Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Question for The New O.com

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One Question for The New O.com

    Could I just get an explanation of the criteria for deleting threads OTHER than those criticizing or attacking the new administration? The old O.com prohibited posts about drug laws, for instance, which I never understood, personally. (I understood the "rationale"; I disagreed that the particular topic warranted such unique treatment, especially by a blanket policy that also prohibited any intelligent conversations about the moral or philosophical issues it raises.)

    I noticed several threads missing from the new O.com that had nothing to do with attacking the new administration...like those about red lights, constitutional checkpoint procedure, "client" cell phone use during traffic stops, seat belt use, and the strictness of CCW and hand gun possession laws in NYC.

    My apologies if I missed a clear statement of policy outlining prohibited topics (ideally, with some logical justification) already posted somewhere on the site.

    As far as the big war goes, I wasn't on the old O.com long enough to have developed any strong affinity for the old "ways"...but I couldn't
    help notice that the people most outraged and vocal about it, (some of whom left), were many of the same people who liked to employ the swarm technique in here anytime someone else had a cross word with one of their on-line "brothers" (and carried grudges from thread to thread). I've also noticed that since the big change, threads and posts seem to focus more on issues of discussion rather than on-line sharing of personal diaries ("I lost five pounds this week, yay me!", "Congratulations, yay you!", "How'd your nephew do on his 4th Grade math test, Buddy?", etc)
    Last edited by ProWriter; 08-06-2003, 09:47 PM.
    No longer ignoring anybody here, since that psycho known as "Josey Wales" finally got the boot after being outed as a LE imposter by B&G978. Nice job.

  • #2





    Nope! Not gonna say anything... You can't make me.....

    *Rimfire shoves a sock in his own mouth*


    AAAAGGHHHH AGAGA AHAINDISNFKSDJF!!!
    There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot.

    Steven Wright

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: One Question for The New O.com

      Originally posted by ProWriter
      [B]Could The old O.com prohibited posts about drug laws, for instance, which I never understood, personally. (I understood the "rationale"; I disagreed that the particular topic warranted such unique treatment, especially by a blanket policy that also prohibited any intelligent conversations about the moral or philosophical issues it raises.)
      Discussions regarding the legalization of drugs were prohibited because of a rash of pro-marijuana people joining the board to debate cops on the legalization of drugs. First, police do not create laws, they do enforce the laws. If someone wants to debate the legalization of MJ, they should visit a forum for legislators. Second, how many pro-drug threads are going to bring up anything new. It gets old discussing the same topics. I imagine there were other problems resulting from the many pro-MJ threads.
      Drug Recognition Expert

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Frogman

        I was politely asked to join their new board, which I declined and opted to stay here.
        FYI, the National Traffic Enforcement Association board has been up for about 2 years. I certainly wouldn't call it a "new" board. It is older than several other popular police forums on the web.
        Drug Recognition Expert

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm guessing by "new" FM was referring to the "new home" of those former members of O.com, and not the length of time their other site's been in existence. I was also asked to join and I had to inquire into the sincerity of the offer, since I couldn't help notice that the core group that switched were the same clique that hated me from the old neighborhood ever since the Atkins thread.

          I don't go anywhere that I'm probably not wanted or anywhere specifically looking for trouble...that's probably not an attitude shared by any crusaders from the old O.com returning under new names to post coordinated anti-O.com propaganda here. I like O.com better since they all split, so I'm not going anywhere. (Still waiting for the explanation of why the aforementioned threads were deleted, though.)
          No longer ignoring anybody here, since that psycho known as "Josey Wales" finally got the boot after being outed as a LE imposter by B&G978. Nice job.

          Comment


          • #6
            ProWriter,

            I still post here because I actually agree with the new O.com staff who says it's just the internet, no one forces me to be here.

            Having said that many of the old members got to know each other in this cyber version of the local cop watering hole. The old staff was always welcoming to new members, including you. The only swarms I saw was when a large number of people disagreed with a particular message but isn't that what this forum is all about- voicing your opinion/asking questilons?

            You say you were not here that long yet you do not hesitate to judge the former members with a little slam. That's not very nice "Pro", don't create your own clique by joining the chorus of those denouncing the former members.

            I am getting used to the format changes and still enjoy posting here. None of the former core members have given me a hard time about it; no swarms on me.

            Although I am part of the 'old neighborhood' I will admit that format wise I am ok with the new look. I like the new home page even with the ads. I am happy that I gave it a chance.

