SCOUTER-Terry

Yes, but that wouldn't have been very Scoutlike.

TERRY HOWERTON

stepfordscouting.com... that's funny. How long before that site shows up? :-)

TERRY HOWERTON

I wouldn't read much into any merchandise that is inside the catalog. The entire catalog (while "open for business" and selling merchandise) is still experimental technology that's being refined over the coming weeks. SCOUTER Catalog used to be a very active vendor of a great selection of Scouting products, but that Catalog was closed a few years ago. The new online catalog is in conjunction with Amazon, and we have yet to do much (or ANY) specific merchandising and filtering of products that are available from Amazon through this site.

Without going into specific plans (in part because the plans are not even there yet), the new SCOUTER Catalog is still "finding its way", and completely automated in its merchandising of any product relating to Scouting.

TERRY HOWERTON

Allow me to apologize for inappropriate comments earlier. I rushed through a posting and did not give the matter the attention and care that it deserved.

I regret wording my remarks in such a way that they could be easily construed to be personal or demeaning to an individual. More appropriately, I meant to establish two clear points:

1) it's important to not be sloppy in making contributions to this discussion (case in point!), especially when it's so easy to set a better example;

2) there was information that suggests "Juris" was creating deliberate noise.

"Juris" failed to respond when confronted with this information personally.

I will stress a final time, this has NOTHING to do with any opinions that were expressed, I am a BIG FAN of the diverse views expressed on this forum.

TERRY HOWERTON

That was a tech glitch... whoops! (In fact, I thought we had fixed that some time ago!).

The Moderator Area is ONLY for offline conversations and helping to make collective decisions. The messages there are not really "secret" as much as they are just administrative.

I want to stress again... there is NO status involved with being a member of the moderator team, and no special "clique" is intended in any way. If I thought that was becoming the case, we'd change the way we handle moderation on the forums. On the whole, we assembled a pretty balanced group of moderators, and they are here to perform a cheerful service to help keep the forums valuable to as many people as possible. The forum moderators were selected as representatives of the entire forum community, and they work on your behalf.

As a rule, I prefer to see as little "moderating" as possible, and prefer not to see very many times when a post has to be edited or removed by a moderator. And even more so, I prefer to never see it come to removing an actual forum member.

Nothing secret, nothing elite, and very little "star power"... just extra work on the part of a few of our forum members who have volunteered to help out around here. We're all very open to critique and suggestion from the forum members.

TERRY HOWERTON

The quality of the forums is important, especially for the thousands of users who visit only to read each day. Quality can easily be subjective, and it's NOT our policy to try and squelch out anyone with a perspective or thought. But when a poster is nearly unintelligible, it quickly rises to the level of just "forum noise".

It's not difficult to pause a moment before hitting submit, to consider a thought, or run a quick spell check. And doing so can have a very positive impact on how people view both you and these forums.

There's been very, very few times that anyone has ever been asked to leave these forums. Whenever it's done it's for the benefit of the forums, and I have to use my best judgment based on the advise and feedback I receive from the forum members. It's also never done without first discussing the concerns with the person posting.

If you feel my judgment is in error, I'm happy to hear from you directly to discuss your concerns.

TERRY HOWERTON

I wanted to publicly share a few observations about our expanded moderator team and the role of moderators in this forum. All of this information has been privately given to the moderators themselves.

In the past week, we've expanded the moderator team from two (OldGreyEagle and HopsScout) to seven. The people selected to join the moderator team were chosen for a variety of reasons (and many, many others were also considered to be excellent candidates, and from time to time we expect this moderator team to change and others asked to serve). OGE (let's call him "Moderator Emeritus" for now) has asked to step away from the role for a bit. HopsScout, the one Scout on our team, will continue to do a great job for us, and hopefully injects some much needed "Scout perspective" into our team.

The other new members of the team: Eamonn, Acco, Fscouter, JohnDaigler, Uncle Guinea all have shown a commitment to advancing the discussion in this forum, and a willingness to act fairly and moderate in the way they interact in the discussion. You will also notice that this new team represents a fairly broad spectrum of opinions and perspectives, and is intended to be very balanced. They all have shown they have Scouting's best interests at heart.

This team will work within their group to help guide each other and make some collective decisions when appropriate.

The role of the moderator in this forum is not very heavy handed. In fact, the moderator role should rarely - if ever - be noticed.

