# [Removed by OP]



## GregT (Jan 31, 2012)

Thread has been stopped

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

A gentle note - Greg voluntarily edited his own thread. 
DeniseM


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 31, 2012)

Good idea in theory, Greg; we all appreciate the effort you're putting into trying to clean up the Marriott boards.  But truthfully, I think this place has been run amok with little to no oversight from moderators for too long, and the only way it's going to get back on track is if we pester the moderators to intervene when it's obviously necessary.  It's ridiculous that it's come to this.


----------



## GregT (Jan 31, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Good idea in theory, Greg; we all appreciate the effort you're putting into trying to clean up the Marriott boards.  But truthfully, I think this place has been run amok with little to no oversight from moderators for too long, and the only way it's going to get back on track is if we pester the moderators to intervene when it's obviously necessary.  It's ridiculous that it's come to this.



Okay - I sent PM to TUGBrian and cc:'d Timeos.  Maybe we'll see less negativity.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 31, 2012)

Oh gosh, I didn't mean that you should feel like your thread had to be stopped!  I hope you don't feel like I was telling you what to do.


----------



## GregT (Jan 31, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Oh gosh, I didn't mean that you should feel like your thread had to be stopped!  I hope you don't feel like I was telling you what to do.



Sending you a PM -- no problem at all!


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 31, 2012)

Here is the thing:  Threads get warnings or closed, because they violate the TUG posting rules.  Negativity does not violate the TUG posting rules.  You may find it irritating, and annoying, but unless it violates the rules, it will probably stand.


----------



## GregT (Jan 31, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Here is the thing:  Threads get warnings or closed, because they violate the TUG posting rules.  Negativity does not violate the TUG posting rules.  You may find it irritating, and annoying, but unless it violates the rules, it will probably stand.



So why did DanCali lose his posting privileges in Fall of 2010 for negativity?


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 31, 2012)

GregT said:


> So why did DanCali lose his posting privileges in Fall of 2010 for negativity?



Since I didn't do it, I have no idea.


----------



## DeniseM (Jan 31, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Since I didn't do it, I have no idea.



*I just looked - he was not suspended for being negative - he violated specific posting rules, and was suspended after multiple warning.


----------



## GregT (Jan 31, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> *I just looked - he was not suspended for being negative - he violated specific posting rules, and was suspended after multiple warning.



Well, Denise, I will defer to you -- but he was under the impression (from his PM to me) that it was negativity.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 31, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> *I just looked - he was not suspended for being negative - he violated specific posting rules, and was suspended after multiple warning.



If I remember correctly, after "skimming" had been brought into practically every single Marriott thread in the months after the introduction of Marriott's new Destination Club, Dave made a rule that "skimming" was to be discussed in only one specific thread.  I think Dan violated that rule.

So, Denise, can we Marriott people ask you as a moderator to limit Timeos' posts that further his anti-Marriott agenda, to only specific threads?  You can take a look here at just the latest in a long line of recent threads which he has taken off-topic with his agenda.  It's getting beyond annoying, and it's worth noting that his Marriott knowledge is not always factual.


----------



## GregT (Jan 31, 2012)

Denise,

And my issue is Post #6, Post #23 and Post #27 are contributions inappropriate for a Moderator.  

This thread never got back on track and ultimately was closed for other reasons.   


http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162956


----------



## funtime (Jan 31, 2012)

It may not be against the current  rules but I am getting awfully tired of negativity - it has turned so often into one upmanship, name calling - either direct or indirect - and (forgive me) I fear  too much testosterone on the Board.  What is not seen are the many, many posters who do not post because they will fear being ridiculed or criticized or worse - "naive" for holding more positive views.   We do not get to share their positive experiences - on a thread designed to elicit positive experiences.  These are the viewpoints that we are regularly missing when threads turn negative. 

 At the least, there should be greater monitoring of "highjacking" of a thread and would this not be great?  only three postings per thread allowed each poster.  Then they might not turn into diatribes.  Before that happened on the last Marriott thread some of us were learning how to enjoy our Marriotts and how others enjoyed them.  So put me down as sick and tired of the negative know it alls that feel impelled to share their views and to do so ad infinitum.  Janete aka Funtime


----------



## scrapngen (Jan 31, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> *I just looked - he was not suspended for being negative - he violated specific posting rules, and was suspended after multiple warning.



