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

David Konkel?

Nov 22, 2003 4:15PM PST

.
Dave, I think it's about time that "flooding" thread was clarified, don't you? There was absolutely no reason for that thread to go to hell.

Dave, I made two mod alerts 20 minutes apart. TWO! Unless there were dozens of others that made alerts there was NO flooding caused by anyone. Diane explained how the software is responsible for that. Is she right? If so then why was that thread allowed to continue?

This is like the other day when Lee went off the deep end on forum before he thought it out first. He shot first and thought second.

And now DE make it look like I must have sent out a gadzillion alerts and in fact blaming me for anything he can place into the imaginative minds of the members. Are you going to clear that up or not?

And why does DE have the right to post personal and private information about members?
.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
to be fair......as far as i can see,
Nov 22, 2003 7:19PM PST

Woof Woof was the only person directly accused and neither DaveK or DaveE mentioned your name...

- Collapse -
DE as good as did, and you know it Jonah. Unless Woof Woof made a ton
Nov 22, 2003 7:38PM PST

of mod alerts there was no flooding by anyone. DE seems to have 16 ways to Sunday to rake me over the coals and I'm tired of it. Email is bad enough, in public it's unacceptable.

- Collapse -
Jonah, The mods would know exactly who was posting into the mods alert
Nov 22, 2003 8:57PM PST

as you have to be signed in to do it. That makes that type of post either vindictive or baiting. There are other ways to handle it Immediately banning them would be one way

- Collapse -
Re:The mods would know exactly who was posting
Nov 22, 2003 10:22PM PST

exactly...

3 points: Woof was named, rosalie wasn't, and mods (as far as i know) can't ban....

- Collapse -
Not necessarily. DK mentioned 'user=unknown' in Forum Feedback
Nov 22, 2003 10:29PM PST
- Collapse -
Re:DK also mentioned 'user=Woof' in SE
Nov 22, 2003 10:49PM PST
- Collapse -
Jonah, you have the darnest habit of confusing the issue.
Nov 22, 2003 11:21PM PST

I don't know who Woof is or if he/she did 1 or 99 mod alerts. And I don't care. I know who I am and since this forum opened I have pushed TWO mod alerts about 20 minutes apart and yes I was logged in. Yet Evans says "this isn't the first time she's flooded the mod alerts". Now I would imagine anyone reading that would believe it don't you? They would really think that I flooded the mod alerts. DE knows very well what he is doing. So do I. But I have no way to defend myself. He's a MOD! And you are making it even more difficult. Jonah I would not do this to you.

- Collapse -
Re:Jonah I would not do this to you.
Nov 22, 2003 11:34PM PST

whoa!

back off a step or two, please....

if you remember, i stated "to be fair".... DE didn't mention any names, he said #Blake, Charlie, I assure you that you don't want this one banned. She's your defender and cheerleader and this isn't the first time she's flooded the modalerts#

i didn't/don't have the faintest idea who he means, and i don't really care, as i said "to be fair" and nothing i have said is aimed at you or anybody else...

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 23, 2003 12:10AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 23, 2003 1:52AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Nov 23, 2003 5:18AM PST
- Collapse -
LOL!
Nov 23, 2003 5:08PM PST
i didn't/don't have the faintest idea who he means, and i don't really care, as i said "to be fair" and nothing i have said is aimed at you or anybody else... - jonah

If you were to take a guess, which I assume you would have done when you read it, did you think it was Glenda? Evie? Angeline Booher? Or who did you think it could possibly be? Since you are part of the "other email group" leaded by the amdinistrator and owner of the other forum, you ought to have recieved more than one email about what happened to that group, if not from the administrator herself, you have for sure gotten some ifno from Glenda's new buddy!
- Collapse -
Re:LOL!
Nov 23, 2003 9:33PM PST

#if you were to take a guess#
has nothing to do with what i said here, my comments/posts were strictly based on what was SAID by the 2 Daves...