They can edit, move and delete posts within the forum to help keep things organized and ensure quality content. On rare occasion, the Moderator might need to step in and edit or remove a post that violates the Rules of Decorum for the Forum. It is a shame when a Moderator has to do this, and it doesn't happen very often. Sometimes a Moderator may close a thread, which is not done to force the end of any discussion. It's meant simply to bring a pause to a discussion which may have gone off course, and any topic that is closed may easiily be restarted in a new thread if the forum member desires. The Moderator is not here to censor opinions, just to keep the discussions honest and filter out the non-sense, if necessary.

I've said this before: A big part of the moderator's role is simply to "guide" the discussion forward. Moderators are at the wheel of our little boat, rolling gently down the river. We're all in the same boat, heading in the same direction together. Moderator's just try to keep us between the shores, and occasionally speed or slow the boat when things might get out of hand. (And once in a while our moderators might chase off the occasional loon that tries perching on our deck.)

The moderators are not restricted from contributing their own opinions - heck, we hope they will. And when they do so, everyone (including them) should feel as if they are speaking simply as another member of the forum, expressing their own points of view. No "status" comes from being a moderator, only cheerful service to help improve the experience for those posting in this forum and the more than 100,000 others that read here each month.

TERRY HOWERTON

Whoops. :-) Thta's a "bug" to fix, huh?

Oh well, as I said, not a state secret (though I assumed the state was a bit less careless than that!). The main goal to to let everyone know that moderators will come and go, they walk among us, and there's no sepcial "club" associated with being one (other than they have shown their cheerful service). Let's keep it happy. -- TERRY HOWERTON

Just a brief announcement. We have expanded the moderator team by adding several people. We've asked these folks to provide some cheerful service for at least the next six months, and expect that from time to time we may rotate duties and allow the moderators to just be "normal participants".

We've discussed it a bit among the team, and decided that for now the specific people that are assigned moderator duty won't be "announced". It's not really a secret, and I'm torn between keeping this low-key and giving these folks the kudos they deserve for volunteering. The folks that have accepted my request will not likely surprise anyone on this board, and their "identities" are not going to be held as closely guarded secrets.

However, in the end we know we want to avoid (1) creating any appearance of a "clique" or special group among us and (2) putting undue pressure on any person serving as a moderator that might prevent them from also participating as a "normal participant".

So, let me just announce that we've had several among us who have quickly stepped forward to volunteer, and they will be working together as a team. From time to time others will be asked to volunteer, and some that are serving now may take a bit of a break.

Thanks...

GOOD SCOUTING TO YOU!

TERRY HOWERTON

BobWhite - my advice to you is to tread softly, consider your approach and how it's received, listen to honest observations when given in earnest and be very careful to not point fingers right now.

TERRY HOWERTON

I can not begin to thank OGE enough for his wonderful service to this community. His "moderation" has reflected every meaning of that word.

I share his frustration with those few posters who simply can not "get" how to contribute positively to this discussion.

Regardless, we thank him for his service, and look forward to his continued participation. Later in the week, we'll introduce new moderators that will be joining the team (which will be expanded).

Thank you OGE... you are a GOOD SCOUT!

TERRY HOWERTON

It's an interesting idea, for sure. We've certainly thought about how to have a forum JUST for Scouts before, but I don't believe the right answer has come to us just yet.

Of course, Scouts are encouraged to post within the forums, and many do... 50% of the forum moderator volunteers are Scouts! ;-)

But I agree that a specific area limited JUST to Scouts posts might make for a more free spirited discussion among the Scouts (without frustration or intimidation from adults that might jump into the middle of things).

How might this work best? Ideas?

Should this section only allow "Scouts" to post and read? (i.e. should we do our best to create a private community where the adults neither post nor read?). That would be a real challenge technically, and would still rely on the trustworthiness of people registering here more than anything else.

Maybe a "password protected" set of forums for youth only, where the password has to be requested by emailing in and "promising on your honor" that you're a Scout?

Of course, we would still allow a few adults to monitor the discussions, since we would want to make sure we were not creating a "danger zone" for Scouts, and we probably would still want to limit participation to those Scouts 13 to 18 years old.

Other thoughts? Do we have some youth reading now that might be interested in stepping up to "moderate" a youth section?

TERRY HOWERTON

test3

TERRY HOWERTON

Test again

TERRY HOWERTON

Test

TERRY HOWERTON

Overbearing? Really? With less than 1% of the threads on this board ever closed, and just a handful of friendly edits to specific posts that cross the line, you find that overbearing?

Edited from my previous posts addressing moderators and thread closures:First, I want to take a moment and thank HopsScout (a fine, young Scout) and OldGreyEagle (a Scouter I would have loved to have in my troop when I was a youth) once again for their tremendous service to this forum... they both stepped up to fill a much needed role, and have done so consistently with the kind of balanced cheerful service that we all expected. Their personalties could not be more suited for the job.