Denise, I have sent you email (for some reason PMing you was not working - tried multiple times)


----------



## heathpack (Jan 31, 2012)

funtime said:


> It may not be against the current  rules but I am getting awfully tired of negativity - it has turned so often into one upmanship, name calling - either direct or indirect - and (forgive me) I fear  too much testosterone on the Board.  What is not seen are the many, many posters who do not post because they will fear being ridiculed or criticized or worse - "naive" for holding more positive views.   We do not get to share their positive experiences - on a thread designed to elicit positive experiences.  These are the viewpoints that we are regularly missing when threads turn negative.
> 
> At the least, there should be greater monitoring of "highjacking" of a thread and would this not be great?  only three postings per thread allowed each poster.  Then they might not turn into diatribes.  Before that happened on the last Marriott thread some of us were learning how to enjoy our Marriotts and how others enjoyed them.  So put me down as sick and tired of the negative know it alls that feel impelled to share their views and to do so ad infinitum.  Janete aka Funtime



I totally agree with this.  I think there has been a lot of sharpness on TUG, the type of thing that makes me reconsider spending time here.  My suggestion is to refuse to debate certain people.  If you know someone is a pot stirrer, then simply refuse to converse with that person.

I also was under the impression that personal attacks were against TUG posting rules.  When one poster addresses another by name and then saying they have "swallowed Koolaid" or some such comment- well that seems pretty much like a personal attack to me.  "You are delusional, no better than a cult member."  How is that not personal?  Who would actually say that to someone they "know" unless trying to insult?

This kind of thing is the kiss of death for a BBS about TSs IMO.  Folks are older, more mature and are not interested in the typical BBS snarkiness.  I sincerely hope this kind of rude behavior gets stamped out soon.

H


----------



## m61376 (Jan 31, 2012)

Funtime- while I agree with the general commentary posted by you and others, in that the board is certainly more enjoyable- and helpful- when people extend common courtesy to each other, I think we'd all lose out if we limited the number of posts per thread. I think it would encourage more offline (PM type) conversations, and I know I have learned a lot over the years from others' questions and commentary.

We should all try to "talk" with each other- and not lecture to one another- the same way we would like to be spoken to. Even the most knowledgeable amongst us has some thing to learn, and frequently even the newbies have something profound to offer.

Personally, I joined initially for a crash course in timesharing, and it became a diversion when I was grieving over a few personal tragedies. Now I am a frequent participant because I can contribute and I can learn, and I really enjoy the board. I would hope that the majority of active courteous participants will not let negativity by a minority drive them away. I think most of us, although we oftentimes disagree (just like in real interpersonal relationships) respect each other and many of us could likely be friends if not scattered throughout the country. Let's not let a few people spoil it.


----------



## presley (Jan 31, 2012)

Greg, your thread hasn't stopped.   

We all TS differently and I think that is good news.  Imagine if we all did it same - we'd be tripping over each other on every vacation.  

I couldn't care less who likes to play the exchange game and who likes to own where they want to stay.  I have enjoyed reading the owners perspectives.  I haven't stayed in a Marriott yet, but will in August - Palm Desert.  I have a feeling that my husband will love it, so I am trying to get as much info as I can by reading these threads, because we love the desert and let's face it, if my hubby loves the Marriott, we will want to stay there on a regular basis.

I hope the owners will continue to post, so that I can continue to learn all the options.


----------



## pipet (Jan 31, 2012)

*a lot of traffic for a dead thread!*

What I've seen on the boards lately is certainly NO WORSE than DanCali complaining about skim every post, except that someone made a rule not to complain about skim anymore. 

If DanCali can't complain about skim, why should these other complaints be allowed that essentially change the subject of the threads?  Because that was all DanCali did. DanCali should have been allowed to complain about skim on Every Single Post if others are allowed to complain about the evil "M" on every post even when it's not relevant.

Fair is fair here...

I do appreciate reading **some** of the negative views because I want to know the different perspectives, but it can go overboard.  I still hate the skim but I realize it's not relevant on most posts.  In discussions about the value of DC, it is still relevant.  If the recently hijacked threads were about things like: how do you value Marriott vs others, exchanging into Marriott, etc, they would also be relevant.  In many cases (esp other threads I've read in the past), the negative comments about Marriott do fit the subject, but there are clear cases where it didn't belong.  In the thread about focusing *specifically* on the positive, it didn't belong.  It isn't also very relevant to the bad behavior of people hogging chairs & cushions at a particular resort.

I would hate to see some major rule overly limiting what is posted here.  I hope the moderators can take a step back if needed & be examples.  I hope they can encourage others, if they are getting too personal about a subject, to take a chill pill.  