#Since you are part of the "other email group"#
i exchange emails on a daily basis with 3 "groups" (i use the word for the lack of another) which "other group" do you refer to?

#leaded by the amdinistrator and owner of the other forum#
i participate on a fairly regular basis in 3 other forums, to which "other forum" do you refer?

#you ought to have recieved more than one email about what happened to that group#

to which group do you refer?

#you have for sure gotten some ifno from Glenda's new buddy!#

as i have no contact with glenda, i for sure have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER who her "new buddy" is.....

and as a small aside, i'm getting sick and tired of having to explain the most simple points to you, so please, try and follow the thread, and, MOST IMPORTANT relate to what is SAID....NOT what is perceived by you as being written BETWEEN THE LINES!!

- Collapse -
You can defend yourself, Rosalie...
Nov 23, 2003 12:07AM PST

Rosalie, if a representative of Cnet defames you publically, harrasses you publically or privately via e-mail, or such things, you are not without defense.
First, gather and arrange your hard copy of the details. Forget the e-mail and waiting to see if it is dealt with. Pick up the phone, call Cnet and talk to somebody in person, carefully and calmly explaning this harrassment. Don't take a "brush off". Politely and firmly work yourself up to a high-level repersentative of management, explaining that you wish to let them first deal with this illegality themselves and prevent it from going further, saving both them and you from further trouble.
A Moderator is neither a policeman nor above the law. You would not have to suffer such abuse from a private person or representative of a local company where you live, nor would you have to endure it without legal recourse from a big company that does business all over the country. Cnet is but one of those many companies, and their management is smart enough to quickly deal with such an unfortunate situation if it comes up.
Bottom line: You do not have to endure such things from a representative of a company. If you are willing to fight back, then play legal "hardball". Calmly, rationally, and firmly, but hardball person-to-person with a representative of Cnet management.

- Collapse -
Addendum to J's post...
Nov 23, 2003 1:39AM PST

BUT be DAMNED SURE you have YOUR own little ducks in order and aren't making false accusations based on theories/assumptions rather than facts, as the process works both ways.

Rosalie has jumped to conclusions before and made some statements/accusations that are quite easily proven false at worst and erroneous at best.

- Collapse -
Thank you, J, for going to the time and trouble of explaining that to me.
Nov 23, 2003 5:09AM PST

.
I appreciate it.
.

- Collapse -
No problem, Rosalie...
Nov 23, 2003 4:23PM PST

No problem, Rosalie, any time. I've been thru a battle or two myself. (grin)
Remember, a perceived disadvantge due to a physical factor is of small importance. It's not a battle of bodies, it's a battle of minds.

- Collapse -
NT - Well said Mary Kay!
Nov 23, 2003 5:01PM PST

`?

- Collapse -
A guilty conscience maybe???????
Nov 23, 2003 3:27AM PST
Sad
- Collapse -
Rosalie, A Claification - Pt 1
Nov 23, 2003 1:20AM PST

I can't post again, so I will try breaking this up into two smaller parts.

This will be intentionally a bit obscure since I don't want to end up even inadvertently explaining how some of the software works. But basically, the nature of the mod alerts is dependent on the address of the person sending/their ID (unique to CNET), and the content.

The theory I was talking about in the other forum involved retracing the steps that I am relatively certain others took to discover what all CNET now holds. When you hit a "dead area," the way it is currently setup, the system itself sends out a notice that should only go to the technical staff in charge of the software and servers, NOT the mods. The message will not contain text written by the party attempting access, and their identity will likely not even be shown since the failure to access an invalid site will likely not display their ID, but it could be traced on the servers. If that is happening, it is most definitely unintentional flooding and a glitch in the system. In that instance, a preset notice is generated by the system that an error has occurred and has been logged.

Before someone screams hacking, it is far from it, assuming no ill intent. No one would accuse people of overriding the 7 reply rule of hacking, and this is somewhat similar.

