Banning people from DegreeInfo

Amateur Radio Call Signs

The characters "kf5k" have the form of a US amateur radio call sign. The license records of the Federal Communications Commission are public records; one web site that allows call sign searches is http://www.arrl.org. The records shows that the call sign KF5K is issued to James H. Crabb. There is, of course, no way to know if Mr. Crabb is the same person using the characters "kf5k" to identify himself in this forum (except to ask him).

 

It would be very surprising if it's not Mr. Crabb, since kf5k's name is James and he hails from Mississippi (as does James Crabb).

 

I tread lightly when I post this, and if it pisses people off so be it. Everyone gets pissed off now and again.

The feeling at other boards is that degree info is not a democracy which it ain't. The moderators have right to run this the way they want to they pay for it.

The general complaint is that DI has a party line, and if you don't support it you are banned. This I doubt, but I am not a moderator so I don't know how they do things, though from what I have seen they step in when it gets too personal.


I probably should have been banned or warned when I called somoene from SRU a liar. I didn't have any proof, but in my opion he was full of it.

RA is always pushed first due to the fact that it has the greatest utility. From there everyone touts DETC then National. Many on this board feel that Unaccredit is a mill. Not entirely true, though for the most part unaccredited degree's have little utility.

My personal thought is if an unaccredited degree works for you go for it. I will NEVER say that a degreemill degree is any good. I hold a unaccredited degree, but as a joke. I have bachelors of Adequacy from the International University of Nescience. Which is the International Univesity of Ignorance. The degree has no value and is only for the purpose of giggling uncontrollably.....

 

A great piece of detective work Ashton (Sherlock Ashton wasn't it?)
Whatever faults James had in his postings his posts were always interesting, well written, thought provoking and at times provocative; but along with 'plcscott', Henrik, that chap Peter, Jimmy and a few other 'non-traditional' DL supporters helped place DegreeInfo a cut above the rest. But a current lack of interest by these people (having been incessantly hammered by a few RA Extremists), or their removal and/or departure, has, I believe, left the DegreeInfo forums somewhat mundane, and has most certainly reduced the value of its forums - to a level where the 'state/unaccredited, etc' forum has perhaps reached its 'use-by' date and should follow the MIGS forum into oblivion?
Dr Anatidae

 

When I first became a member here, there was a person who posted some remarks that were VERY racists and offensive to say the least. (Most of you probably know who I am talking about). I e-mailed the moderators, and they did explain that they only get involved in degree mill promotion, not offensive remarks. I think since then that the personal and some remarks have gotten a bit out of control, so they have had to step in.

I have visited other sites, and none compare to the quality and information here on degreeinfo. I would like them to step in more, when some make attacks just to get someone going (which I have fell victim to), but they seem fair. Again, I must confess that I don't understand some of the issues, so I may not be a good judge.

As some have said, I enjoy the alphabet soup (AACSB, etc.), so my schools don't lie in the degree mill category, or debateble there, so I don't get the too involved in the debates.

 

OK, for the umpteenth time:

DegreeInfo does not and never has banned people for expressing opinions contrary to the "party line", not that there *is* a party line.

DegreeInfo absolutely bans people for violating our Terms of Service, to which each person registering agrees to adhere to.

In particular, we ban multiple logins, shills for particular programs (accredited or unaccredited), trolls whose intention is only to create flame wars, and individuals who disrupt the debate and discussion here.

But in the almost 3 years that DegreeInfo has been online, banned posters represent a very tiny percentage of the overall posters, and the total number of posts removed represent an even smaller percentage of the total number of posts.

Our focus in moderation is to permit discussion and debate over many different issues and viewpoints, but to limit personal attacks, flaming, shilling, and other content that isn't in keeping with the development of the degreeinfo community.

 

James repeatedly made personal attacks and had little interest in debating facts. His main interest was in gathering support for unaccredited degree mills. All one has to do is visit collegehints.com to get a flavor his posts.

Like you I feel that degreeinfo is most interesting when many positions are represented. I appreciate the great job the moderators do in supporting that with as little moderation as possible.

It is clear what Peter French and Suhar have done borders on the criminal and at the very least is disgusting. I certainly thought they were better men than that.

 

Re: Re: I might me new at this so please bear with me

Just to clarify....I never actually banned them. I was about to (finger on the button) when I realized I was doing it in a fit of anger, and it was just unfair to do that based on the allegations of one person (as much as I trust Rich).

Also...I didn't "can" the thread, I just moved it into the Admin forum until things can be sorted out.