As others have made the car comparison, I have a very low opinion of Mercedes/BMW, but at the same time, I am not going to "hate" on every Mercedes owner just because I *personally* feel they are a waste.  I can tell the Mercedes owner that I don't like them because I read on Consumer Reports the reliability record is only average.  They may know that & like Mercedes anyway because there are other things they value that probably are not important to me.  Beating them over the head for liking what I consider a poor value won't change their mind.  It's one thing to make an informative comment or two on reliability, and it's another thing to nag ad nauseum!  

TUG is great for learning the ropes about TS in general and whatever system you own/use.  There are so many ways to see value (or lack or) in your timeshare, but sometimes it seems there is not enough of agreeing to disagree.


----------



## winger (Jan 31, 2012)

Is it just my perception only, OR has TUG really become very contentious since the new year started ???


----------



## Dave M (Jan 31, 2012)

*DanCali* was not suspended for negativity or for posting about skim. He was suspended for violation (on multiple occasions with warnings that went unheeded) of two specific rules as written in the "Posting Rules" (see the link on the above blue bar) applicable to everyone. If he wishes to tell people otherwise, that's his choice. But we have retained the evidence and it is unmistakable.  

On a related topic discussed here, negativity is not a violation of the posting rules. Everyone, whether a moderator or not, is permitted to express their opinions on topics posted on these forums. If moderators were not allowed to express their opinions, we would have a tough time getting people to volunteer. I for one would not volunteer, because I want to be able to express my opinions whether they are popular or not. *DanCali, timeos2* and the rest of us, whether moderators are not, are not precluded from being negative. However, that negativity must be within the bounds of the "Be Courteous" Posting Rule when the negativity is directed at others.


----------



## Dave M (Jan 31, 2012)

Adding to the above, perhaps it's time to be a little more strict on this forum with respect to the "Be Courteous" rule. Take notice that name-calling and implied name-calling (e.g., "You are ridiculous" compared to "I strongly disagree with your view.) is not permitted. I'll hope that those who choose to make negative posts (remember that negativity is often seen differently by those with opposing views) keep in mind that being courteous is a written rule for all TUG forums, including this Marriott forum.

If you see a post that you believe violates the posting rules, please click on the triangle underneath the poster's name to report it and a moderator will review the post.

Please don't bother going back to past posts to look for violations. Let's move forward.


----------



## GregT (Jan 31, 2012)

Dave,

Welcome back and thank you for the comments and clarification.   I think we would all welcome a return to civil discussion that is relevant to the thread topic.

I note that your information no longer says Moderator?  I hope that's not the case?  Even so, with your busy plans, is it useful to have an Assistant Moderator to help with the Marriott board?

All the best,

Greg


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 31, 2012)

Welcome Home Dave M.


----------



## chriskre (Jan 31, 2012)

winger said:


> Is it just my perception only, OR has TUG really become very contentious since the new year started ???



Maybe it's all those MF bills that have everyone in a mix.  :hysterical: 
Sorry but we need a little levity around here.  :ignore:


----------



## winger (Jan 31, 2012)

chriskre said:


> Maybe it's all those MF bills that have everyone in a mix.  :hysterical:
> ...:



LOL I paid ALL my MF's the day before Thanksgiving after lunch while enjoying my wonderful Newport Beach stay so I am in a decent mood this month !


----------



## winger (Jan 31, 2012)

pedro47 said:


> Welcome Home Dave M.


+1 ++1 +++1


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 31, 2012)

GregT said:


> I note that your information no longer says Moderator?  I hope that's not the case?  Even so, with your busy plans, is it useful to have an Assistant Moderator to help with the Marriott board?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Greg



The list of moderators at the bottom of the forum page still lists DaveM as the moderator of the Marriott forum.


----------



## scrapngen (Jan 31, 2012)

Dave M said:


> *DanCali* was not suspended for negativity or for posting about skim. He was suspended for violation (on multiple occasions with warnings that went unheeded) of two specific rules as written in the "Posting Rules" (see the link on the above blue bar) applicable to everyone. If he wishes to tell people otherwise, that's his choice. But we have retained the evidence and it is unmistakable.
> 
> On a related topic discussed here, negativity is not a violation of the posting rules. Everyone, whether a moderator or not, is permitted to express their opinions on topics posted on these forums. If moderators were not allowed to express their opinions, we would have a tough time getting people to volunteer. I for one would not volunteer, because I want to be able to express my opinions whether they are popular or not. *DanCali, timeos2* and the rest of us, whether moderators are not, are not precluded from being negative. However, that negativity must be within the bounds of the "Be Courteous" Posting Rule when the negativity is directed at others.



I'm sorry if this is what brought you back to the boards, so to speak, but am glad to see you back! Happy New Year, Dave, and nice to see you!


