Speakeasy forum

General discussion

So, having been jumped on by two "Moderators" here

what's the breakdown right vs left among the "moderators"? I know Dave Konkel is on the side of the angels Happy but are the rest of the "moderators" split along the lines of the forum, about 80+/20- to the right? (I'm being conservative here in my estimate, as is appropriate to the leanings of the forum participants.) Sorry about the untoward moderation recently, it must be the influence of all these damned Canadians around me.

These are just questions folks, nothing worth grabbing your AK47 about. Its just that opinions here seem so slanted and the rhetoric so "Take-No-Prisoners" that I find it difficult to deal with. Generally I now try to couch my disagreements in humor. Its easier to deal with.

Yours immoderately

Rob Boyter

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: So, having been jumped on by two "Moderators" here
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: So, having been jumped on by two "Moderators" here
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 -
You filled in the blanks in this thread as usual...

In reply to: Don't hold back now CL

.....not I. Read my post. Besides, I was responding to W2X3XP You joined and bring in the Kindergarthen cop movie, I gave you another analogy to the movie you presented...You didn't like my response instead you find a convenient way to insert your assumption to add (s) to moderator. I suggest you leave the other moderators in peace.

But if you want a recent example of Laws being corrupted @ SE...Here's one where justice has been served. Again, remember, you asked....

Anyhow, dinner is served as well...

Take care Toni. Belated Happy Birthday and may you have many more happy ones ahead... Happy
Collapse -
Nope...."corruption" would have been

In reply to: You filled in the blanks in this thread as usual...

if I had deleted the thread.......justice is when you get fair treatment and since the thread stayed intact, you got justice.

TONI

Collapse -
Re: Nope...."corruption" would have been

In reply to: Nope...."corruption" would have been

Ahhhh, but your intent was to stop it NOW (take it to email).

Just like Saddam's intent was to bomb us into the stone age.

According to the spin masters on the right.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Have a good evening Toni...

In reply to: Nope...."corruption" would have been

Collapse -
Re: Nope...."corruption" would have been

In reply to: Nope...."corruption" would have been

"if I had deleted the thread.......justice is when you get fair treatment and since the thread stayed intact, you got justice."

I am more than miffed by your gall.

To cite what you did to me- and the posting record stands, you allowed my sevral attempts to post a philosophical essay about "what were lincoln's last heard words" to become attacked and poisoned by several trolls.

Each time the troll slandered the essay I began it anew. Two times i did this, as i recall.

You "Moderated" into the thead and sided with the attackers and promised to "rip me a new one" *your words*

God, woman- what kind of language is that for a Moderator to hurl on a defenseless newbie poster?

I started the essay for a third time. And Angeline made a fine reply to the question of my philosophical post. Then you WIPED my answer "now he belongs to the ages". And forbade me in my ANGER to try again. You STOLE my resolution to the philosopical topic, INSERTED it underneath your "rip you a new one" rant, and LOCKED that previously polluted thread down.

In impotent reaction I TOOK BACK my hard-thought out work and posted it up CLEAN and fresh again, where it had every right to be.

And you then? WIPED it out and locked me out of SE without even the courtesy of telling me so. I waited nearly two weeks before receiving any explantion that i had been "banned" for insubordination. For "disrupting" the forum.

Dear Toni i will forgive you for all this tripe you put me through if you will act more fairly and more like a Moderator in the future instead of a vengeful castigator. That is not what moderation should be about.

No contributor here should ever have to suffer words form a moderator on forum saying "i'll rip you a new one!"

But that's what you did to me. Moderators are to protect and to serve the contributors and the forum's safe temper. Not to serve themselves like you did in dealing me OUT of this forum for four weeks.

Collapse -
Re: At least..... there is another difference

In reply to: At least.....

The kids at that school have no choice but to go there and put up with the "bootcamp", members of this forum choose to come here and to remain, they are not compelled to do so.

I will not get into the politicking of this debate, but suffice it to say, if you choose to come here despite your feelings of being a victim, then nobody is to blame except yourself.

Your next move, your choice, nobody is forcing you to stay if you dislike it so much. Wink

Collapse -
I don't know the forum breakdown ...

In reply to: So, having been jumped on by two "Moderators" here

There are a fair number of conservatives, a few liberals, a few socialists and a few libertarians. Are there any other groups I haven't mentioned? How could I forget the anarchists and the sociopaths? Yes, we have a few of those as well.

I agree that the moderation may seem uneven from time to time, but I've always assumed that some of the unevenness was related to history.

