Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Amazing how a thread can build up with a 'sucker' induced post.....

Dec 16, 2003 1:10AM PST

SE is no longer graced with pickles in the past few minutes.
Happy

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Back to the drawing board ...
Dec 16, 2003 1:12AM PST

... to be post #10,000! Sad

- Collapse -
Re: Back to the drawing board -- sorry, Evie; it had to be done. (NT)
Dec 16, 2003 12:05PM PST

.

- Collapse -
nt he was probably a ''seasonal'' vegetable :-)
Dec 16, 2003 1:18AM PST

.

- Collapse -
(NT) perhaps to be taken with a grain of vegetable seasoning? :-)
Dec 16, 2003 1:20AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Amazing how a thread can build up with a 'sucker' induced post.....
Dec 16, 2003 1:21AM PST

Also amazing how low some folks will sink, trying to prove their superiority and walking all over others. Not giving a thought at all to their feelings or the fact that they too have a right to an opinion

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Amazing how a thread can build up with a 'sucker' induced post.....
Dec 16, 2003 5:03AM PST

Maybe we should be honest and admit we sometimes enjoy jumping into a nonsensical thread once in a while as a break from the gloom and doom we're facing from all fronts - the war, the flu, unemployment and disasters from all corners of the earth.

- Collapse -
Re:Amazing how a thread can build up with a 'sucker' induced post.....
Dec 16, 2003 5:11AM PST

Since CNET is not generating any revenue with ads, there seems to be no reason to have many people posting tons of messages.

Seems like CNET does not need us.

Warm and inviting.

Indeed.

Merry Christmas CNET.

- Collapse -
Revenue idea????
Dec 16, 2003 5:35AM PST

Since CNET isn't generating ads in the forums, lucky us with no pop-ups either, why not make CNET a Christmas present of voluntary donations from members???? Maybe they would be able to use the money to give us the features for this software that they can't afford........

TONI

- Collapse -
Re:Revenue idea????
Dec 16, 2003 8:42AM PST

If a member donated a big enough chunk of change, would that mean that said member would have enough clout to can any mod who is patently biased?

- Collapse -
nt) Question: Whose song was this: "Here we go agaaaaaiiin...."?
Dec 16, 2003 9:19AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Revenue idea????
Dec 16, 2003 9:38AM PST

definitely rules you out.

rofl.

david williams

- Collapse -
(nt) maybe I could donate enough to ban certain people?
Dec 16, 2003 9:41AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Maybe take up a collection??? NT
Dec 16, 2003 11:27AM PST
Happy
- Collapse -
waste not, want not
Dec 16, 2003 1:34PM PST

Probably safe to say that most members know that banning does not work, so you may want to save your money.

I'm comforted by the fact that I'm the only one in this thread to say "Merry Christmas CNET" whilst several other members seemingly find it amusing to bash a fellow member.

Real nice holiday spirit here.

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Dec 16, 2003 12:03PM PST
- Collapse -
banning dosnt work but isp blocking does
Dec 17, 2003 6:04AM PST
Grin
- Collapse -
Re:banning dosnt work but isp blocking does
Dec 17, 2003 6:18AM PST

Ever heard of those who don't stay with one ISP for the rest of their lives???

The POINT here, Mark, is, you CANNOT silence dissent.

You can try, but look what happened to the leaders in Iraq. Need I name more dictatorial regimes?

Period.

- Collapse -
Unfortunately that may punish many innocents along with any guilty
Dec 17, 2003 6:23AM PST

I wonder if Cnet banned an ISP if it would be just to the forums or to the entire cnet website?

While the number of participants in the forums using one particular ISP or sub-block of ISP might be limited, blocking the entire cnet web site would almost certainly block more.

Unfortunately, before it came to that as a pernament solution, I suspect Cnet would just close the troublesome forum, and any more than became involved.

So many people would end up losing.

roger

- Collapse -
Don't you understand those in power would rather kill a whole nation to "save" the world?
Dec 17, 2003 6:33AM PST
Sad
- Collapse -
How Delusional
Dec 17, 2003 8:12PM PST

CNET PTB very nearly decided to not have the forums at all when they switched over to the new software....and it wasn't in order to kill the nation, Tim. The decision was based strictly on a financial angle....the forums bring in no revenue, and yet costs them by having to pay certain people to maintain them. Not just the technicians to keep them running, but also people like Lee Koo who oversee them.