----------



## m61376 (Jan 31, 2012)

Dave-
In view of the mishaps in the latter part of last year, I hope you have a HEALTHY and happy New Year! Are you fully recuperated?


----------



## ampaholic (Jan 31, 2012)

Before this thread gets hijacked into a welcome back Dave thread I would like to point out two small things about that other thread seen from an outside view.

1. Trying to start a boycott of John's posts without also boycotting Bruce's is silly - while John may have had on a "I love Klingon's" button - Bruce was the one firing the death ray into the crowd.

2. To *start* a thread "why I love ...." and then *not* be amenable to varied and sometimes differing viewpoints being expressed is IMHO shortsighted and even "Pollyanna-esqe".



Oh, welcome back Dave


----------



## Dave M (Jan 31, 2012)

GregT said:


> Dave,
> 
> I note that your information no longer says Moderator?
> 
> Greg



Sorry about that. 

I had removed the Moderator designation from my profile to reduce the amount of automatic e-mail - many messages each day - which would have been automatically sent to me when someone on any TUG forum reported a post not in compliance with the rules while I was gone for most of the past month. I was on an Antarctic cruise and had almost no access to e-mail. I forgot to change the designation back when I got home this past weekend.


----------



## KathyPet (Jan 31, 2012)

This sort of Marriott bashing reminds me of the same sort of posting that calls into question the intelligence level of the owners who purchased directly from Marriott from posters who purchased resale.  Same sort of insulting comments.


----------



## GregT (Jan 31, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> Before this thread gets hijacked into a welcome back Dave thread I would like to point out two small things about that other thread seen from an outside view.
> 
> 1. Trying to start a boycott of John's posts without also boycotting Bruce's is silly - while John may have had on a "I love Klingon's" button - Bruce was the one firing the death ray into the crowd.
> 
> ...





Strange days........looking forward to HHV.


----------



## GregT (Jan 31, 2012)

Dave M said:


> Sorry about that.
> 
> I had removed the Moderator designation from my profile to reduce the amount of automatic e-mail - many messages each day - which would have been automatically sent to me when someone on any TUG forum reported a post not in compliance with the rules while I was gone for most of the past month. I was on an Antarctic cruise and had almost no access to e-mail. I forgot to change the designation back when I got home this past weekend.



Dave,

Welcome back -- we are very happy to have you back home!  

Best,

Greg


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Feb 1, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> Before this thread gets hijacked into a welcome back Dave thread I would like to point out two small things about that other thread seen from an outside view.
> 
> 1. Trying to start a boycott of John's posts without also boycotting Bruce's is silly - while John may have had on a "I love Klingon's" button - Bruce was the one firing the death ray into the crowd.
> 
> ...


You seem to be playing both side. You acknowledge the anti-Marriott sentiment and then you just classify them as "varied and sometimes differing". They were clearly more than that.

Personally I didn't have a problem with John as I never felt he was mean-spirited at all. He just had opinions that were inaccurate. 

I will say I never understand how the Marriott moderator is a non-Marriott owner.


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

GregT said:


> You make it sound like a reasonable and constructive dialogue -- perhaps we were reading different threads.
> 
> Strange days........looking forward to HHV.



For the most part I thought John was within the rules (Bruce less so), but perhaps I just didn't have a dog in the fight .... as you did, that's all. 

I'll stand by my thought that starting a thread is *asking* for opinions.

Just my $.02


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

MOXJO7282 said:


> You seem to be playing both side. You acknowledge the anti-Marriott sentiment and then you just classify them as "varied and sometimes differing". They were clearly more than that.
> 
> Personally I didn't have a problem with John as I never felt he was mean-spirited at all. He just had opinions that were inaccurate.



Ahhhh ... ditto what I replied to GregT



MOXJO7282 said:


> I will say I never understand how the Marriott moderator is a non-Marriott owner.



Yea, I agree that is odd.


----------



## NWL (Feb 1, 2012)

heathpack said:


> I totally agree with this.  I think there has been a lot of sharpness on TUG, the type of thing that makes me reconsider spending time here.  My suggestion is to refuse to debate certain people.  If you know someone is a pot stirrer, then simply refuse to converse with that person.
> 
> I also was under the impression that personal attacks were against TUG posting rules.  When one poster addresses another by name and then saying they have "swallowed Koolaid" or some such comment- well that seems pretty much like a personal attack to me.  "You are delusional, no better than a cult member."  How is that not personal?  Who would actually say that to someone they "know" unless trying to insult?
> 
> ...



Plus one.  TUG is the only BBS I frequent.  I obtain valuable information that helps me utilize my timeshare weeks to the max.  Debate is good and I read and value the oposing views, but I do skip over the posts that, IMO, seem intended to incite a "riot".