In a perfect world (ie, one in which I was in charge Wink ) the moderation would be completely balanced and we wouldn't have some of the deliberately abrasive "dialog" between (for example) Ed & Dave K. But then, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need moderators because everybody would see things with perfect clarity (ie, my way Wink )

I guess I've always assumed that Dave lets Ed get away with some of his stuff because of long standing in the forum and general good behavior in other areas. Or maybe Dave's hide is thicker than mine. Who knows?

My suspicion is that newer members of any political stripe get stricter moderating than older members because the moderators are more confident of what the member is up to than they are with newer members. That's human nature. I also suspect that Dave K. is a bit hesitant to pull the plug on some of the conservative members lest he be accused of bias. On the other side, I'm not sure Dave E. feels any such hesitancy. They have different styles.

I'm not sure what the political leanings of the other moderators are, and I'm not sure it really matters. Most of the moderation seems to be driven much less by political leaning than by abrasiveness/TOS issues. It does sometimes appear that left leaning members of the forum are moderated more aggressively than right leaning ones, but I think most of that has to do with tenure on the forum combined with the fact that some of the more vocal left leaning members have been somewhat less than civil in dealing with right leaning members.

There is at least some justification for the view that a few people have come into the forum with the intention of enlightening the rest of us. Some of those new visitors have resorted to rhetorical tactics like using multiple personae to disrupt things. Those crusaders have not necessarily been well received and they frequently appear to deliberately "push the buttons" of other forum members. I think the moderators are a bit sensitive to that issue.

One final thought. I'm not meaning to sound abrasive here, but it is important to remember that we are, in effect, on private property at a private party. The moderators are our designated hosts. They are (in effect) the people who define what the TOS actually mean, they set the mood for the party, and so forth. At some point, if the party displeases you, you might consider looking for another party more to your taste.

Collapse -
That's interesting and something I've wondered about ...

In reply to: I don't know the forum breakdown ...

"....it is important to remember that we are, in effect, on private property at a private party"

This does appear to be a private board, where perhaps 10 to 12 permanent members meet and chat each day. I'm wondering why it isn't closed to the public. I think you can do that with most chat boards, can't you?

Do you know that this forum is advertised on the CNET home page and in the gobs of junk mail that comes to the email address you use to register with when joining the Help Forums? Might be a good idea to remove those link? Seems like that would make more sense than doing battle all the time with uninvited people.

Ooops. BTW, I wasn't invited either. Happy

Collapse -
Re: That's interesting and something I've wondered about ...

In reply to: That's interesting and something I've wondered about ...

Bill can clarify for himself, and I could be wrong, but I think he meant by "private property at a private party" the fact CNET own and operated the boards.

You were invited, by those links you mentioned, but you agreed to the policies guiding the forums. And you can be dismissed for violating them. Not by me, just for your info, but by the higher PTB.

At least, that is my interpretation.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
That's not what I meant ...

In reply to: That's interesting and something I've wondered about ...

I suspect, however, that you knew what I meant to begin with.

This is a "private party" in the sense that it is run by CNET, not a government entity. CNET believes that sponsoring the help site promotes their business plan, and they have graciously included a non-technical forum as part of their site.

The board is open to all, and posting is available to all registered CNET users.

The forum is private in a different sense. Since this is CNET's web site we are CNET's guests. The "private party" is hosted by the forum moderators, who act as CNET's agents to enforce the TOS. It is important to remember, though, that there is a certain amount of subjectivity in interpreting the TOS. From a practical perspective, the TOS are whatever Lee Koo and the moderators say they are.

IMO the best course is to remember that we are guests at somebody else's facility and act accordingly. That does not mean you have to agree with me or with anybody else here, but it does mean that we must all maintain a degree of civility at all times. Also, just as various parties have their own themes or traditions or whatever, and some of those parties will be more to your liking than others, you may or may not decide in the end that this party is to your liking.

Some of the visitors here have tried to change the forum and its "style". They have every right to attempt that if so inclined. They should not, however, feign surprise when the forum membership objects, and they should make their attempt within the bounds outlined by the TOS.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Ok, Bill and Roger, thank you both for your replies.

In reply to: That's not what I meant ...

Collapse -
Thanks Bill, again

In reply to: That's not what I meant ...

You and Dave Konkel are the reason I keep checking in every day. If it was always "abrasive" as you so delicately put it I might lose heart.

And Dave, I believe the correct Latin motto is
NOTHI VEXARE NON CONCEDITIS
"Nothus" being a person of illegitimate birth and the rest you can work out. Nothi is the plural of Nothus.

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
Re: :-) Latin? something like

In reply to: Thanks Bill, again

non illegitimati carborundum?

Popular Forums

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

REVIEW

Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.