Speakeasy forum

General discussion

(NT) Why not just delete it?

by Evie / October 26, 2006 12:22 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: (NT) Why not just delete it?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: (NT) Why not just delete it?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Then it would no longer antagonize people.
by Kiddpeat / October 26, 2006 12:38 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) What was wrong with it?
by duckman / October 26, 2006 12:40 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) OK! OK! but where is it?
by jonah jones / October 26, 2006 12:41 AM PDT
Collapse -
The locked thread
by Evie / October 26, 2006 12:43 AM PDT

Is there any post in that thread that warrants deletion? Or the thread itself? Or is it just slapping the lock on because of what MIGHT ensue in discussion?


Collapse -
by duckman / October 26, 2006 12:44 AM PDT
In reply to: The locked thread

SNORK !! I just spit coffee through my nose with that !

Collapse -
That's a regular feature ...
by EdH / October 26, 2006 12:51 AM PDT
In reply to: Consistency????

of Togo's morning routine.

Collapse -
The strange part is that I
by duckman / October 26, 2006 12:53 AM PDT

was drinking milk

Collapse -
I find it odd that you had to tell
by duckman / October 26, 2006 12:54 AM PDT
In reply to: The locked thread

a mod where to go look !!

Collapse -
Well maybe ...
by Evie / October 26, 2006 12:58 AM PDT

... Jonah thought I was referring to the various and sundry "that's a TOS but I won't delete" it posts coming from another moderator on a regular basis lately.

Angeline, a moderator, responded to the original post. I would say that's an "OK" for others to respond as well. I didn't see anything wrong with any of the responses. Why the lock? Sad It's really crappy to have someone's time wasted when they go to hit submit and get the old "thread locked" crap.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Type faster then !!
by duckman / October 26, 2006 1:01 AM PDT
In reply to: Well maybe ...
Collapse -
You can say that again.
by Kiddpeat / October 26, 2006 8:19 AM PDT
In reply to: Well maybe ...

Particularly when something needs to be said within the thread.

Collapse -
I guessed that one correctly
by MarciaB / October 26, 2006 1:51 AM PDT
In reply to: The locked thread

and I hadn't even posted in the locked thread in question. I would hazard a guess that pretty much anyone that has followed SE postings for even only a few days would have also guessed correctly.

You know what I think would be an interesting research project in all of this? Just for one week, have the Moderators and the Members switch places. Maybe have it so that the various ''camps'' have their turn as Moderators. I believe it would not only be mayhem on the highest order, but possibly an eye-opener for everyone, and maybe even a laugh or two in the process

I have had my turn at stating to a couple of the Moderators (DK and Jonah recently, off the top of my head) that I felt their posts were out of line. I have been responded to in some cases with support for the Moderator in question (recently with my comments to Jonah). I believe that in general, the Moderators as a whole must be willing to work together as a "team," even if they don't necessarily agree with one another's points of view on a subject. This would be similar to any workplace that has a heirarchy of administrative staff. They may not always agree amongst themselves, but they must present a united front to the rest of the staff or they lose all credibility and control.

The Moderators are not perfect by any means, but I sure as Hell would not want their job, and I know that if I did I would certainly have a whole bunch of folks here at SE that presently seem to ''sorta' like me'' jumping on me BIG TIME for deleting their posts - lots of posts - in ALL camps.


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Oh the poor overworked mods
by duckman / October 26, 2006 1:54 AM PDT
Collapse -
you hit the nail on the head Marcia
by jonah jones / October 26, 2006 1:58 AM PDT

i, personally, felt a little "uncomfortable" acting as a mod -assisting evie-, knowing that someone was sitting there sneering and trying to give me a 'golden shower' while doing so....



Collapse -
Excuse me?
by Evie / October 26, 2006 2:25 AM PDT

When did you assist me? Puh leeze.

Collapse -
nonononooooo YOU excuse ME....
by jonah jones / October 26, 2006 2:58 AM PDT
In reply to: Excuse me?

evie posts a question
lil ole me (wearing my cute little red "M") dashes across and says "i may have a solution, but where is the problem?????????????"

so what exactly is your problem?


maybe it pissed you off that of all the seven mods at your disposal it was me that "offered assistance"....

nahhhhhh gid oudda here! no way!!


Collapse -
Really Jonah ...
by Evie / October 26, 2006 3:32 AM PDT

... especially since you demand such detail from everyone else here, you could explain what the heck you mean without all of the hostile inanity.

I didn't see anything that needed to be deleted there. I sure as heck didn't hit the mod alert button about anything in that post. I also didn't see the need for a lock.