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

MOXJO7282 said:


> ... I will say I never understand how the Marriott moderator is a non-Marriott owner.





ampaholic said:


> ... Yea, I agree that is odd.



  I'm confused.  Dave is the Marriott board moderator, and I thought he owns at least a Grande Ocean week?


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 1, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm confused.  Dave is the Marriott board moderator, and I thought he owns at least a Grande Ocean week?



I think when people see John posting in the Marriott forum and see the Moderator moniker under his name, they presume he is the moderator of the forum. Each forum has a "formal" moderator listed, but that doesn't mean others can't come in and moderate should the one listed be unavailable.


----------



## NboroGirl (Feb 1, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> 1. Trying to start a boycott of John's posts without also boycotting Bruce's is silly - while John may have had on a "I love Klingon's" button - Bruce was the one firing the death ray into the crowd.



Loved the analogy!  Thanks for the chuckle! :rofl:


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Feb 1, 2012)

Dave M said:


> ... (remember that negativity is often seen differently by those with opposing views)...



This may be the case here, but I believe that the posts that GregT calls out from Timeos2 should not be considered negative.  They should be considered an intentional slap in the face to all Marriott owners, especially those of us that purchased direct.

I started coming to this forum to get advice, learn how to best "own" my timeshares and share a common interest with others.  I did not come to this forum to be told, by a moderator no less, that I made a horrible decision to purchase Marriott.  If I hadn't purchased Marriott, I wouldn't be on this forum, paying the dues to be a member of this forum.

Have a great day everyone!!


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> This may be the case here, but I believe that the posts that GregT calls out from Timeos2 should not be considered negative.  They should be considered an intentional slap in the face to all Marriott owners, especially those of us that purchased direct.



See - and here I would go and consider calling the fact of John's expressing his (opposing) view as a "slap in the face..." as "negative".

Different viewpoints = differing opinions.



LUVourMarriotts said:


> I started coming to this forum to get advice, learn how to best "own" my timeshares and share a common interest with others.  I did not come to this forum to be told, by a moderator no less, that I made a horrible decision to purchase Marriott.  If I hadn't purchased Marriott, I wouldn't be on this forum, paying the dues to be a member of this forum.
> 
> Have a great day everyone!!



I am glad you did and glad you are here. To paraphrase... I may not agree with your opinion but I will defend to the death your right to have it. 

Be cool today


----------



## KarenP (Feb 1, 2012)

I always viewed the Marriott board as a place to learn about Marriotts, whether as an owner, renter, trader, etc.  I believe the best people to answer questions about ownership are owners, the best people to answer questions about renting are people who rent and have rented, etc.   Any other opinions are interesting, but don't carry the weight of those who have actual experience.

I have been reading TUG for a very long time and it has saved me countless dollars, time, headaches, frustration, etc. and allowed me to take vacations I could never have otherwise dreamed of taking for prices that make most people "pea-green with envy" to quote Scarlett.  Even though I think some posters are pretty rude and obnoxious, I figure that's the price to pay for a mostly wonderful board.


----------



## GregT (Feb 1, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> For the most part I thought (the moderator) was within the rules (Bruce less so), but perhaps I just didn't have a dog in the fight .... as you did, that's all.
> 
> I'll stand by my thought that starting a thread is *asking* for opinions (or a threadjacking).
> 
> Just my $.02



I agree with your comments, subject to my paraphrase above.   Yes, a moderator, _for the most part_, was within the rules.  Who moderates the moderator?  And yes, opening a thread apparently asks for it to be high-jacked.  That still stinks.

I wasn't going to bother posting -- but your response to LuvYourMarriotts really blurs the line between expressing opinions (which sounds innocuous) and continued repeated highjacking (by a moderator) despite requests to desist the highjacking.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 1, 2012)

Hi-jacking a thread does not violate the TUG posting rules - and it happens every day on every forum.  You may not like it - but it's not a violation of the posting rules.  

This is how it is:  If you start a thread on any topic, others can post their opinions, and they may be 180 degrees different from yours.  You can't start a thread and state, "don't post here unless you agree with me."  Well, you can, but don't expect success. 

As far as "who moderates the moderators," - that would be Brian Rogers, and he has already posted.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

Denise, I really don't want to hash this out again in every thread today, but I'm hoping you can answer a question as a moderator.  The problem over the last few weeks has not been that one or two threads were taken off-topic; it's that practically every thread was hi-jacked with posts that contained incorrect information about Marriott timeshares, in order to further an anti-Marriott agenda.  It wasn't that one or two threads contained a negative vibe (although I do agree with others who say that vibe manages to permeate every thread when it gets started) - it was that practically every other new thread was turned into the same argument by the same people.