Both of these folks have consistently demonstrated "moderation" in the way they have presented themselves on the board, and have been model Scouts/Scouters in their posts, as far as I'm concerned. Are any of us perfect? Heck no! But could you imagine doing a better job?

They can edit, move and delete posts within the forum to help keep things organized and ensure quality content. On rare occasion, the Moderator might need to step in and edit or remove a post that violates the Rules of Decorum for the Forum. It is a shame when a Moderator has to do this, and it doesn't happen very often. The Moderator is not here to censor opinions, just to keep the discussions honest and filter out the non-sense, if necessary.

Remember, when you post here you are not just participating in a discussion, but creating a searchable archive of ideas and resources that will be used for years to come. Nearly a hundred thousand people a month use this web site, and the "living archive" of content you're helping create will be here long after many members leave. How beneficial will your mark be to those who follow?

I think some are overreacting about "thread closures". A big part of the moderator's role is simply to "guide" the discussion forward. Closing a thread doesn't mean a topic is being squelched or anyone's speech is being restricted. It's just a friendly correction, leaving open the chance for everyone to continue the discussion in other threads and in other ways, but first giving a small pause to decide whether the discussion is appropriate in the first place.

Moderators are at the wheel of our little boat, rolling gently down the river. We're all in the same boat, heading in the same direction together. Moderator's just try to keep us between the shores, and occasionally speed or slow the boat when things might get out of hand. (And once in a while our moderators might chase off the occasional loon that tries perching on our deck.) How beneficial will your mark be to those who follow? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Would you like to help build the SCOUTER.com NetCompass database of resources? Help us to help Scouting, and even get paid for your time!

Signup for more information.

TERRY HOWERTON

Stay tuned... those are features under development (but with no specific time table for completion).

TERRY HOWERTON

As FScouter suggests, you could create a personal home page here on the site (http://www.SCOUTER.com/hosting) and upload them there.

TERRY HOWERTON

First, I want to take a moment and thank HopsScout and OldGreyEagle once again for their tremendous service to this forum... they both stepped up to fill a much needed role, and have done so consistently with the kind of balanced cheerful service that we all expected. Their personalites could not be more suited for the job.

I think some are overreacting about "thread closures". A big part of the moderator's role is simply to "guide" the discussion forward. Closing a thread doesn't mean a topic is being squelched or anyone's speech is being restricted. It's just a friendly correction, leaving open the chance for everyone to continue the discussion in other threads and in other ways, but first giving a small pause to decide whether the discussion is appropriate in the first place.

Moderators are at the wheel of our little boat, rolling gently down the river. We're all in the same boat, heading in the same direction together. Moderator's just try to keep us between the shores, and occasionally speed or slow the boat when things might get out of hand. (And once in a while our moderators might chase off the occasional loon that tries perching on our deck.)

TERRY HOWERTON

OK, that's about all the rope needed for someone to hang themselves.

Mark Yaworksi was in fact banned from this forum over a year ago. He later returned, and is FOG today.

Yaworski returned with a personal vendetta against some of the forum members, and registered using another member's real name. When I confronted him on this, he insisted that by coincidence it was his own real name, but refused to offer any proof, instead choosing to taunt me. The opportunity (and this point the burden) to prove he is not Mark Yaworski remains, and he may fax me a copy of his driver's license. Of course, he won't be doing this.

When Yaworski started posting as Zorn, he was not smart enough to realize we record the IP address and certain other unique identifiers during every post (things like the browser versions, operating systems and system configuration of the user's computer, etc). So both were banned, explicitly because they violated the rules, and implicitly because of general boorish behavior, with only sporadic contributions that could be deemed worthwhile.

So when Yaworski came back, he wasted my time (and that of the forum) playing these games about his identity, and ultimately changed his user name to Fat Old Guy. Over the course of the last year, FOG has participated in the forums, occasionally adding something meaningful and on some occasion injecting harmless levity. But mostly his posts have been rude, pointless (unless the point was to incite) and insulting. He was given many chances to modify his behavior, including my admonishment 14 months ago when he first came back:

July 9, 2003 - FOG:

Your behavior on the forums is becoming unacceptable. That's unfortunate, because it appears some of your posts contain worthwhile content. However, it's inappropriate to call people names and hurl insults, seemingly for no reason other than animosity. You may disagree with someone and even challenge them on their statements, but it seems since the moment you joined this board you have had a specific grudge against Bob White.

You have even insulted me in the forums ("Internet weenie with no accountability?"), and I frankly don't have the time to waste in such childish banter.

