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

It was here, now it's gone?

Feb 20, 2004 5:59AM PST

The "Rule of the Rapists" thread was on the tree, although for a little while today it wouldn't open for me. Now I look and it seems to be gone.

Not that I'm complaining Wink but do threads automagically disappear after they get 200 replies?

Cindi

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I'm not saying the discussions aren't useful ...
Feb 22, 2004 8:28PM PST

... at the time. And maybe there might be a worthwhile post or two that you missed before that thread was pulled. But taken on the whole, eventually the post dies and there seems to be some overinflated importance some here give to their words as if deleting them injurs them somehow. The topics will come up again in other threads. Balanced against a thread that has generated several offensive posts so the mods are bombarded with alerts, it seems a no-brainer to just pull the whole thing.

Please ... while your suggestion for NAWP sounds like a good idea, just imagine the arguments THAT will start!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:I'm not saying the discussions aren't useful ...
Feb 22, 2004 9:14PM PST

Dear Evie

I was trying to say that I personally find them useful, which is not to suggest that you are saying otherwise.

I'm suffering from a paradox now with my Nawp idea, i.e. yes, it might cause arguments, but Nawp is perhaps (or perhaps not) a way to stop (futile)arguments. I recall an earlier discussion that suggested simply ignoring offensive comments, but this is unreasonable to a person who is the object of the insult, and people are entitled to defend themselves, which ignoring a post does not achieve.

I happily acknowledge that you know better than I as to what might work in this Forum. IMO it would be a shame if these were to fade away because people grow weary of others' antics, and thus don't bother either reading them or posting to them.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Re: 'not a serious post'
Feb 23, 2004 2:42AM PST

Hi, Mo.

Who is going to voluntarily admit that? And y'all complain now when messages or threads are deleted for violating a clearly defined set of rules. Imagine the howls of protest if moderators were allow to determine retroactively what is or is not "serious!" Besides, we all need comic relief periodically! There are many jokes or stories that I read and don't feel the need to reply to, but appreciate nonetheless.

-- 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 -
Dear Dave, Shurely shomething wrong here - turn it upside and .
Feb 23, 2004 3:57AM PST

it should (I hope) make more sense (or maybe not, or perhaps you won't/don't agree). I proposed a recognised/recognisable acronym to reflect that the subsequent poster no longer considered it valuable to continue the discussion. There is no "voluntarily admit to that". The person to whom the post is directed decides for themselves - and they post the Nawp, deciding that they are not prepared to continue a conversation which is primarly aimed as a sling shot
at them with no other valuable content.

1) "Not a serious post". I said that I welcome serious posts. That is my opionion. It is incontrovertible in my mind that I welcome being able to receive the differing views of others and I truly hope that views will continue to be posted so that I (and I guess many others) can benefit from them.

2) My Nawp suggestion requires no voluntary admission as it is proposed as the "standard post" to be made by the recipient of the previous post.

3) The whole point of my Nawp suggestion is that if we can self-regulate (and heck, we are all adults after all), it would preclude the necessity for having Mods permanently on alert.

I might be trying to achieve a perfect-world scenario but there is nothing in the rules that says that I can't try for this.

I am slightly concerned that you are having a go at me now, because all of the above was self evident in my original post.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Re:Dear Dave, Shurely shomething wrong here - turn it upside and .
Feb 23, 2004 4:16AM PST

Something similiar has been tried before by some, like a (NT) post saying something along the line of 'not worth replying', etc.

All that happens is the person whose post was labelled as not worthy of a reply had normally came back with more directed at the other poster about why he/she didn't contribute something instead of posting no text insults, etc. And general on and on till they find a button that the other can ignore and not just push it, but jump up and down on the button.

Understand your wish, don't have much hope it would every work, but hey who knowes, there are stranger things that happen.

- Collapse -
Re: Dear Dave, Shurely shomething wrong here - turn it upside and .
Feb 23, 2004 1:10PM PST

Hi, Mo.

I honestly wasn't "having a go" at you. I do think you're even more idealistic than I'm often accused of being! Wink

-- 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 -
Dave, you've been around here a lot longer than I ...
Feb 23, 2004 6:26PM PST

the difference being that I haven't given up yet! The responses so far seem to suggest that nothing will work, but I haven't been around long enough to know what has been tried. The Forum is too valuable IMO and the answer has to be out there somewhere - all we gotta do is find it. OK - my suggestion might not be the answer, but why have you all stopped looking?