Make no mistake, I was as much a contributor to the melee as anyone else - but it's difficult for me to keep my mouth shut under the best of circumstances and that goes tenfold when misconceptions about Marriott are rampant all over the board.

My question is, with no rules on TUG against "negativity" and "hi-jacking" per se, is there a way for a moderator to discourage the type of pattern behavior that we all went through here?


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 1, 2012)

Moderators do not censure other moderators - we are all on the same level.  Brian Rogers is the boss, and he has already weighed in on this topic.

I can't speak for John, but I think you have expressed your feelings loud and clear, and I'm sure he has already gotten the message, and will take it under advisement.

However, I have to tell you that on the Starwood forum, I am a major critic of some of Starwood's policies, and there are devoted Starwood owners who get furious with me, because I critisize Starwood.  This is what I tell them:  If you can't stand someone's point of view, then the best thing to do is to put them on ignore.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 1, 2012)

*Grand Pro Identity Revealed.*




DeniseM said:


> As far as "who moderates the moderators," - that would be Brian Rogers, and he has already posted.


_Whoa !_

So _that's_ who the Grand Pro really is. 

Who'd a-thunk ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Moderators do not censure other moderators - we are all on the same level.  Brian Rogers is the boss, and he has already weighed in on this topic.
> 
> I can't speak for John, but I think you have expressed your feelings loud and clear, and I'm sure he has already gotten the message, and will take it under advisement.



Hmmmm.  That's why I didn't mention any names, I didn't want the question to be specific to any particular people.  So, if moderators are not involved in a similar situation ...?


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 1, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Hmmmm.  That's why I didn't mention any names, I didn't want the question to be specific to any particular people.  So, if moderators are not involved in a similar situation ...?



I'm sorry - I don't understand the question.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> I'm sorry - I don't understand the question.



Every so often on the Marriott board things run amok and the same "discussion" is taken to a number of threads; similar to what we've gone through recently but maybe without a moderator being involved.  If each individual post is reported through that little triangle thing, the big picture might be missed.  Each individual post might only be seen as a hi-jack or negativity, of which neither are against the rules.  But taken as a whole, the multiple posts show the entirety of the problem.

Is there a way for us to ask a moderator to intervene when a pattern of behavior like this happens?

{eta} No, the better question is, is there a rule that a moderator can invoke to stop such a pattern of behavior?


----------



## rrlongwell (Feb 1, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Every so often on the Marriott board things run amok and the same "discussion" is taken to a number of threads; similar to what we've gone through recently but maybe without a moderator being involved.  If each individual post is reported through that little triangle thing, the big picture might be missed.  Each individual post might only be seen as a hi-jack or negativity, of which neither are against the rules.  But taken as a whole, the multiple posts show the entirety of the problem.
> 
> Is there a way for us to ask a moderator to intervene when a pattern of behavior like this happens?
> 
> {eta} No, the better question is, is there a rule that a moderator can invoke to stop such a pattern of behavior?



I think that has been answered directly or indirectly by a number of the moderators.  But they could merge these threads, it would be a heck of a lot easyer to monitor them.  I think it would show that are a lot of boycot busters to.


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

Stop the world and let me off ....


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

Thinking about it, the question may already have been answered.  When "skimming" discussions invaded every thread, Dave simply made a new rule that it could only be discussed in the one thread he designated for it.  So I guess we just put together a PM with links to all the amok D ) and ask a mod for something similar?


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 1, 2012)

*Almost Afraid To Ask . . .*




SueDonJ said:


> When "skimming" discussions invaded every thread, Dave simply made a new rule that it could only be discussed in the one thread he designated for it.


What on earth is "skimming" ? 

And what does "skimming" have to do with timeshares ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

And .... Away we go ....


----------



## presley (Feb 1, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> If you can't stand someone's point of view, then the best thing to do is to put them on ignore.



Yes.  However, is it possible to put Moderators on the ignore list? 



I must ask those who are so bent about whoever is posting all the negative stuff  a question.  Is there a reason why you cannot ignore what someone posts?  If they can't be put on an ignore list, is it really that hard to not read the posts and for crying out loud, to not respond?  There are things I've read in the last couple days that make me think those who cannot control themselves are trying to control others.


----------



## hypnotiq (Feb 1, 2012)

Man, and I thought my racing forums had drama...  

