Groups :: SodaHead Groupies : General Discussions About SodaHead

Agreed

Then Isma'ila would have been punished MANY times.

I think people who want others punished for supposedly lying about them should not lie about others.

-Repulsive content designed purely to evoke revulsion
Would that include graphics showcasing a US political figure with swastikas and nazi symbols?
This could evoke revulsion in many people.

You got that one right Bad Sheep. I am so sick of seeing it my own self. Let's not forget the images of African Witch Doctors either.

I believe SH should include "flaming" in the CoC.

Computer Slang . an angry, critical, or disparaging electronic message, as an e-mail or newsgroup post. - Courtesy of dictionary.com

So you are saying that , in the course of a disagreement on a topic with someone, being critical is unaceptable. One may be critical w/o being abusive and how may one exercise their first Amendment rights, and post their opinions concerning things that upset them, w/o being critical?

While that makes sense, 'flaming' can be hard to define.
If I'm disagreeing with someone with a different political p.o.v. and they start denouncing me as stupid, immoral, having no honor, a liar and a thief - I'm pretty sure that qualifies as flaming.

Did not know that....
Off to delete things!

It is clear that SH is selective in enforcing its own Code of Conduct. It would be nice to know that SH took its own Code of Conduct seriously, but that is not the case.

They have absolutely been selective in their enforcement of this code of conduct. If CC was deactivated for saying those things, there's about 10 people from the conservative blogs that have hurled way worse insults at me that are posting away, even though I did flag and report them.
Total BS if you ask me.

Politically you and me seldom agree, but on common sense issues we do tend to agree.

People like CC make themselves targets. There are similar personalities on the right side of the aisle. They deliberately insult large numbers of people, make lots of enemies, and then those enemies follow them around ready to pounce on opportunities to report them. (Someone told me it takes 7 TOS violation reports before someone gets deactivated.)

The selectiveness of SH's enforcement may depend on how tired they get of seeing reports generated on particular members. Just the same, they should treat everyone the same.

Or at least be aware that they may well be being played to get rid of political adversaries (regardless of which side of the political spectrum they hail from).
My biggest problem is with someone blocking me from answering a question they've posted. If they, personally choose to "not receive correspondence" from me is fine, but using the block to refuse to allow me to answer a question posted in a general forum is ridiculous. It is simply a form of censorship and if SH continues to allow it, I think that speaks ill for a "supposed" opinion site.

couldn't agree more.

there was a sh with whom I had a problem, contacted SH and reported accordingly and that person was back on with a different name (on the exact same posts) in less than 24 hrs

I also concur, wholeheartedly

is it against sodahead TOS to have a flashing background that can induce sezuires ?
http://www.sodahead.com/user/... this user whos been deactivated keeps comming back with more spamming and sezuire inducing profile

After reading this it seemed the only option left was to rave someone,.. but oops, that can be considered a violation of TOS also,..

Wait - - - does this men I have to stop posting photos of myself naked?