I attempted to get clarification on why the CSI License Standard thread was shut down on CSI-Connect, but my simple question was not allowed to be posted. I am just looking for answers.
Perhaps someone here may have an answer.
If not, then I’m going to assume that since we aren’t getting answers, the answer is, there are no answers. That this whole debacle is indefensible.
This CSI obsession with censoring members is baffling. I wrote about my experience with it, see link below for more detail, but to sum it up, CSI has a right to censor any content on their website for any reason they choose. But because they MAY do something doesn’t mean they SHOULD do it.
The more you suppress speech, the more you cause dissent to spread. Here’s the thing: if they had been open with membership about what they were planning and had kept us informed through the development process instead of dropping it on us unannounced, they probably could have gotten a consensus of approval. Now it is too late, especially with them making it worse every day.
With the current information silence, disgruntled members are left to suspect the worst - is there collusion between CSI and other entities, who is benefitting financially from the new product, is there, day we say, fraud going on behind the scenes? That last sentence couldn’t survive long on the CSI forum, for sure. But keep in mind, members wouldn’t be having these conspiracy-like suspicions if CSI’s CEO and Board had diligently followed the policies set forth in the Board’s own “Governing Policies Manual” (e.g., “The Boards activities will be open and accessible to reasonable scrutiny by the membership”)
For those joining this discussion late, here’s the link to the manual: https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/CSIRESOURCES/b00cc178-1ca0-4e36-aeae-82edcd55c99c/UploadedImages/CSI_Board_Governing_Policies_Manual.pdf
Here’s the long version of my experience with and thoughts on censorship: https://thegreatmetropolis.blogspot.com/2026/02/censorship-in-march-of-2018-comment-i.html?m=1
This is poignantly sad. I hate all the “us” vs. “them” writing I’ve been doing. We were once a collegial body of serious professionals collaborating to set standards to improve our industry. At some point we lost our way. Both sides should be able to discuss the issue like rational adults, but that will be impossible as long as one side is run by three-year-olds with their hands over their ears shouting "LA LA LA - I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!!!
I too was censored today regarding a post about the CDT certification issue.
Now, none of my posts are showing up.
Colin (and now David) is the Elon Musk of our profession 
4Specs = X (Twitter)
A new discussion topic has been created to apparently simplify their responses.
CSI continues aggressive censorship and moderation. This post was deleted:
How dare I contradict Sundquist?!
I prompted a response from CSI HQ to explain how what I posted in the forum violated the rules. They said (publicly on the forum):
Our platform’s Terms of Use are in place to keep conversations productive and respectful for everyone. As a refresher, content will be moderated when it:
Involves unfounded speculation or personal attacks against any person or group
Shares or solicits proprietary, confidential, or contractually protected information
Encourages members to reach any agreement that either expressly or implicitly leads to boycotts or other conduct that may violate Federal Trade Commission rules
Here is one of the 5 posts they moderated/banned:
“Please tell us who is on the CIN board of directors.”
Amy, I also got a similar message about just one of my numerous messages that were moderated.
The Board of Directors uses censorship to control the online narrative. They may hope to present their decisions in the most favorable light. They may want to avoid exposing internal board actions that reflect poorly on the individual fiduciary duty each of them owes membership.
Make no mistake: the board is accountable, both collectively and individually, to us, the members of CSI. Attempts to suppress reasonable and legitimate member questions only serve to increase members’ suspicions about what’s going on behind the curtain.
I support Elias, Amy, and all others who are questioning our leadership out of concern for CSI’s future. I hope you support them, too.
I was notified that someone flagged my message below so it was removed from the forum. All my messages are automatically sent to the moderator who approved the posting. Now it no longer meets the forum standards. I did not edit it.
Subject:RE: Who owns CIN?
Message:
William, please explain why Mark Dorsey announced at Master Specifiers Retreat that CSI maintained MAJORITY control of CIN after giving up some ownership to entice the new management team to join CIN. Now you say CSI is a MINORITY owner of CIN. And what does just under 50% really mean? Please tell everyone what percentage CSI truly owns. With the conflicting information, who can be believed?
I am glad to know the CIN is fully funded by its own revenue, now. That should preclude the need for the new licensing revenue.
Dave
George, I trust that each and every Board member will discover someday how accountable they are.
Word choice is important. Hearing what membership says is different than listening to membership. Hearing is the first step and listening is the second step to solving CSI’s communication problem. The third step is starting the solution by implementing responsive corrective action.
But the mission isn’t complete until membership’s trust is restored. How does the Board propose accomplishing that goal?