            I apologize for jumping into your thread off topic.
            Disclaimer: The writer does not represent any organization, employer, entity or other individual. The first amendment protected views/commentary/opinions/satire expressed are those only of the writer. In the case of a sarcastic, facetious, nonsensical, stirring-the-pot, controversial or devil's advocate-type post, the views expressed may not even reflect those of the writer.

            Comment


            • #7
              Only a few posts have been deleted. The ones you mentioned we're not familiar with specifically...to our knowledge only two or three that weren't related to the group thats been against o.com for the last month or so, were removed.

              We'll have to look into our settings and make sure someone else isn't somehow removing posts, or make sure users can't remove an entire thread by removing their post if its first. We'll double check on that. Certainly, we haven't been removing that many threads so some of the comments are a bit news to us. We'll look into it though.

              As long as you're not using profanity, being obnoxious, etc. and keeping things relatively on topic with the category you are posting in, its doubtful we'd remove/edit anything. We won't be in here lurking much other than to check out the discussion from time to time. The forums pretty much run themselves. A lot of folks have been using the 'report a post' feature when something does seem out of line, like spam, off topic comments, etc. and thats whats going to drive things for the most part.

              Thanks again for being proactive and being a part of Officer.com. We know in the long run the majority will be proud to be here.

              Thanks
              Officer.com Team
              sigpic
              The Web's Source for Law Enforcement
              PM for Technical Support or visit our contact page.

              Comment


              • #8
                I've also noticed that since the big change, threads and posts seem to focus more on issues of discussion rather than on-line sharing of personal diaries
                Thank you! That is EXACTLY what this place should be about.

                (by the way, that still means we're a community ... some folks seem to misunderstand or twist that up ... this is a law enforcement site. if you want to talk about what you had for dinner (unless it was in a cruiser), this isn't the place ....
                sigpic
                The Web's Source for Law Enforcement
                PM for Technical Support or visit our contact page.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It's kinda like when my Mom & Dad got their divorce. I was grown & on my own so I tried to stay on the fence & maintain a relationship with both. My youngest sister is the only one who chose to side with Mom totally & won't have anything to do with our Dad. Mom was bitter & didn't want any of us to have anything to do with our Dad so it was real hard to maintain a relationship with her & her knowing that I was also maintaining a relationship with Dad. I'll try to do the same here & see how it goes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ProWriter
                    I was also asked to join and I had to inquire into the sincerity of the offer, since I couldn't help notice that the core group that switched were the same clique that hated me from the old neighborhood ever since the Atkins thread.
                    Aren't we a little self centered Yes PW, there was a vast conspiracy to swarm and hate you... You started you own thread after the Atkins thing and you were not bothered. I'm still on Atkins BTW and my cholesterol is down to 174 from 317. It works for me and my doctor is very pleased.
                    Bill R

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by OfficerDotCom
                      (by the way, that still means we're a community ... some folks seem to misunderstand or twist that up ... this is a law enforcement site. if you want to talk about what you had for dinner (unless it was in a cruiser), this isn't the place ....
                      I'm not being sarcastic here; this is a sincere question. It was always my understanding that the General Topics section was a forum for anyone, not just law enforcement. Wives, families, and friends of police officers, as well as anyone else who happened to wander onto the site were welcomed. Based on what you said above, that doesn't seem to now be the case. Could you clarify your statement, please? Thanks.

                      Also, in the unlikely event I lose 5 pounds, can you direct me to the area I can announce this in? (just kidding)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yes, as long as posts related to the topics (i.e. general) thats all good. Anything goes, generally, but at the same time this isn't a chat room so posts should be relatively on topic and not chit chat of a real basic nature. Thats more for a chat room itself.

                        This place is defenitely a lot more open and free than it was, despite whatever you may read Some folks thought because we were trying to make things a bit more professional it meant it was no longer as much a community. Defenitely not the case.

                        Hope that clarifies.
                        sigpic
                        The Web's Source for Law Enforcement
                        PM for Technical Support or visit our contact page.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BRICKCOP

                          You say you were not here that long yet you do not hesitate to judge the former members with a little slam. That's not very nice "Pro", don't create your own clique by joining the chorus of those denouncing the former members.
                          Brick, I'm not creating any clique, and the only thing I'm denouncing is behavior, not people. If you want the absolute truth, I generally don't even keep track of WHO authors posts that I respond to, because I try to respond strictly to the issue. If someone addresses me specifically, like you just did then I respond to them directly, just because it's more like a conversation.

