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

Moderators failure to abide by new speakeasy rules

Jan 1, 2007 9:21PM PST

The new rules in Speakeasy call for an end to religious and political topics. Yet the moderators seem to be ignoring these rules. Without making a judgment I think that the powers that be ought to take a look at some of the moderators they have appointed and re-evaluate their performance!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
"...moderators seem to be ignoring these rules."
Jan 1, 2007 10:07PM PST
- Collapse -
The conversation in question...
Jan 3, 2007 2:23AM PST

... had went into a discussion of Nixon and further political issues which had nothing to do with the original topic.

I myself pointed out that the thread had become a political discussion in an attempt to help police ourselves at SE.

I personally agree with the thread being locked... I don't necessarily agree with the thread being edited after being locked. The evidence of where the conversation was going should have been left to stand... and remain clear as to where the thread was headed.

grim

- Collapse -
The thread was about presidential pardons and Nixon
Jan 3, 2007 4:41AM PST

was the beneficiary of one or is my memory failing?
The exchange between me and Duckman was rather mild unless there were subsequent posts which I missed.
But I agree that the thread didnt belong under the new rules. There are also a few others which need deleting but I am afraid without prompting that that isnt going to happen!

- Collapse -
old habits die hard
Jan 1, 2007 11:02PM PST

the habit I am referring to is a concerted effort by some se members to disrupt, undermine and I would call sabotage the new rules.

all one has to do is go back to last weeks of november 06 in se. there is an obvious start point for the creation of the new policy.

there is another forum that was begun at that time. some se members joined and there is evidence, when the forum is not locked from public viewing, of a concerted effort to 'report offensive posts', push the envelope of the new policies, and describe certain se members and se moderators in language that is not allowed in any cnet forum.

I would include this OP (opening post) as an example of a mild form of aggression. the author, who has never personally attacked me or vise versa, is expressing a common thread that runs through that other forum.

like anything that is new it takes time to learn new procedures. how many members maybe learned and continue to drive vehicles with manual transmissions? I still do. when I first step into a vehicle with an automatic transmission my left foot still searches for the clutch. depending how long you drive this new experience the more comfortable the trip becomes.

- Collapse -
I do not know how, but this was my post the name
Jan 3, 2007 8:30AM PST

has been changed to JohnEdvin2. all my posts in cnet before 2:30pm EST have also been changed.

can anybody tell me how this happened? I am waiting to hear from lee koo, but I know he is busy, so any info would be appreciated. now and always: WOODS-HICK

- Collapse -
(NT) system hiccup
Jan 3, 2007 8:42AM PST
- Collapse -
i beleive you forgot to mention
Jan 1, 2007 11:41PM PST

that your alert on the "political threads" was answered via email from an SE mod


.,.,

- Collapse -
Jonah I believe that you are in denial
Jan 3, 2007 4:02AM PST

I read the announcement. Obviously you did not choose to understand it. Something you seem to be very good at!

- Collapse -
Too many shades of gray, I think
Jan 2, 2007 11:14PM PST

in determining what is a religious or political discussion. Martin Luther King was both a religious leader and a political activist. Should his mention be banned? If a former president is in the news for other than his political expression, is that event off limits? Can a Hollywood actor who calls for world peace be discussed but a religious leader who does the same be banished from mention? I should think not. The problem occurs when posters stray from the subject and it breaks into a donnybrook. Personally, I take it that discussion of religious or political ideologies are blacklisted. These have become poison. I would think forum moderation will require a bit more insightful thinking for a bit and maybe we should not fly off the handle too easily or look grab a magnifier to look for nits. My two cents.

- Collapse -
Re; grab a magnifier to look for nits
Jan 2, 2007 11:17PM PST

Ya think one is needed?

- Collapse -
You are correct...
Jan 3, 2007 12:58AM PST

And if I point it out, as in the current Pat Robertson thread, my post gets deleted.