:hysterical:


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

presley said:


> Yes.  However, is it possible to put Moderators on the ignore list?
> 
> 
> 
> I must ask those who are so bent about whoever is posting all the negative stuff  a question.  Is there a reason why you cannot ignore what someone posts?  If they can't be put on an ignore list, is it really that hard to not read the posts and for crying out loud, to not respond?  There are things I've read in the last couple days that make me think those who cannot control themselves are trying to control others.



I think you're right - posting here is a form of exerting control.

In my case, I don't like to let things go on the boards when they're wrong.  I don't mean "wrong" like "negative."  I hope, anyway, that I wouldn't get drawn in to a strictly opinion-based discussion and end up posting something foolish like, "oh NO, missy, you CAN'T say your DVC is better than my Marriott, nuh uh, no WAY!  That is WRONG!"  (Actually, I love DVC.  That's maybe not the best example.)

I mean wrong, like incorrect.  So if I see something in a discussion like, "You can book your Marriott Week at any resort with one phone call sixteen months before your stay and you're guaranteed the best oceanfront unit," well, then I jump in.  Or if someone asks a question and I think I know the answer, I jump in.  But the problem is like you say, when the same wrong is repeated all over the place, I get sucked into the vortex and there goes all rationality.

Hmmmm.  When I write it out it sounds so disturbing.  :rofl: 

I love TUG, that's another reason.  I have learned so much here and because of that, we're enjoying vacations like I never expected we would be able.  I want everyone who comes here to be able to learn, too.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

AwayWeGo said:


> What on earth is "skimming" ?
> 
> And what does "skimming" have to do with timeshares ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Believe me, you don't want to know.  Plus, that's one vortex that I'm never falling in again.


----------



## Beefnot (Feb 1, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> If you can't stand someone's point of view, then the best thing to do is to put them on ignore.



Good idea.  Which is why no one but you will probably ever see my post...


----------



## presley (Feb 1, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Good idea.  Which is why no one but you will probably ever see my post...



:hysterical: :hysterical:   

Good one!


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

Hey Beef, congrats on your 200 milestone.  "Upping Your Post Count" is a worthy endeavor.


----------



## presley (Feb 1, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I mean wrong, like incorrect.



Yes, that is indeed very frustrating.  I often don't bother posting a question because I will get 3 different answers and won't know which is right.

Would it be reasonable and possible to only post facts in the stickied part of the forum?  That obviously is a question for the board moderators.  It would certainly be nice to be able to look up info without reading pages and pages of conflicting answers, never knowing which is right.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 1, 2012)

How to put someone on ignore:

1)  Click on their *blue user name*
2)  From the drop down menu, choose *"view public profile"*
3)  In the blue bar you will see *"add username to your ignore list"* - Click on it
4)  Click* "save list"*


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 1, 2012)

Let me see if I have this right:

1)  You don't want people to post incorrect info. on TUG
2)  You don't want people to hijack threads
3)  You don't want people to Dis your timeshare
4)  You don't want people to repeat themselves

There goes 90% of the posts on TUG   

Ain't gonna happen folks - use the "ignore function."


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 1, 2012)

*Factuality On The Electric Internet.*



SueDonJ said:


> That is WRONG!






-- hotlinked --​
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## FlyerBobcat (Feb 1, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> How to put someone on ignore:
> 
> 1)  Click on their *blue user name*
> 2)  From the drop down menu, choose *"view public profile"*
> ...



Denise,

You do realize this does *not *work if the person one is trying to ignore is a moderator ?


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 1, 2012)

FlyerBobcat said:


> Denise,
> 
> You do realize this does not work if the person one is trying to ignore is a moderator ?



I honestly don't know - I've never tried to ignore a Mod.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 1, 2012)

*And With Good Reason.*




DeniseM said:


> I've never tried to ignore a Mod.


And for sure you best not ever try ignoring the Grand Pro.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## siesta (Feb 1, 2012)

*My 2 cents*

All the complainers on this thread appear to be nothing more than a bunch of snivelling whiners. If you dont like what someone is posting, THEN IGNORE THEM. There is an actual function to permanently do that. hopefully it works with moderators as well. This is a public forum, if someone wants to be optimistic, pessimistic, negative, positive, whatever ... Its their perogative. Either deal with it, or ignore them, or find a new forum.

I personally welcome timeos' rants(whether I agree with him or not), you regulars might find it repetitive and annoying. But I'm sure there are countless # of lurkers and newbies who find his alternative opinion helpful. Get over it, enjoy your timehare, even if he thinks your a fool for it. Cheers and no hard feelings.

Brian, if you cant ignore a mod, please implement that for an easy solution.