That thead was rather slow this morning. The notion that some overworked and underpaid moderator needed in excess of an hour to clean up that which didn't need cleaning up is ludicrous. So IF you (or any of the other Mods) thought there was a post that was taking the thread downhill, why not just delete it? There was no snowballing deluge that needed to be stopped in order that the thread could be cleaned up of a whole lot of posts.

The moderators don't want to see this, but it is the locking of threads that is responsible for a LOT of the problems here. Either a post violates the TOS or it does not. Locking threads that are "going downhill" w/o removing the posts that are taking it there is unhelpful. Locking threads in anticipation of them eventually, maybe, going downhill is ridiculous.

Collapse -
I have a suggestion...
by J. Vega / October 26, 2006 3:57 AM PDT
In reply to: Really Jonah ...

I have a suggestion. I suggest that in the future when a Moderator decides to lock a thread, they first post a notice in that thread that they are taking that action just before they lock it. That would solve the "who did what" questions. What would be the problem with that? It seems that if somebody is given special powers and is placed in a position of authority they should be willing to publically reveal their actions in the case of using the powers that were given to them as a person in authority.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) That would overburdening
by duckman / October 26, 2006 3:59 AM PDT
In reply to: I have a suggestion...
Collapse -
But then they'll get hate mail ...
by Evie / October 26, 2006 5:05 AM PDT
In reply to: I have a suggestion...

... but wait! If that mail had to go through official CNet channels, it would support a ban request and weed out the troublemakers. (Yep, another shameless plug to improve things by simply activating the "email this member" option on the SEMods CNet ID)

It is my observation that respect for the moderators has deteriorated in direct proportion with the increasing anonymity of their actions. Not to mention their deteriorating respect for the membership here.

It used to be that SE and its Mods were given greater latitude and moderators from other forums took a hands-off policy, unless things really flamed and it appeared there were no SE mods ''on duty''. The basic jist was that the SEMods could be more forgiving of the ''just X&Y trading friendly barbs again'' type postings, or even the heated debate. That this would be more fair than having a stranger pass judgment. It worked for a long time. Yes there were the occasional moderator/member feuds, but it wasn't a forum-wide rift like today. Now the membership has no such assurances, not even the assurance that at least ONE (let alone enough for any sort of consensus) moderator has even read the posts in this forum. Moderators use words like ''lurking'' and the membership is left guessing who deleted a post and why -- or more importantly, what other moderators have read the offensive postings of a fellow moderator and left them standing. We're told to email the moderators rather than hitting the mod alert. The collective experiences of several members here are that doing the former is indeed an exercise in futility -- ESPECIALLY if the post in question is by another moderator. The fact that doing the latter usually gets prompt action tells me that the SEMods are either overruled by generic application of the TOS by uninvolved parties, or they change their actions when someone is watching.

There's a saying about what one does when they think/know others are watching vs. when they are alone that seems to apply here.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
izzat so
by jonah jones / October 26, 2006 7:10 AM PDT

why would the "individual" lock be any more prone to hate mail than the "collective" lock such as we have today?


Collapse -
Just a reason that's been given before ...
by Evie / October 26, 2006 7:32 AM PDT
In reply to: izzat so

... for the relatively new practice of not ''announcing'' which mod deletes a post, locks a thread or writes an email from the communal address. If you are not interested in what perception this anonymous behavior gives or the problems it has caused, simply ignore my comments.

If it is hate mail that is the problem, that can be controlled better by only allowing it to be sent through the CNet system. That way it is IN THE SYSTEM -- as in something that CNet has not only the ability to, but the responsibility to act on. The private emails are now subject to the same TOS as on the forum. No moderator need give out a personal address, or allow persons to contact their individual ID -- that can be each's perogative.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) sounds easy enough to me
by MarciaB / October 26, 2006 6:38 AM PDT
In reply to: I have a suggestion...
Collapse -
by duckman / October 26, 2006 2:39 AM PDT

Since one of the persons responsible for the most inflammatory posts (the non mod) has admitted several times that he posts here to get reactions out of us empty barrels (called baiting and trolling a CLEAR VIOLATION OF TOS but never enforced), wouldn?t it be better for the entire board (and the overworked volunteers) if that were dealt with first. And don?t think for a minute that some posts have been deleted because a mod personally didn?t like it or that certain spewed garbage stays up because they support it. Again, this board could be a whole lot better and it would be simple to do. Also, guessing that result today is like picking yesterdays lottery numbers.

Collapse -
Since you mentioned Moderator teamwork ...
by Evie / October 26, 2006 5:50 AM PDT

... this seems to be as good a place as any to finally make this post.

