Irrelevant

[TTaylor]

I am surprised how far this forum has declined. I wonder why this forum has become basically irrelevant.

[PE_PLS]

Well, could be because the website is often down, as well as the administration forcing dialogue to be neat, tidy, and without conflict. Yes, pretty much irrelevant at this point....

[Oxnard Kurt]

There is still good stuff on this forum. I just think work is picking up a little and folks are out working... I am on vacation, getting ready to drive to San Diego.

[pls7809]

It does seem like it has been down a lot. Seems like it's down once or twice a week lately, including much of today.

[dmi]

They have not yet got around to banning people for being coy.

[MikeTurnrose]

I think Oxnard is right. Workload has really picked up. I know I'm not on here as much because of that.

As far as the forum being down a lot, that has been a disappointment.

[Warren Smith]

I suspect the forum down time may have to do with sorting through the anonymous members that may be spybots. There are certainly some interesting names online all the time ...

[Jay Wright]

I come here a lot less now because too many of the people posting think their fellow surveyors suck, and very few want to help them get better.

{we are killing the profession, the profession is already dead, we are clowns and slobs, we don't know the laws regarding the profession...........} Just a portion of one thread

I can get that on a forum for architects or engineers or GIS people.

I'll be back to check in again next week.... maybe.

[TTaylor]

I am disappointed with the decline in what has happened to the discussions on this board.

To be fair, I will say that IMO their are still some good ideas coming from this Forum. For example, I like the idea of a statewide standard for RS and CR fees.

However, this forum is now lacking important discussions on the viability of our profession and how we can be more sophisticated as professionals.

I am imploring whomever is in charge of this forum to stop the laughable "liability" arguments with suspect supporting legal opinions and allow an open frank discussion from all sides of the table on important issues related to the Land Surveying Profession in California.

[TTaylor]

Yep, discussions of "Hand Lettering" are as good as we get on this site.

[E_Page]

Part of it can be traced back to the rule about not posting maps by others. I understand why the rule was put in place and that something had to be done to stem the practice of a few who would post drawings by others for the sole purpose of denigrating that person's reputation. But often a particular matter is best discussed with the actual filed maps as a basis for the discussion. sometimes it is next to impossible to have a meaningful discussion about a particular survey matter without having the map or maps as reference.

In the slander of title thread a few months back, I had attached a few filed maps as reference for the discussion. I had offered to send all the info I had on the case I had discussed to a particular know-it-all LSIT for his study and education. Instead, he ran off and sniveled to someone for whom the rule had been made, who in turn complained to CLSA about selective enforcement of the rule. So although those maps were not posted for the purpose of denigrating anyone, and were not referred to by any participant of the discussion to that end, I was asked to remove them. that makes the accompanying discussion somewhat more difficult to follow.

I don't fault the site administrators for asking me to remove those maps. They're doing what they can and I suppose, must with a hastily written and enacted rule that has unintended consequences. Speaking with a couple of people involved with CLSA governance, I'm of the understanding that they will be considering how to rewrite that rule so that it squelches the character assassinations that failed to consider pertinent background questions which may or may not have uncovered valid reasons a certain map (often unfiled and often not reflective of a boundary survey) was prepared as it was, while not stifling valid use of maps as learning tools in substantive discussions.

Disagreement, even strong disagreement with others is fine. Constructive criticism is fine. Expressing that you think that something shown on a map may demonstrate some breach of law or good practice should be fine. Ascribing nefarious motivation, attacking the ethics and morality of someone over a disagreement between otherwise reasonable views is not. Regular comments on that latter vein is what brought on the overreactive set of rules we have currently. Hopefully CLSA leadership can work on those rules to promote a better sense of balance here within the coming months.

[bryanmundia]

I agree, my time on this forum has been drastically cut, partly because I only work for a surveying firm part time now, partly because I feel like I have to walk on egg-shells as to not disturb the sleeping giant that is the administrator and lastly because people decide to take comments personally or come to ill-conceived conclusions based on their own agendas.

Calling someone out either by name or reference is not the most professional thing to do. (Sarcasm/)Although there is a certain surveyor on this forum who likes to post long winded responses(/Sarcasm), I still appreciate the input and find his opinions to be a refreshing view on the profession.

I don't see a problem with posting maps on this forum, for any reason, and if a surveyor wants to write slanderous and defaming comments about it, then the original surveyor can do something about it. Either defend or sue if the comments are untrue.

If you want to see this forum come back to life then you need to let professionals interact like professionals. A doctor can't get another doctor's professional opinion on a patient's treatment without seeing his chart, what makes you think that a surveyor can opine on another's map without seeing it?

[land butcher]

Govt, and CLSA is a govt just like a HOA, many times acts hastily because someone with power got their feathers ruffled and behold a new rule that had minimal peoples input. Then when the rule is found to be burdensome it doesn't get fixed because govt won't admit to making a mistake.
I think the posting of maps of questionable accuracy is good, it allows others to be more careful when using that persons map.
Stifling commentary from persons in the profession does more harm then good. What if some of the developers of the Declaration of Independence were banned because their speeches offended some other delegates?

IMO a good amount of what's wrong with this Country today is the thin skinned complaining and PC being the result. With everyone middle of the road there cannot be meaningful discussions.