from, several members seem to incorrectly think that the site team doesn't operate as the name implies (site team) and that one individual acting unilaterally is who decides to close/edit threads or send PM's to members. This couldn't be further from the truth.

We operate by consensus, and then once a course of action has been determined by the team, a spokesperson contacts the member or posts a note to a thread FOR the site team. Depending on how the rotation works, who all is online, who volunteers to write it up, etc...depends on who you will see as the site team spokesperson.

This previous similar thread with posts #7 and #9 may let everyone who isn't already aware, fully understand how the team operates in reaching decisions, and how problems are reported to us. Our forums are largely self-policing.

http://www.forestriverforums.com/for...ted-96271.html

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

Now the next thing is, since you now know the site team or one person isn't out to get you....is why are certain threads shut down. It's been correctly mentioned above that things that start out politely will degrade. This dog topic is exactly one of those that did. There have been many others with the exact same subject matter that also did. It was all explained in the closing note from the SITE TEAM, who I was the spokesperson for and volunteered to write it up.

Not picking on the OP, as his post above is appreciated and shows he is an upstanding member, he may not be aware that he also violated our guidelines with his last post. He classified a certain size of dog with an unacceptable expletive. This also is offensive to members who may not like their size dog being called that. Fur kids are an emotional topic. We turned on the hot topic warning to hopefully make people think first before posting, but this thread devolved into stuff about kids, trucks, and other. There was just too many things that upset people in this thread.

We are a friendly forum, and if anyone wants to take the time to read the site guidelines, you will see the guidelines we hope everyone will stay within so we all remain friends.

http://www.forestriverforums.com/for...ork&page=rules

If it is so important for a member here, to find enjoyment in upsetting others or arguing, there are other avenues available for that, but just not on FRF. We hope you will find the guidelines work for you, as they do the vast majority of all the other members...who don't come here to read vents about things they can't change.

Now we will will discuss vent threads, which are OK as long as they stay within the guidelines...which cannot be of a baiting, argumentative, or rude type. Once they devolve into that, they will be closed.

It was also asked why the site team just doesn't remove the posts that are guideline violations and keep the thread open. The site team is volunteers who are trying to help fellow RV'ers as well as keep the playground happy for the majority. Vent threads like this one, that have no solution, and are just going to keep requiring site team interventions....are too time consuming. The more time we keep having to expend on a problematic thread by discussing complaints and/or editing guideline violations, that's less time that can be spent helping fellow RV'ers with problems that are solvable. That's a total waste of our time/resources and really is selfish for others to think we should just keep on monitoring a thread that is going to keep on needing such.

If history and experience has shown that the topic is going to need constant supervision, then it's "really" not a topic suitable for the forums. The best solution is to close it and everyone stays friends where they can continue to aid/educate one another. Hopefully everyone will now understand this and the way the site team operates.

We do want everyone to be as happy and satisfied as they can be with FRF.

Your FRF Site Team

Thanks for a fine explanation. I don't disagree with any of the concepts you describe. Perhaps if we as members remain within the guidelines, we can continue to politely discuss issues on which we might occasionally disagree.

I'd say the responsibility is ours to keep it civil. Whether we can count on that always happening, I don't know.

Thanks again.

[asquared]

As explained above. These topics just never seem to stay civil. Our job is to keep the peace either when the members are unable to keep it civil or head something off at the pass before it gets too ugly. We also have to make sure things stay within the guidelines. Ideally, all members would think like you and we wouldn't have to lift a finger to keep the forums friendly. Also, please remember everyone agreed to follow these rules when they signed up for the forum.

This is from the community rules: Someone has to interpret these guidelines and how they apply to this forum. Ultimately it's up to our site moderators and administrator to make this decision. If you have any questions about these guidelines, please feel free to contact a moderator or administrator. Thanks to everyone for keeping the tone appropriate for a group of friends, at least the vast majority of the time. Please keep it up!

[Mr. Dan]

Originally Posted by wmtire

....
It's been correctly mentioned above that things that start out politely will degrade. This dog topic is exactly one of those that did. There have been many others with the exact same subject matter that also did. ....

Your FRF Site Team

wmtire's quoted comments highlight the fact that site team members have seen this progression on this subject time and time again. We know from experience/historical data what response an "over the line" comment in a post on this subject will prompt from some other member. We can predict the escalated responses because we've seen them so often.

[rockfordroo]

I would add that sometimes a thread will devolve into just 2 or 3 people going back and forth on some topic. (I know I've been guilty of this a time or two.) In the heat of the moment, sometimes we get carried away and post something we probably shouldn't have.
So it's good we have monitors to keep us honest and polite. I know it's probably a mostly thankless job. So THANKS, guys and gals.

Also, I was NOT aware, until I just read it here, that most actions are in response to a member reporting a thread or post. I know the monitors have notified me that I've had a couple posts removed/changed, so I would also THANK anyone who's reported me, as I'm certainly not trying to offend anyone here.

[gloryracing]

Well done!

[Frank DeFeo]

Thank you FRF team !!

[mjones12]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dan

wmtire's quoted comments highlight the fact that site team members have seen this progression on this subject time and time again. We know from experience/historical data what response an "over the line" comment in a post on this subject will prompt from some other member. We can predict the escalated responses because we've seen them so often.

So given that historical perspective, will these hot topics now be eliminated before they take root?....Not complaining about that...just asking.

[asquared]

Originally Posted by mjones12

So given that historical perspective, will these hot topics now be eliminated before they take root?....Not complaining about that...just asking.

We try to be hands off where we can. We try to allow a thread to run as long as everyone is behaving and it doesn't spiral. We will enable a hot topic warning on these topics quicker. We are also quicker to close those threads than say a thread about a repair issue or some such thing. Vent threads are just that, a chance for someone to vent their opinion. Then everyone else's opinions jump in. John Doe might be offended by what Jane Smith is staying she is upset about or vice versa. You can see how this will result in a quick closure.

[mjones12]

Originally Posted by asquared

We try to be hands off where we can. We try to allow a thread to run as long as everyone is behaving and it doesn't spiral. We will enable a hot topic warning on these topics quicker. We are also quicker to close those threads than say a thread about a repair issue or some such thing. Vent threads are just that, a chance for someone to vent their opinion. Then everyone else's opinions jump in. John Doe might be offended by what Jane Smith is staying she is upset about or vice versa. You can see how this will result in a quick closure.

Thanks. Sounds very reasonable to me.

[Nurek]

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Evelyn Beatrice Hall

[Mr. Dan]

Originally Posted by mjones12

So given that historical perspective, will these hot topics now be eliminated before they take root?....Not complaining about that...just asking.

Speaking as only one member of the team and without consulting the others, I would say NO. We would monitor the thread JIC it remained oddly civil. This particular thread had the Hot Topic button turned ON very early in its life... such that any poster had time to check his/her intent and method. We have the same issue with "1/2 tons towing 5th wheels" (oh, me! did I actually type that?) and "Ford vs. Dodge" (the 1st place GM is already settled ) and we let them run until the 2-4 members mentioned earlier run the thread into the ditch. Certain topics DO raise our interest.

[mjones12]

Thank you, Mr Dan. Makes sense.

[jtstromsburg]

Huge thanks to the mods! I think your pay should be doubled!! [emoji1360]
Happy Campin Everyone

[doc73]

So if dog posts are not allowed.... Does that include cats in the campground.. After all I am a crazy cat guy..