[Removed by OP]

[winger]

Welcome Home Dave M.

+1 ++1 +++1

 

[dioxide45]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

But John is a moderator -- authority carries responsibility. No excuse offered for Bruce, I was amazed by this "gentleman".

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".

You make it sound like a reasonable and constructive dialogue -- perhaps we were reading different threads.


Oh, welcome back Dave

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

 

[GregT]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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

Yea, I agree that is odd.

 

[NWL]

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

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]

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

... 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]

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]

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]

... (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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Grand Pro Identity Revealed.

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]

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 ...?