 

Re: Re: Re: I might me new at this so please bear with me

Depends on the definition of "can."

Calling the actions "alleged" implies that they're based on an allegation. No. They're based on an observation, the same one you can make by reading the alt.education.distance newsgroup. There you can read Peter French's posts of both the link to the document and his very foul comments regarding it and me. As for Suhar, he posted comments on the K-W web about the document on December 4th. That means he had it. If necessary, I'll post Suhar's e-mail address, the one he used to order the document.

Verifying and understanding these actions are not predicated on taking my word for things. They are not "alleged." They happened, and are very real. How you react to them is your business, but they're not based upon my assertions of fact alone. Perhaps that will guide you to your desired action?

 

Despise
allies?
Unwise.

 

I am hard placed to know what this thread is about as it involves past experiences of many distinguished contributors to Degreeinfo which I have not shared.

In realise that a society such as ours needs some modicum of rules and courtesies - even a society of thieves and murderers requires a rule that they do not thieve from each other or murder each other.

But I would hope that the boundary between unacceptable behaviour that can be corrected by shame and admonition and unacceptable behaviour that is consistently beyond the pale, which would trigger expulsion, is recognised to be broad, though clearly stated.

I am sorry to see Peter French caught up in this, even though he has been a trenchant critic of myself (we also learn from unfair criticism) as he seems to me to have something interesting to say on occasion. Rich appears to have been badly treated and, if push came to shove, I would prefer he prevailed than Peter (he consistenly contributes here, whereas Peter's is occasional).

Could we call a truce?

 

None to be called, for there is--at this juncture--no belligerents. The people involved with this theft are not being heard from--a far better outcome than their potential banning.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: I might me new at this so please bear with me

I have no desire to engage in word games, so I'll try to keep this as simple as possible;

You made public accusations against 2 board members. I haven't yet verified your accusations (and at this point, I don't really care if I do). That, to me, makes them allegations.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: I might me new at this so please bear with me

You know, when I went to my "laptop only world" a couple of months ago, I never set it up to read newsgroups. Guess what? I haven't missed them at all. I suspect that I'm done with them. They've always been contentious, which is fine, but they're beyond out of control now.

No thanks.




Tom Nixon

 

An excellent move Tom. Reminds me somewhat of a very good friend of mine - an American who came out here in the 1960's - and is currently the second longest surviving member of the NZ Symphony Orchestra. He has never owned a TV, never reads a newspaper and only ever plays music on the radio or CD. He is one of NZ's best trout fisherman, an avid deer, duck and goose shooter, has developed some magnificent waterfowl habitat, and is extremely happy. He would never believe that things like AED exist and I don't think he could even name the NZ Prime Minister!
Dr Anatidae

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I might me new at this so please bear with me

And I couldn't care less what you do about it, if anything. I didn't even suggest any action regarding these two people. You're the one who brought up banning them. Perhaps you should have checked into these "allegations" before you went off half-cocked. (Not just in saying they were banned--and then not--but also in removing that thread.) I posted facts; you took actions.

I'm wonderfully grateful for the moderation provided to this board. It is the only thing that prevents it from being a.e.d. (or the About.com board that Kristin used to moderate).

 

Rich:

I understand you are upset that Union sent out the wrong documents, and I realize you have some whacko’s giving you a hard time. However, I do not think Dick would do anything malicious towards you. He may have shared the link without knowing it was going to be posted. Just my thought, but you would have to ask him. If you had read a summary thinking it was research would you have made a comment about it?

Also, why would it bother you for people to read your dissertation? I would think if I ever worked that hard to get to that point that I would want anyone to read it. Again, just my thought, so I am sure you will tell me where I am wrong. Just don't get too pissed man 50 years from now none of us will remember.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I might me new at this so please bear with me

No, Rich, you posted what you thought were facts. Everything you posted may very well be true. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that they are. However, they are not really facts until they've been verified.

If you (or anyone else) thinks they can do a better job of moderating, then please apply to take my place, because I've about had it with being blasted from both sides for taking any action on a thread or member.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I might me new at this so please bear with me

Okay, so they were only what I "thought" were the facts. What makes them facts? Your verification? That's what you said. So I provided you with the information necessary, and you criticized that. What do you want? I don't care what you or anyone else believes or concludes, specifically. It was sufficient to post the facts. But if you make comments like the ones you did, I'm going to provide the information to support what I said.

As someone who did not suggest any action regarding this matter, I was very surprised that you took any.

As I said, I am very grateful for the moderating activities on this board.