                          My criticism of the former moderators is that they seemed very bonded in a PERSONAL sense as friends, to the extent that they tended to rally together and counter attack jointly anytime someone took up an issue on a thread with one of them. This isn't the street where anybody needs "backup" or where you need to protect each other in life or death circumstances like you do on the street.

                          Moderators are supposed to maintain some objectivity...so it's not appropriate to respond "here to abuse my moderator status" etc when closing a thread, after a member says (honestly) that he thinks one of the OTHER moderators is abusing HIS status in ordering someone to either "be supportive" of a position on a thread or STFU.

                          I may agree with something you write today and TOTALLY disagree with something else you write tomorrow: Either way, if I'm motivated enough to respond, it's only to the issue on that particular thread and not personally. I don't think you need to apologize at all for raising an issue tangental to "my" thread topic, either, if it really seemed to you that I was creating a new clique. To be perfectly honest, I couldn't even name a single person in the group you thought I was "joining"...and the only reason I can name two or three of the anti-administration clique is that they were so conspicuous in their fraternity mentality on the old O.com and because they all attacked me personally for telling ONE of them what he could kiss after he literally told me to shut the f##@ up if I couldn't be suportive of his point of view on a thread. They're the ones who took it like a personal "attack" if you disagreed with their position on a thread (or with the title topic of a thread). I don't have any problem with your disagreeing with my position here, even if you mischaracterized my motivation.

                          Most importantly, if I respond to a future post by BRICKCOP on some other thread, it will be a genuine response to whatever the issue is, anew, and TOTALLY unrelated to your disagreement with me on this particular thread. Furthermore, I've never tried to rally support for myself or instigate antagonism toward you or anybody else (yet, as of this writing) by addressing other members ABOUT you in public posts, or telling someone publicly to "check your PM's " at the tail end of my posts or anything infantile like that. ****Edited by necessity to include the possibility of the appearance of outright evangelists on O.com****

                          I genuinely hope the old O.com members like the other site, but speaking strictly for myself, I just prefer having a site moderated objectively and impartially the way it seems to be now, than the way it was moderated before, by a group of friends who incorporated their moderator status and privileges into their personal contributions to the site as members. That's not a personal attack on anybody at all.
                          Last edited by ProWriter; 08-08-2003, 11:48 PM.
                          No longer ignoring anybody here, since that psycho known as "Josey Wales" finally got the boot after being outed as a LE imposter by B&G978. Nice job.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Bill R
                            Aren't we a little self centered Yes PW, there was a vast conspiracy to swarm and hate you... You started you own thread after the Atkins thing and you were not bothered. I'm still on Atkins BTW and my cholesterol is down to 174 from 317. It works for me and my doctor is very pleased.
                            That's my point. It shouldn't have ever been NECESSARY for me to "start my own thread" just because I had a different opinion about Atkins. FYI I only started that thread facetiously to illustrate how obnoxious I thought it was for a moderator to close down a thread with two-way exchanges only to open a new one titled "ONLY for those who believe in Atkins". I was also told by one of the other lead moderators/administrators (who started the original thread) that the only appropriate response on my part to his thread "Who Else Does Atkins" was "not me", and that anything else I said contrary to his diet's philosophy constituted "hopping up on my soapbox". Incidentally, he posted that comment addressed to me by name AFTER the thread was already closed by the moderator who signed off "here to abuse my moderator status". Moderators or administrators aren't supposed to use their thread control privileges to make threads one-way dialogs or to rally support for their friends.

                            Threads on topics are always for two-way EXCHANGES of different points of view on the topic and nobody should have to "start my own thread" just to present his view on the topic without being attacked.
                            Last edited by ProWriter; 08-07-2003, 10:02 PM.
                            No longer ignoring anybody here, since that psycho known as "Josey Wales" finally got the boot after being outed as a LE imposter by B&G978. Nice job.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Good to see o.com has made a wonderful change. ridding yourselves of NS has given o.com credibility once more. ..... full points to o.com's admin. Best of luck for the future. you might want to take a look at his little forum, sounds like slander and defamation to me.

                              [Post edited by Officer.com WebTeam. No need to mention NiteShift here or his NTEA forum. Others may do it, and their actions speak for themselves. The long term userbase of Officer.com will speak volumes for itself. Thanks]
                              Last edited by taggart; 08-08-2003, 04:52 PM.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 4466 users online. 306 members and 4160 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X