- Collapse -
Rosalie, A Clarification Pt 2
Nov 23, 2003 1:22AM PST

Continued: Now, if these are mod-alerts that are not from invalid access, there could be a couple of things causing replications of alerts. You have to look at the post and see if the message is the same in each, or if they are different. If it is the same message, and is being sent over and over, it is likely being looped in the server, which would correspond to the complaints people have expressed that the Emails are being returned as invalid or otherwise undeliverable.

Sometimes the glitch is in the server of the sending party. For example, one person who regularly Emails me sent out one Email, which his/her server kept sending out for four days. Everyone it was sent to ended up with dozens and dozens of copies of that Email - very annoying, and it took calling the server company to clear the server because that mail was caught.

Sometimes the glitch is in the receiving server. It may even generate a notice that the Email has bounced, causing the sending server to try every few minutes or hours to send again. In reality, the Emails may actually be getting through, but the messages passed between the servers cause a situation where they are generating the same Email through their own error messages. The party that sent the original Email, or even a new one if they think the first ones did not go through (based on the server notice), are not intentionally spamming the boards in that case.

Another possibility is that the same bug that occurred before with the duplicate posts occurs when someone is in a hot thread, sends a mod-alert, and then does not clear to a different post or the top of the forum. If they sit on the same post, and hit refresh, they could be resending without knowing.

- Collapse -
Thank you, Diane, for the information and clarification. I even understood some it. LOL
Nov 23, 2003 5:04AM PST

I sent only TWO alerts, or at least I thought I did, it turns out that only ONE actually ever arrived at CNET. So in my case the software was not duplicating.

Wishing you a nice Thanksgiving with your loved ones, Diane.
.

- Collapse -
Any time , Rosalie :-)
Nov 23, 2003 5:21AM PST

Glad it made sense.

Thanks for the kind wishes and hoping the same for you and yours Happy! At least we're finally at the point where all the cooking/heat and fire is likely to be in the stoves, not the local neighborhoods LOL.

- Collapse -
Thx Diane, that info helped. But further, there may be errors
Nov 23, 2003 6:25AM PST

in the CNET email database. The message returned to me stated a recipient address that was a very old address of Dave Konkel's.

Ian

- Collapse -
Re: David Konkel? -- My own clarification
Nov 23, 2003 7:43AM PST

Hi, Rosalie.

Sorry for the delayed response. I've been offline traveling yesterday, and my old laptop won't bring up the forums, so am just now getting back on. There were five or six messages alerting to the same message within ten minutes. It may have been a bug as Diane suggests, but this is the only time I've seen this. I was NOT accusing you, though I am suspicious of "woof-Woof," whoever that is... More than that I don't want to say, for pretty much the same reasons Diane was being intentionally obscure.

- Collapse -
Dave, I never took YOUR post as an accusation. I knew just how many
Nov 23, 2003 8:02AM PST

alerts I had sent and figure you also knew. I posted the message that begins this thread after the 'flooding' thread had come to the end. Or almost the end. Until then I never dreamed I was being held responsible.
.

- Collapse -
Nominations are now in order...
Nov 23, 2003 8:29AM PST

Rosalie,

I believe that DE IMPLIED that you had flooded the mod alert before. I know others may and likely will argue with MY BELIEF and say that he never said who he was speaking of.

Some of us know exactly who he meant and if not you, he should come clean and SAY who since his IMPLIED person is CLEARLY you. IMHO.

IMPO, there should be a review board for moderator malfeasance of office. I hereby volunteer my valuable time to sit on such a review board and promise herewith to faithfully discharge the confidence placed in me to fairly prosecute said violaters to the fullest extent of the laws drawn up by WE THE LITTLE PEOPLE of this here sounding board.

The floor is now open for my nomination.

Notice NO smileys. I'm not dead, but I AM serious.

Tim

- Collapse -
Re:Nominations are now in order...
Nov 23, 2003 9:24AM PST
- Collapse -
nt TPTB at CNet says it ALL. I rest my case.
Nov 23, 2003 9:40AM PST
- Collapse -
Re: I rest my case.
Nov 23, 2003 9:13PM PST

and about time tim, well done..............