A rule is a rule. Either enforce it or do away with it. Letting some bend the rules is foolish and wrong IMHO.

- Collapse -
I agree with you Ed.
Jan 3, 2007 2:30AM PST

The fishing expeditions should stop on both sides. The rules should be applied evenly and impartially.

I assume you would support this position publicly in all public and private forums where this matter is being discussed?

grim

- Collapse -
Just curious, Ed
Jan 3, 2007 5:44AM PST

Have you sent a modalert yet about Mark's Cindy Sheehan post?

- Collapse -
I haven't seen it...
Jan 3, 2007 5:49AM PST

why do you ask? Do you think I would be offended by it?

That IS the idea behind Report Offensive Post, right? Not reporting what someone else finds offensive.

- Collapse -
You made clear....
Jan 3, 2007 6:04AM PST

....that you were reporting violations of the new rules because "a rule is a rule," right? Mark's post violates the rules whether you find it personally offensive or not, so are you going to call him out on it?

- Collapse -
Since you find it offensive
Jan 3, 2007 6:12AM PST

maybe YOU should be the one to report it, NO??

- Collapse -
Whether anyone finds it offensive is IRRELEVANT
Jan 3, 2007 6:18AM PST

Ed said he was reporting posts on the basis that they were violating the new rules.

I didn't find anything offensive about Mark's post. However it does violate the "no politics" rule so I'm just interested in seeing how consistent Ed is in his policing.

- Collapse -
How is it political?
Jan 3, 2007 6:48AM PST

There seems not to be anything there at all. I didn't say I was reporting ALL violations. If you think it's a violation it's up to you to report it.

I am NOT policing. I find THAT offensive, but won't report it. I resent the implication. I am a member who is following the rules, nothing more.

- Collapse -
So get over it and........
Jan 3, 2007 8:58AM PST

hit the mod alert yourself!! Sheesh! Or better yet just let the mods do their job and you quit whining about what EdH should or will/Not Do!

- Collapse -
(NT) You are also missing my point, Glenda
Jan 3, 2007 10:26PM PST
- Collapse -
I'll ask again...
Jan 3, 2007 10:55PM PST

How was it political?

You seem to think you have some great point with this line of "reasoning". You don't. I told you honestly why I objected. Changing the subject and muddying the waters with irrelevancies is not valid.

- Collapse -
It was a post about Cindy Sheehan.....
Jan 3, 2007 11:09PM PST

....staging another protest. It was as political as mine was religious. No more and no less. Mark's post was about someone perceived by many as a political nutcase and my post was about someone perceived by many as a religious nutcase.

In terms of the new rules, his post and mine were quite similar, yet one got a complaint and the other didn't. I just found that interesting.

- Collapse -
I read the post (after you made your comments)...
Jan 3, 2007 11:45PM PST

it said nothing about a demonstration. It actually had almost no content in it at all.

Besides, it is irrelevant. Got nothing to do with my complaint about your Pat Robertson post.

- Collapse -
Why didn't you?
Jan 3, 2007 6:41AM PST

I had not seen it. I just did. It is not particularly political or religious.

Where did I "make it clear that I was reporting violations?" I reported one and got nothing but crap for it.

You aren't trolling by any chance, are you?

- Collapse -
Not "particularly" political?
Jan 3, 2007 6:55AM PST

LOL. I was just doing a consistency check. The results were pretty much what I expected.

Ciao.

- Collapse -
Of course they are...
Jan 3, 2007 7:00AM PST

that's what happens when you go by your prejudices instead of reason.

- Collapse -
it was as good as your
Jan 3, 2007 8:43AM PST

"non" religious post

and a mod named diane replied to it i guess all mods arent on the same page

- Collapse -
That's exactly my point, Mark
Jan 3, 2007 8:57AM PST

One got a complaint, the other didn't.

- Collapse -
so hit the snitch button
Jan 3, 2007 9:01AM PST

you dont see me crying as you are get a grip