44 total posts
(Page 2 of 2)
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.
Re: 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.
(NT) Have a good evening Toni...
Re: 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.
Re: At least..... there is another difference
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.
I don't know the forum breakdown ...
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 ) 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 )
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.
That's interesting and something I've wondered about ...
"....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.
Re: 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.
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
That's not what I meant ...
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.
(NT) Ok, Bill and Roger, thank you both for your replies.
Thanks Bill, again
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.
Re: :-) Latin? something like
non illegitimati carborundum?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 2 of 2)