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Re: Dave, you've been around here a lot longer than I ...
Feb 23, 2004 9:43PM PST

Hi, Mo.

Believe me, I haven't "given up," or I'd no longer be a Moderator!

-- 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 -
You can post...
Feb 23, 2004 4:23AM PST

...a message under those with the subject line "This Message Has Been Deleted" and leave it at that. Get a few like that on a thread it probably will disappear. As far as I know, there is no way to tell if such post was deleted by a moderator, or done by the poster himself. I've done it a few times, as I note others have too, the latter known only because they added something into the supposedly deleted posts. Devil

- Collapse -
Message has been deleted.
Feb 23, 2004 4:26AM PST

I shouldn't have used the word "This" nor capitalized the other words. This is how it's done, but nothing other than a period or apostrophe, some mark in order to make the non post as pinning bad press on a thread.

- Collapse -
Re: The secrecy is absurd -- the problem is...
Feb 23, 2004 2:45AM PST

Hi, Evie.

The problem is that each time it happened, the announcement message would probably lead to a thread of moaning and groaning about whether the thread should or should not have been removed -- maybe a little like this one!

-- 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 -
(NT) Sound good, but will bet it would just generate a storm of replies crying censorship.
Feb 23, 2004 4:17AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Deleting the entire thread ...
Feb 21, 2004 1:57AM PST

... serves one purpose that deleting the individual TOS violations doesn't, which is to put an end to that particular direction a thread might be taking. Nobody has a place to continue their tangents, and the mods don't have to be on alert 24/7 for the next violation.

When I left that thread was turning. Guess I missed some action cuz even at that it didn't seem to need deleting. But perhaps you've hit on something as relates to criticism of the moderation here. We've all been through that ad nauseum and the fact remains this is CNet's place on the web and they have made clear their support of this forum as moderated. Anyone who is not happy knows where the door is.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 21, 2004 2:12AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 21, 2004 2:18AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 21, 2004 2:34AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 21, 2004 2:39AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 21, 2004 2:45AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 21, 2004 2:55AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 21, 2004 3:00AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 21, 2004 3:15AM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 21, 2004 3:17AM PST
- Collapse -
Unfortunately some good posts about the treatment of Moslem women are now lost.
Feb 21, 2004 6:41AM PST

Seems the poor Moslem women are once again shoved out of sight, even here in an American forum discussing their plight.

- Collapse -
You make a good point, James. Maybe someone will post another ....
Feb 21, 2004 7:38AM PST

.
article about the situation. Won't be me though.

- Collapse -
Re:It was here, now it's gone?
Feb 22, 2004 9:52PM PST

Have had the same thing hapopen to me over the weekend in another thread. It is now apparently open to new posts,seemingly at the whim of a moderator. if this happens again I will draw only one conclusion. ...A thread gets closed until one of the privileged few complain or a moderator wants to add something. If thats part of the game...I am gone as why bother playing when the field is this tilted????

- Collapse -
This is strange, I have never seen a post...........
Feb 23, 2004 2:35AM PST

closed and then opened again. Can you say which thread that was? I also didn't know a thread could be locked so no one could post to it. Has something new been added?
Glenda

- Collapse -
Re: This is strange, I have never seen a post...........
Feb 23, 2004 2:47AM PST

Hi, Glenda.

There's currently no way to "lock" a thread to phsically block posts to it; we mods do very occasionally post a request that a particular thread (or more often thread branch) be dropped because it's in danger of degenerating into a shouting match or even flame war.

-- 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 -
That is what I though also......
Feb 23, 2004 2:58AM PST

But twice now Gearup has said that he couldn't post to a thread because it was closed and then reopened to a select few.?? I just wondered if he could tell us which thread he thought was closed? Just a bit crazy, if this has happened to him.
Thanks DaveHappy

- Collapse -
NT Maybe he's getting the "No replies" message and doesn't know the workaround?
Feb 23, 2004 4:24AM PST

.

- Collapse -
I bet you're right!
Feb 23, 2004 4:47AM PST

Reminds me of the old joke about one preacher knowing where the hidden rocks in the river were, thereby impressing his fellow and envious religious fishing mates.