When enough modalerts from the same people over and over and over show Lee who the town criers are, and that the same complaints are the same ones that were being made before from the same handful of people, Lee will make the decision that either this handful of people are the dissidents and trouble-makers and ignore them by leaving the 'handling' of them to the Moderators at SpeakEasy or he will make the decision to ban them again (repeatedly if necessary) like he did before.

Just because this is new software and everyone was given a second chance with a clean slate doesn't mean that everyone's 'history and pattern of behavior' didn't actually follow them....the names are known to Lee from before and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that some people just can't change and given enough rope will hang themselves every time.

If SpeakEasy goes down, it will be because a financial decision was made by TPTB that constant disruption just isn't worth the money it takes to try to get a handful of trouble makers to act civil and stop moderating the moderators. Same old, same old...find a new playground where you can spew the outrage you feel or sit your *** down and act like an adult.

TONI

- Collapse -
Going Full Circle...
Dec 18, 2003 2:42PM PST
When enough modalerts from the same people over and over and over show Lee who the town criers are, and that the same complaints are the same ones that were being made before from the same handful of people, Lee will make the decision that either this handful of people are the dissidents and trouble-makers and ignore them by leaving the 'handling' of them to the Moderators at SpeakEasy or he will make the decision to ban them again (repeatedly if necessary) like he did before. - TONI H

Toni you have now set the stage so that it is impossible for some to be treated fairly. Before the software change-over, you made the claim that since some weren't using the ModAlert system, then they must not be too upset about bad treatment against them. DK has asked me and others to use the ModAlert system on messages that are clearly intended to disrupt the forum instead of responding publicly. Now you are saying that if someone uses the ModAlert system too much, they will be considered a troublemaker and ignored or banned. You have now gone full circle in this argument...

When the need to use the ModAlert system decreases or disappears completely, the use of the ModAlert system will decrease or disappear. You have no right to blame the victims of personal attack for the problems in SE. The only reason there is a problem is because you have chosen to turn a blind-eye to bad behavior by a select group for a very long time. You have even encouraged bad behavior because you freely admitted that you don't like some of the victims. Once you decide that no one is above the TOS and begin enforcing it in a fair and balanced manner, even against your friends, the lingering problems in SE will simply fade away and your job will become increasingly easy. Until you are willing and able to understand this, there is very little hope that SE can remain civil and enjoyable for all members...
- Collapse -
Codswallop. I've been subject to your 'politeness and all
Dec 18, 2003 4:12PM PST

problems going away' in a forum which moved such discussions to private threads.

I didn't notice less vituperation, I was subject to considerably more.

Ian

- Collapse -
What Does Codswallop Mean???
Dec 18, 2003 6:16PM PST
Codswallop. I've been subject to your 'politeness and all problems going away' in a forum which moved such discussions to private threads. I didn't notice less vituperation, I was subject to considerably more. - IanC/OZ

Hey Ian. Was your treatment only bad in the private thread or did the problem continue in the public area as well? If things get nasty in the private side, there is no obligation for you to continue posting there. But you should never have to worry about the personal insults and attacks in the public area...

What does Codswallop mean???
- Collapse -
Re:What Does Codswallop Mean???
Dec 18, 2003 6:32PM PST

Literally: a slap across the face with a large fish. Effectively, a polite version of "BS".

The problem started in the public arena. The manager of the forum moved the discussion into a private area, at which point I abandoned the discussion. I didn't care less what the person said to me in private, after all, it was nothing much more than what had been emailed to me about my attitudes in Speakeasy. I cared very much when the slander/libel and abuse was happening in public view.

Ian

- Collapse -
Into The Abyss...
Dec 19, 2003 11:39AM PST
I cared very much when the slander/libel and abuse was happening in public view. - IanC/OZ

I think most people would care when the slander/libel/abuse is occurring in the public view. That is why some are now resorting to the ModAlert system so much. DK has requested that everyone use it instead of responding publicly to the blatant crap. That way the moderators can stop a heated battle before it ever has a chance to get too over-heated. It amazes me that a mod is now complaining about the use of the ModAlert system. There is no way to please some people who don't want to be happy...

