General discussion

To Cnet

I am troubled by a fellow member's complaint that his threads are being locked and removed for apparently no reason.Here is his complaint:
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=54301&messageID=647176
The implications of this are chilling.
I would like to know, as he does, why his posts are being removed without reason.
I have read dozens of this member's posts and never once have I come across anything that could be construed as offensive or abusive. He does have his opinions and he voices them eloquently.
Can you give your assurance that it was not the subject matter or content, political or otherwise, of this member's posts that influenced Cnet's decision to remove his threads?

Thank you,

Discussion is locked
Follow
Reply to: To Cnet
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: To Cnet
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.
Comments
- Collapse -
well since your not a mod

they owe you nada his posts were pulled for various reasons.

- Collapse -
Are you aware that while the U.S. is a

Democracy and basically has Freedom of Speech, I know of no U, S, company that practices democracy. The companies are basically capitalistic and have their own rules and policies that they are free to implement as long as they don't discriminate against those things that the government expressly created laws against. Capitalism simply has no Freedom of Speech policies. Try it where you work and see how long you last. [CNET is a capitalistic company]

The FOS [freedom of speech] group tried their darnest to destroy the Speakeasy forum over a year ago, and failed. You have fallen into a bunch of FOS people renamed that are part of the original group or have joined in thinking that they have the freedom of speech in Speakeasy. You are simply incorrect and CNET owes you nothing.

If the continuous bad mouthing of the United States by the same person creating new threads and tying up resources, private companies can simply allow their diatribes to be quietly removed with no need whatsoever to provide an explanation.

The Moderators have been empowered to implement the policies.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) try to explain that to them a rock hears better
- Collapse -
Yes...

I understand that in the corporate world democracy is seldom seen. Yes , Cnet has the right to do whatever they want in their forums.
But I was not aware that the Speakeasy was a pro-American forum. My understanding of Cnet policy is that only personally offensive or abusive posts are unacceptable. When I registered in these forums, I was not told about or shown any forum policy which expressly forbid political comment of a particular kind.
Cnet describes its forums (and rightly so) as "vibrant". Well what does that mean? These forums are open to people around the world. It seems reasonable to expect that some of the comentary will be somewhat anti-American. What is the harm in diversity?
Kind of eerie to think that these forum are slowly being asumed and controled by pro-American members.
As for this group to which you say I belong, could you clarify that for me? I ask because you do not know me. I am disturbed that you instantly label me as being under the sway of some obscure group which I haven't even heard of just because I apparently voice a concern or opinion similar to theirs.

Thank you,

- Collapse -
When threads are started repeatedly knowing

that the bottom line of that original posted message is to incite or inflame members, the thread gets locked down or removed as seen fit by the Moderators, no matter which forum the post is in, just as posts asking for information about how to get around piracy/copyright laws get locked or removed.

When a member repeatedly posts the same message over and over and over, the replies immediately start heading south......the post is never, although veiled to try to make it appear otherwise, to debate anything. It is posted deliberately to cause confrontation because the same posts are always negative. Many times, many posts are deleted from the thread before members even know they are there, and the thread is locked to prevent it from heading south again rather than remove the whole thread.

Sometimes, a thead is locked down long enough to give the moderators time to clean out the garbage posts that are insulting, inflammatory, etc., and then the thread is unlocked.

No matter what the reasons the moderators have for doing what they do, the only people they have to explain their actions to is Lee Koo.......not the members. So all the 'why' type questions in the world won't get the answers you (or others) think they are entitled to. Moderators have no obligation to explain their actions to members nor do they have an obligation to email members to tell them why a post was deleted, although there are times when the moderator will give that courtesy, and actually include a copy of the post that was deleted within the email telling the member what needs to be cleaned up so they can repost it.

Trouble makers will always complain about ill treatment.....but they have no way of knowing how many other posts from OTHER members have been also deleted and automatically assume that they are the only targets. Paranoia runs deep.

TONI

- Collapse -
Thank you...

for your explanantion. I do take exception to the idea that Cnet owes nothing to its members by way of explanation for deletion of posts and threads. We (members)are all subject to Cnet forum policy. Any change in Cnet forum policy affects us all, as does any apparent enforcement of Cnet forum policy which, on the face of it, looks unrelated to Cnet forum policy.
I am not sure of the utility of reading motives into members' postings. Appearance is one thing, reality is another.
I suggest introducing a new forum policy which limits members' adding new discussions on a given topic to perhaps three or four in a 30 day period.
I suggest also a less imperious tone on the part of the moderators when addressing Cnet members' concerns. We members are part of what makes Cnet tick. I and lots of members, I am sure, make reference to Cnet to our friends and family and subscribe to Cnet newsletters and forward them to other people, all of which contributes to Cnet's ongoing success in the internet marketplace.

Thank you,

- Collapse -
I totally agree with your

statement about what contributes to CNET's ongoing success.....and for the most part, the members who come into our forums are helpful, polite, and courteous people to deal with. There are only a handful of people who go into one particular forum with the sole purpose to disrupt, enrage, inflame, and demand changes in that particular forum in order to have the forum be what they personally think it should be. The majority of the members in that forum don't appreciate the constant barrage and onslaught and it's been going on for a couple of years now...long before you also became a member of that forum. These people have known the 'rules' all along and have known how the moderators there are not obligated to explain publicly to them over and over again why the forum is moderated the way that it is. There is a history with these people that you are not fully aware of, and although the moderators go out of their way to normally avoid or ignore the trouble makers, they are adament about making themselves larger than life there and as soon as their posts or threads get deleted or locked, they get on the same old bandwagon of unfair treatment. They are not treated unfairly but you will never see any of them admit that they have deliberately turned a thread into a free for all in order to call attention back to themselves.

New members are always welcomed by other members and/or the moderator team. We have a couple of regulars who are suspicious to be sure of new members...especially ones who post in a very familiar pattern. However, they have also found out the hard way that when trouble makers are banned from CNET, they immediately return with a different registered username and it becomes obvious quickly they are not new members at all.......and the circle begins again.

I hope that you will find SE to actually be the nearly always friendly and courteous and supportive community it really is. Long-time members feel like SE is a home away from home, and nobody likes having their home constantly being turned into chaos by the will of a few.

TONI

- Collapse -
Yes.Thank you Tony.

I appreciate your response. It was thoughtful and informative. I am sorry to hear that your fine forum(s) has a history of troublemakers and otherwise undesirable characters. Since I had and have no knowledge of the history the problems Cnet has had with these problem individuals, I will defer to your judgement and experience in this regard. I am sorry if I have overstepped my bounds in this matter. I guess it is the nature of the beast, as it were. You are bound to get all kinds when you are on the internet.
I am just sorry to hear that someone would or has tried to shut these forums down. Although I don't know what would be gained from such an exercise.
Anyway, thanks again for your time.
Best to you in the New Year!

- Collapse -
Are you aware that

CNET Forums