Thursday, September 30, 2010

Banned from Columbuzz.net

Well, I've been banned from the website.  It appears that they are blocking my IP address.  I knew it was just a matter of time.  Is this how Bob Freeman will run the trustee office?  If someone disagrees with him during a trustee meeting, will he will ban them from any future meetings?  Bet on it.

And now they have removed my first article from their website.  I guess they can't handle criticism.

And a word of advice to anyone wanting to post an article anonymously.  If they don't like it, your identity will most likely be disclosed, just like me.  I knew it would happen, so fortunately I did not use my real name.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

More Censorship on Columbuzz.net?

Since I express an opinion that the moderators don’t like, it appears they are trying to censor me.  My first article (http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=4942) was modified in a childish and vindictive way.  A picture of a crying baby was added, I was called a crybaby (name calling – Usage Policy violation), and my identity was disclosed, even though the website states “Information about who posts articles will be hidden! This is a public website with no restrictions so post with complete anonymity.”  My second article was published Monday night but then removed Tuesday morning, and my columbuzz.net account was disabled so I had to create a new one.  It looks to me like if you express an opinion that the moderators don’t like, you will be silenced and your identity disclosed.  It looks like you are not allowed to blow the whistle on the so called whistle blowers.  Is this the way Mr. Freeman will run the trustee office if he is elected?

Columbuzz.net Moderators Using Their Usage Policy to Intimidate and Censor Commenters?

Are the Columbuzz.net moderators using their Usage Policy to intimidate and censor commenters?  Let’s look at the evidence.  The Usage Policy states “… As noted earlier, if this type of action is thought to be happening on this Web site, we reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we may know about you, including your IP address(s)) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from this type of action.”  Now this makes perfect sense for legal action with a court order, but for a complaint?  Does it make sense for a whistle blowing website which promises anonymity to reveal people’s identity or IP addresses?  I have read many web site usage policies, but this is the first time I have ever seen something like this.  In my opinion, this policy could be used to intimidate commenters that the moderators don’t like to stop commenting, which again sounds like censorship to me.  As an example, in an article from Sept. 23 (http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=4924), you will see the following added by a moderator to another’s comment:

“…  ADMIN EDITED IP- 192.158.61.141 Shows as Cummins Fuel Systems”

Now I have to wonder, what is the point of revealing someone’s IP address?  Is it to let him know that the moderators know where he works?  That the moderators could call his employer to report him?  Why even disclose this information in the comment section?  Why would fellow commenters care where someone is posting from?  I know I don’t.  Some may think this is just another petty complaint, but revealing someone’s IP address in a public forum could result in internet hackers trying to break into or attack their computer.

Sometimes, comments are edited by the moderators to remove “uncivil” statements.  Here is one example (http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=4924):

My original comment:
Bob said "I was compiling your numerous posts into one to consolidate and accidently deleted a few of them".
You've been doing that a lot to me on here, "accidentally" deleting my posts.  Why me?  Because I'm not a yes man?  Why should I believe you?  I don't normally copy my posts to a separate file, so unfortunately I can't resend.  I guess I'll have to be more careful in the future.

"So, you play by the rules here, or you don't remain here"
But the rules don't apply to you?  I see several examples on this site of you specifically violating the Usage Policy.  I would really like Herman to weigh in on this, since he seems like a voice of reason.  What's the point of having a Usage Policy if the policy is selectively enforced?
To me, it looks like Bob has let his moderator power get to his head.  Will he also let his trustee power get to his head?

And you still haven't answered my question, so I'll repeat.  What is the current status (as of today) on the prosecution of Mr. Barkes?

And here’s what it looked like after Mr. Freeman’s editing:
Bob said "I was compiling your numerous posts into one to consolidate and accidently deleted a few of them."  You've been doing that a lot to me on here, "accidentally" deleting my posts. 

What is the current status (as of today) on the prosecution of Mr. Barkes?


Mr. Freeman wrote that my comment was “off topic and accusatory”.  I will agree it was off topic, but almost all of the comments for this article were off topic.  And it was definitely accusatory, but I had proof, which I outlined in my first post.  He even admitted that he doesn’t always follow the usage policy (“… it is a case of ‘Do as I say, not as I do’.  If I wander from the usage policy from time to time, it is unintentional.”).  So why was my comment edited?  What was so uncivil about stating my opinion?  There was no name calling or profanity.  All I can say is look at the facts and you will see censorship.

Moderators on Columbuzz.net Violating Own Usage Policy?

Are the moderators on Columbuzz.net violating their own Usage Policy?  Let’s look at the evidence.  The Usage Policy states that “… if you use inappropriate language (even when typographically obfuscated), or make potentially slanderous or libelous comments when using this site and its features, or engage in ad hominem attacks on fellow commenters, people mentioned in stories, contributors or anyone associated with Columbus Private Networks we reserve the right (but assume no obligation) to remove any and/or all of your contributions.”  It also states “… we reserve the right, but assume no obligation, to remove comments, stories written and ban accounts of users that foster incivility.”  One example of incivility mentioned by the moderators is name calling.  One of the moderators, Bob Freeman, said the following in a comment on Sept. 25, “Post about the issues and be civil without calling names.”  So let’s look at a few articles by Mr. Freeman.  In an article from March 1, 2010 (http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=3963),   Mr. Freeman writes “And these monsters are in charge of our system.”  If I’m not mistaken, I think he is calling all of the current people in the trustee’s office monsters.  In another article (http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=4908) from Sept. 21, he writes “What an idiot”.  I think here he is referring to the current trustee, Fred Barkes.  Now if a commenter called Mr. Freeman a monster or an idiot or even a monster idiot, Mr. Freeman would most likely delete the comment and refer to the Usage Policy as justification.  But shouldn’t the policy apply to everyone?  The policy does say they are not obligated to remove it, so they cover themselves, but I still think it is unfair.  In another article (http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=2886), which I believe Mr. Freeman wrote, there is some inappropriate language typographically obfuscated.  Now some may think this is a petty complaint or that I’m just whining, but I believe otherwise.  Is it fair to hold your web site users to a different standard?  Is this a case of “Do as I say, not as I do”?  Should Mr. Freeman be banned from the site because of fostering incivility?  Here’s what Mr. Freeman might say to other uncivil posters (actual quotes from Mr. Freeman):
"So, you play by the rules here, or you don't remain here"
“Stay on topic, stay civil, or stay away. It's really that simple.”