Now as we watch this thread deteriorate further into the abyss, the need for the ModAlert system should be even more obvious and clear. Most of the comments in this thread should be removed because most disrupt the forum more than they add to it. But if the mods prefer it this way, how can the rest of us expect things to improve???
- Collapse -
Re: Into The Abyss...
Dec 19, 2003 12:30PM PST

Hi, Blake.

>>DK has requested that everyone use it instead of responding publicly to the blatant crap. That way the moderators can stop a heated battle before it ever has a chance to get too over-heated.<<
That is not what I requested. We post our yahoo e-mail box address after our names so complaints and discussion can use that venue, and not bother the Moderators on the other 49+ CNet forums. If you want Lee to be aware of the discussion, just cc: him as well, and we'll "reply to all" on our replies.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
The CNET ModAlert Functionality...
Dec 19, 2003 1:39PM PST
That is not what I requested. We post our yahoo e-mail box address after our names so complaints and discussion can use that venue, and not bother the Moderators on the other 49+ CNet forums. If you want Lee to be aware of the discussion, just cc: him as well, and we'll "reply to all" on our replies. - Dave Konkel

That is exactly what you told me to do through email Dave. You specifically told me to take it to ModAlerts rather than posting a response to a blatant attack or insult. Are you now saying that no one should be using the ModAlert system? Are you saying that the ModAlert function shouldn't be available for the most active CNET forum by far???

I have already told you and others what I think about the SE mods taking care of CNET business through a non-CNET email account. Both of my posts on the subject have been removed even though they in no way violated the TOS. Why would questions about that account be censored, unless there is a valid reason to be concerned???

As long as I'm using the CNET ModAlert functionality, I have a better guarantee that someone in CNET can be over-seeing what's occurring here in this forum. When the CNET business is taken care of outside of the CNET domain, there are far more chances for abuse...

Other than the SE moderators, who else has access to the seamods4@yahoo.com account? You can claim that no other members have access, but why should anyone believe that claim since CNET isn't there to oversee what's going on???

If CNET doesn't want us to use the ModAlert system, maybe the functionality should be disabled or removed. Until then, the ModAlert functionality should always be used when dealing with issues in any CNET forum, including SE. There is absolutely no good reason to ever take the CNET problems off-site to a Yahoo account...
- Collapse -
*sniffing the air* izzat paranoia???
Dec 19, 2003 2:50PM PST

#Other than the SE moderators, who else has access to the seamods4@yahoo.com account? You can claim that no other members have access, but why should anyone believe that claim#

- Collapse -
Re:The CNET ModAlert Functionality...
Dec 19, 2003 8:18PM PST

Modalerts go to every Moderator on every forum, not just SpeakEasy and Lee. Modalerts are for complaints about spam, flaming, advertisements, etc.....however, there are NO other CNET members who hit that Modalert and abuse it by adding the comments/demands/insults to the Moderators. The ONLY members who do this are a few from SpeakEasy and they are all seen by all Moderators across the CNET forums....There are then emails from some of THOSE Moderators wondering why we are putting up with the crap that comes through on those alerts.

None have been sympathetic to your cause....they are all wondering why WE haven't done anything about having you all banned, to be honest. Whether you wish to believe that or not is up to you; however the Modalerts WORK.

All other Modalerts that come from other forums include a short explanation about the alert, such as "this is spam" or "these kinds of comments aren't necessary" etc. When we get a Modalert from one of you guys, it's a freaking book of comments and threats/demands and even if we agreed with you that a post should be removed, it is difficult to comply (even though we do most of the time) without choking on the knowledge that your smugness will believe that it was because of the threat/demand/comment rather than because we agreed with you.

As a member, I would think that your public whining would be an embarassment to you knowing that other Moderators from other forums can see the same crap coming from the same couple of people over and over. You may think that by continuing with the comments/demands/threats in the Modalerts that it's getting your message across, but all it's actually doing is red-flagging your names to everybody who gets them as constant complainers and cry-babies who can't just turn in a Modalert without being a baby about it.

TONI

- Collapse -
Re:Re:The CNET ModAlert Functionality...
Dec 20, 2003 12:04PM PST

Instead of BITCHING about the fact that the mod alerts from this forum are read by all mods, why don't you request of TPTB that the system be fixed the way you want it to be.

I see your complaining here, and the SAME freakin' complaint in at least one other of your posts, to be nothing more that mod WHINING.