I am beginning to question whether you are who you have represented yourself to be. It seems much more likely that you joined this forum with a specific agenda. It also seems, by the tone and language of your posts, that I have dealt with you before. If that's true, then I am boggled that you think so little of the value of your own time, let alone mine and others.

If in fact this is not an accurate portrayal of you, I recommend you harness your grudge and limit your posts to material that meaningfully contributes. Otherwise, you may be asked to leave the forums.

TERRY HOWERTON

SCOUTER.com Publisher

So with more tolerance than he ever deserved, Yaworksi returned to the Forums, and continued (though with a slightly less offensive tone) his banter. Subsequent to the message above, I warned him again, and confronted him directly with the knowledge that he was in fact the same person previously banned.

I suppose I should have stopped his participation long ago, but frankly I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, thinking that no seemingly intelligent person could possibly think so little of the value of his own time as to continue to play these sorts of games.

But now that he has decided to return to posting under Yaworski, and for no reason than to continue being the obnoxious playground bully, I'm done wasting time.

This time around, Mr. Yaworski has been smart enough to go down to the Enoch-Pratt Library in Baltimore and use a public computer each time he posts, and then go back to his regular computer (located nearby) to post under FOG, so there would be "no proof". The fact is, we really don't need any further "proof" to expose this charade, and I think nearly everyone has grown weary.

So, Mr. Yaworski, FOG, you are once again (now for at least the third time, officially) asked to leave these Forums. Go find another place to waste your seemingly worthless energies. Please show everyone just a little respect and disappear quietly, instead of wasting more of our time blocking you out of the system.

SCOUTER-TERRY

Publisher, SCOUTER.com

P.S.: Your logins have not been deactivated nor has your IP ranges been blocked yet, as you may wish to apologize to the Forum on your way quietly out the door. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Jason, your post was removed, and this one closed, because you have been banned from participation in these forums for several weeks, and your continued disregard for the rules is an insult to everyone else participating here. Additionally, the link in the post that you made was inappropriate. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

TERRY HOWERTON

I hope they almost exclusively stay participants, and their opinions are ALWAYS welcome. Both of these folks have consistently demonstrated "moderation" in the way they have presented themselves on the board, and have been model Scouts/Scouters in their posts, as far as I'm concerned.Here's a little secret that I forgot to mention to them privately: no one will know which moderator has edited a post. If a post has to be edited, it will just say "Edited by a Staff Member"... if anyone gets upset or disagrees with the actions of a "Staff Member", you should always assume that it was me, SCOUTER-Terry, that took the action that upsets you so, and point your angst this direction. I'll still be editing posts and moderating, I just have a little more help now, from a couple of good guys! (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

TERRY HOWERTON

While Hops_Scout will do a fine job representing the interests of the youth who read and post here, I can't think of an adult on this board who has more consistently demonstrated how a good, fun Scout leader should act than OldGreyEagle.

I am very happy to announce that he has agreed to serve as a Moderator in this forum. He'll be able to edit, move and delete posts within the forum to help keep things organized and ensure quality content. Remember, when you post here you are not just participating in a discussion, but creating a searchable archive of ideas and resources that will be used for years to come. Nearly a hundred thousand people a month use this web site, and the "living archive" of content you're helping create will be here long after many members leave. How beneficial will your mark be to those who follow?

OldGreyEagle , it's an honor to work with you on this site, and thank you for your willingness to serve.

TERRY HOWERTON

I am pleased to announce that the SCOUTER.com Forums has added a new Moderator to help organize the discussions here. Hops_Scout, whom many of you have come to know as a helpful and thoughtful young man through his contributions to the Forum, has agreed to lend us a helping hand.

Hops_Scout, as a youth member in our midst, has often done a nice job of setting an example for everyone. I'm sure he makes a fine SPL in real life, and I am pleased to have him serve in a similar capacity within this Forum.

He has the authority to move, delete or edit posts as necessary. Hops_Scout and I have spoken a bit, and I have given him my thoughts on what role a Moderator should play. As a general rule, you'll find the Moderators rarely need to step in. More often than not, the Moderator's biggest role is just in keeping posts organized within the category.

But on rare occasion, the Moderator might need to step in and edit or remove a post that violates the Rules of Decorum for the Forum. It is a shame when a Moderator has to do this, and it doesn't happen very often. The Moderator is not here to censor opinions, just to keep the discussions honest and filter out the non-sense, if necessary.

Please welcome Hops_Scout as a "SPL for the Forums".

SCOUTER-TerrTERRY HOWERTON

SCOUTER.com Publisher