Turns Out Chowhound HAS Defeated Stamford Talk, But Not in a Bad Way

Wow. The Chowhound moderators sent me an email I have to admire. It was well-written and, unlike the previous emails to me, didn't sound like the writer was gritting his or her teeth in an attempt to be civil. They made their point and shot me down dead, but in a nice way. I respect that.

Here is the story. I finally had the Napa and Co. burger last month, so when I saw a thread this week about where one can find good Kobe beef in the FC, I posted about Napa and Co.’s burger, hoping maybe this time Chow would allow it. You may recall that last month my post about the burger got rejected and I learned that Napa and Co. is banned from Chowhound for life. That post was the most-commented-on in the life of Stamford Talk, proving that this town loves to eat and gossip.

I went back to the thread later, and my post wasn’t there. I thought maybe I hadn’t actually hit “post my reply,” so I wanted to try it again. I hadn’t gotten an email to tell me to shut my trap, so I really did think I might have quit out of Firefox before my post went through. I made a new account under my other gmail account and posted. I didn’t post it under Stamford Talk, because, if the post had gone through, I didn’t want Chow to think I was being a harasser. When my second post disappeared, I figured the ban must be in effect, and I put up yesterday's post called “Chowhound Cannot Defeat Stamford!”

Well, I got a very long email from Chow today. You can read it, but basically, they firmly told me that they know I posted under a different name and that I should stop because they are trying to do the best job they can. First of all, how did they track me down!?! I used a totally different email, under the gmail account I have in my own name! I don’t see how they could do that- is it my IP address? Do they know my name? Well, now they do, because they knew my fake name was under my email. I have to admire their tenacity, although it does remind me that anything I do on the internet is obviously very easy to track.

Second of all, I think Chow is right. I do need to lay off. Their email gave a satisfying explanation about why I can't post about Napa, and now I will stop bothering Chow. (I'm the type of person that if I don't know something, I sometimes obsess over it.) I respect their hard-line approach, even if it does get my goat a little bit. I appreciate their site and I don't want to screw it up. I also don't want to get banned from Chow, because I have met some great people through it. Also, I don't like getting in trouble. I like pitching fits and being argumentative, but I don't like being reprimanded and punished.

Chow says they have banned Napa because people associated with Napa were doing fake posts. It’s their site, and if that is what makes them ban a resto, fine. I have to guess it was a higher-up that posted fake stuff, because I don’t think Chow would punish a resto if customers posted overly positive reviews. I don’t see how they can tell, but they zeroed in on me, which proves they have superhuman powers.

Chow has defeated me. I’m officially scared of them. It is frightening to me that Chow can hunt down fake people via the internet. Still, I’m impressed with their ruthless moderating, because I’m sure it’s one of the reasons their site works so well. The discussion threads are simple, easy to read, and a fabulous forum to discuss food in the FC and beyond.

I’m still afraid Chow is going to ban me, in which case I’ll have to access the board on my computer at work under a friend’s email (but I won’t post about Napa!). If they find me out, well, maybe they should get a job with the state department and hunt down terrorists.

Chowhound, if you are reading this, touche, and my apologies for riding your hienie so much.