I've been here about six years now and SE has had ups and downs during that time. I remember lots of good times, which means that the did exist AFTER the 2000 election season. The forum weathered the Spy Blocker episode, a few isolated troublemakers -- some recurrent but mostly individual menaces (I won't name names, but I can think of a few that are no longer here -- under their former ID's anyway -- who could single-handedly cause 24 hour bursts of destruction), the FOS attacks and TV, and bouts that continue to this day where MPD rears its ugly head. Through MOST of it, the Moderators have enjoyed the respect and support of the majority of the membership here (regardless of political affiliation). Something changed. I thought it was just me feeling hostility from the Moderators, but judging from the discussions about the moderation and the escalating misbehavior of certain Mods, I've come to realize that I'm not alone. Certain Mods take ANY criticism WAY too defensively and personally, others are openly hostile in a VERY personal way. The members are just a bunch of ungrateful complainers apparently who don't appreciate the commitment of the moderators who are just trying to save our beloved SE.

I find myself hitting the Modalert button a lot more than I ever used to (though still nowhere near what some moderators seem to insinuate that I do). The reason is that (1) there is NO assurance that ANY SEMod has read posts in question, and (2) more often than not, the offender is a moderator themselves.

The moderators can't possibly work together when they aren't all ''here'' or even know when they are. (Toni recently said that a post of mine prompted her to email Rick to see if he was OK). They seem to worry more about stepping on each others toes and preserving anonymity to project the APPEARANCE of a united front. In reality it has the opposite effect. Because on the rare occasion when I would get an email from SEMods, it was clearly written by one of them and I doubt highly that all of the moderators agreed with the sentiments, let alone even saw the post or alert that prompted it or the email before or after it was sent out partially in ''their name''. OBVIOUSLY it would be absurd for seven moderators to kvetch on the deletions of each post or collaborate on every email sent to a member. But then what would really be the harm in signing the email?

I like Rick Jones, but I was probably not alone in being surprised when he was selected as a Mod. He had been MIA for a long time so it seemed odd. But then he started to participate again so I figured that the hiatus was over. Then poof! I simply don't see how anyone that only has access from work can even keep up with SE on a personal level, let alone moderate. If he's just moderating in the wings w/o posting, maybe that's really what SE needs more of. But how many times have we heard from various moderators that they are ''taking a break from posting'' in SE? IMO, the need to take a break from this place is easy to understand. Been there, done that. But if one is in a ''need a break'' frame of mind, how can they possibly feel in a suitable mindframe to moderate in obscurity?

I submit that a lot of the posts wouldn't be made in the first place if the moderators were more consistent. There's only so much patience anyone can be expected to have before they will respond in kind. The Mods were never perfect and nobody expects/expected them to be. But they were never this disjointed and inconsistent. Blaming politics and polarization is either a diversion or a convenient excuse -- heated politics was already a part of SE for a while before I came here in 2000 (I did go back and read quite a bit at one point the first time the pre-2000 election bliss was referred to and found no such difference). Perhaps fewer moderators rather than more is what is needed. It is clear that the current group does not function as a team no matter the appearances they put forth.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
by duckman / October 26, 2006 6:03 AM PDT

I?m glad that is brought up again. In another thread (since locked) a former mod said that in the type of email that Edward received it was routine or common that ALL the mods would participate in it. If that is the case, that it would NOT be news to any of the mods that I was recently ?threatened? with banning. And in that, I can not believe that if ALL the mods participated in it that not one single one of them would have ACTULLY LOOKED at what was going on to see what was there. You are absolutely correct !!!!!!!! CONSISTENCY . Where is it?

Collapse -
just for accuracy sake
by jonah jones / October 26, 2006 7:06 AM PDT
In reply to: Teamwork?

she (the ex-mod) said: "We know that all the Mods contribute to, edit, and/or review the outgoing emails"


Collapse -
Oh really? Then why did Toni ...
by Evie / October 26, 2006 7:38 AM PDT
In reply to: just for accuracy sake

... wonder where Rick was lately?

If you all do contribute in some way -- even if it's only agreeing with the content -- there should be no problem signing your name to the email.

When DE was alive I received a few generic emails signed SE Moderators from the commnal account that I knew, through our private exchanges, did not reflect his opinion or sometimes even other moderators as well.

Collapse -
Good job
by duckman / October 26, 2006 7:44 AM PDT
In reply to: just for accuracy sake

you've deleted another post because YOU don't like it Thanks for proving the point. See how long this one lasts !!

Collapse -
get this through your skull
by jonah jones / October 26, 2006 8:16 AM PDT
In reply to: Good job

you deliberately distorted a post (read lied) to back up your claim...

your post should have remained?....

i think not...


Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?