*To TimeOS: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."*


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

*There is also "just plain ignore"*

ignore [ɪgˈnɔː]
vb (tr)
to fail or refuse to notice; disregard
n
Austral informal disregard to treat someone with ignore
[from Latin ignōrāre not to know, from ignārus ignorant of, from i- in-1 + gnārus knowing; related to Latin noscere to know]
ignorable  adj
ignorer  n


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Let me see if I have this right:
> 
> 1)  You don't want people to post incorrect info. on TUG
> 2)  You don't want people to hijack threads
> ...



:hysterical:  No, no no!

Well, #1 is a yes.  But generally it's not a problem - there are a lot of folks here with a lot of knowledge, and the incorrect stuff gets corrected eventually.

#2 - We all take threads off-topic all the time, it's a natural progression of discussion and no different online than off.  That's different from what I don't like, which is when a whole bunch of threads get hi-jacked for an agenda that's in no way related to anything already in the threads.  So without a rule against that we're left to either join in or walk away.  Either works for me depending on the agenda, and I'm not about to tell anyone whether they should join in or not.  But if I'm in, I'm going to say when I think something is incorrect.

#3 - Folks dis my timeshares all the time.  Doesn't matter to me, I might not like theirs either.  There's nothing correct or incorrect about the feelings one timeshare might generate in one person and not another.  But if they dis my timeshare by saying something that's incorrect about it, I'll let them know.  I hope others would correct me the same way.

#4 - Oh geeeze, if we couldn't repeat ourselves I'd have about 75% fewer posts in the game!

I like "ignore," it's a pretty good feature.  But I disagree that it's the solution whenever you're irritated by seeing incorrect stuff on the boards.  Denise, you repeat yourself in many posts, sometimes in response to a question that's been asked before by many but is now from a new poster, and sometimes in response to a misconception that's repeated in cycles on the boards.  What good does it do if we leave incorrect stuff all over the place unchallenged?


----------



## presley (Feb 1, 2012)

siesta said:


> All the complainers on this thread appear to be nothing more than a bunch of snivelling whiners.



  I can't believe you said that.  Someone pass me a tissue.   



ampaholic said:


> ignore [ɪgˈnɔː]
> vb (tr)
> to fail or refuse to notice; disregard
> n
> ...



Can you give an example of how to do that?


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

AwayWeGo said:


> -- hotlinked --​
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



That, the "WTF" thing and The End of The Internet are my favorite web things.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 1, 2012)

SueDonJ;1238221[quote said:
			
		

> What good does it do if we leave incorrect stuff all over the place unchallenged?



Challenge it all you want!   

But being "wrong," and being wrong over and over, does not violate the TUG posting rules....


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> That, the "WTF" thing and The End of The Internet are my favorite web things.



"FWT" Yota said to the assassin.


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Challenge it all you want!
> 
> But being "wrong," and being wrong over and over, does not violate the TUG posting rules....



If being "wrong" did violate the rules - then timeos2 would just "kick the Federation of M. Lovers off" instead of just posting a counter view and Ticking them off.


----------



## SueDonJ (Feb 1, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> If being "wrong" did violate the rules - then timeos2 would just "kick the Federation of M. Lovers off" instead of just posting a counter view and Ticking them off.



Wait, I thought we were "Team Marriott."  Though the Federation thing sounds so much more awesome.


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Wait, I thought we were "Team Marriott."  Though the Federation thing sounds so much more awesome.



As Jack Palance said "Confidence is quite sexy ... don't you think"


----------



## AwayWeGo (Feb 1, 2012)

*I Resemble That Remark.*




SueDonJ said:


> That, the "WTF" thing and The End of The Internet are my favorite web things.


I also like the dogs at the computer. 





-- hotlinked --​
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## TUGBrian (Feb 1, 2012)

pretty sure its time to let this go.  =)


----------



## ampaholic (Feb 1, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> pretty sure its time to let this go.  =)



Nothing generates post count like a thread with no name

Like that TV show with Jerry what's his name. ...:hysterical:


----------



## hypnotiq (Feb 1, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> pretty sure its time to let this go.  =)



Fun sponge.


----------



## Old Hickory (Feb 1, 2012)

TUGBrian said:


> pretty sure its time to let this go.  =)



'Letting go' is the most difficut thing to do... when you know you are right.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 1, 2012)

It is simply not possible to ignore a moderator in vBulletin. So that isn't any use. The only option if you wish not to read John's post is to just pass over them or pick up your toys and go home.


----------



## rrlongwell (Feb 1, 2012)

Old Hickory said:


> 'Letting go' is the most difficut thing to do... when you know you are right.



You broke the code, every one is right.  Case closed.


----------

