Celtics Blog Forums

CelticsBlog => Comments & Remarks => Topic started by: Jeff on April 25, 2007, 01:33:35 PM

Title: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on April 25, 2007, 01:33:35 PM
Feel free to discuss the rules and the way they are being enforced here.  Enjoy.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: greenteam17 on April 25, 2007, 01:37:24 PM
This site is for celtics fans, plain and simple.  It is a news source and a place where you can talk about all things celtics.  There are rules when you talk, you cant say anything offensive and you can't do anything to plot against the celtics.  No one should have a problem with this seeing as we are all celtics fans and we love our team.  Can we please stop crying about the rules here, and just get back to basketball.  People seem to be up in arms lately about rights and the right to voice their opinion freely.  This site isn't run by us users, its run and put together by Jeff along with others who worked very hard to get this site up and running, and keep it that way. So stop giving them a hard time and please lets talk some basketball.   
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: clover on April 25, 2007, 01:40:20 PM
I second greenteam's motion.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: monty on April 25, 2007, 01:49:54 PM
There really is nothing more annoying than a blog commenter crying about free speech and democracy like he's some kind of political prisoner or something. Can it, Thomas Jefferson. This is a blog run by moderators. it is not a democracy and there's no bill of rights. if you don't like the policies, go start your own blog and invite people to comment. I GUARANTEE that within a week you will institute a plethora of rules regulating what people can and can't say. it's very difficult to run a blog without them.

and don't even get me started on how dumb the boycott idea was. i'm sure the celtics brass were shaking in their shoes when they read that post.

oh no! the blog commenters are mobilizing! this is the end of the franchise for sure!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celtfan 3.0 on April 25, 2007, 01:51:28 PM
I'm fine with the rules as they are, and I think the moderators here do a great job.

We all have the right to say whatever we want, but if I go into someone's house and start speaking junk about their mom, I expect to get kicked out, or at least told to shut up.  Even in a public place, like a cafe, if I go in there and start talking about something that is offensive, I wouldn't be surprised to be asked to leave.  It's not about first amendment rights, it's about respect.

I do want to say that this is the only forum where I post, because so many other forums out there are unbearable due to the lack of moderating.  EVERY thread turns into one filled with homophobic, sexist, idiotic, arrogant and ignorant comments for seemingly no reason.  We are allowed to have an open, intelligent and respectful conversation here, and I appreciate that.  Those that complain don't seem to know how good we have it here on Celticsblog.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: monty on April 25, 2007, 01:53:42 PM
amen.
this is the only forum i post on, too, for those exact reasons.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on April 25, 2007, 01:57:16 PM
I agree....everyone has butted heads with the mods once or twice (I knocked heads with bob day once myself) and the mods aren't perfect but they don't bear an unfair grudge or act with any kind of biasness towards particular users regarding which forums are locked/whos banned whatever. I almost never, ever, ever agree with anything Reyquila says , and he's a mod, and in that regard he seems nothing but fair and impartial.

We've got a good community of people and a good group of people that run the site at their discretion. Even I think some of the rules can seem a bit superfluous at times, but on the other hand celticsblog.com seems to run extremely smooth and without many incidents bearing mention..just because we don't understand the reasoning behind a rule doesn't mean the rule is silly. Trust the mods/Jeff to run their site, they've put a heck of a lot more thought into the rules than we have even when we complain.

Viva le Celticsblog!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: tuka on April 25, 2007, 02:09:52 PM
Granted I'm just a lurker here, but I appreciate the speedy work the Admins do here in making sure threads and posters stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks.  Too frequently, discussion boards like this blog become hostile.  I, for one, am glad for the rules in place. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: redd1985 on April 25, 2007, 02:17:50 PM
I love posting here, and I respect the job the Mods do. This is the only open forum, probably the only forum I post on. I feel like most of the issues with mods come from new poster looking to shake things up. Also, new posters get agitated when they realize they just opened a new topic on something that has already been discussed, and this leads to them taking out the anger on the mods.

As for the protest talk (which sparked all of this), its ludicrous. CelticsBlog enjoy a good relationship with the Boston Celtics organization, and does not want to tarnish that in an effort to raise up the speech of those who want to denigrate their product.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Puba on April 25, 2007, 03:06:09 PM
The site is generally fine, but there are one or two mods who act like power-hungry horny drunk frat boys when it comes to editing posts by other users. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: steve on April 25, 2007, 03:08:25 PM
I just like it when Hobbs finishes his post with..."Locked".  In fact I started saying this at work whenever I finish a great point.  And I will definatly say it a bunch of times tonight while watching Lost.  
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ThreadCrasher on April 25, 2007, 03:16:34 PM
I think a new rule should be instituted that everyone agree with my point of view, regardless of the fact I am an idiot.  I have been attempting to institute the rule at home, however, my wife does not seem to agree with the rule exept to agree that I am an idiot.

Thanks for your consideration.

Otherwise, I think Jeff and Hobbs and the guys do a great job, which is why they are all millionaires now! (I hope!)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: TheUndertow on April 25, 2007, 03:19:59 PM
I find it funny this is even an issue because someones misguided attempt to boycott the Celtics.

The site is fine - rules are fine (I'm not a big fan of rules but I'm also not ignorant of why they exist) - the Celtics will be fine.  Amen.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: boscel33 on April 25, 2007, 03:22:37 PM
You guys do a great job moderating the site.  

That said, though, I feel if I do want to say something negative about the C's, this is a perfect medium to do it on.  That negative thought may simply be an opinion or it could be some mis-information received.  The mis-information would be cleared up right away by other writers or the mods.  

The thing that makes this site so great is the people are passionate about the C's.  That passion goes both ways at times in negative and positive thoughts.  We all have to see that and accept it.

Go C's, good luck to Tommy at the lottery.  I hpe this is the last time for many years to come that I read and write about tanking in regards to the C's.

I'm out.....
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: IDreamCeltics on April 25, 2007, 03:42:17 PM
I wish discussions were more open and less regulated.

I wrote a post once calling out Celtics fans who attacked Ryan Gomes for not being onboard with the tanking.  It was intentionally incendiary because I wanted people to think hard about what right the Celtics brass has to fix games, and also about the lasting consequences of tanking.

No one was attacked individually, but I called the pro-tanking/Gomes attacking group cowardly and uncompetitive and tried to point out that Gomes was one of the few players (maybe the only one?) on our team to graduate college and seemed to actually understand that the odds of the lottory are against us getting a top two pick (which is a FACT that most people seem to breeze over).  A moderator edited out my opening paragraph because it, "attacked a group of people." 

I thought that this was a poor decision by the mod because it prevented these people from actually having to consider and defend their viewpoints from being A)Cowardly B) Non-Competive and C) Based on a poor grasp of mathematics and odds. 

My point was that we talk about Celtics Pride all the time, but when I tried to start a fiery discussion about what that actually means it was snuffed out (in my opinion) because the ideas involved weren't concrete enough, but rather based in philosophy.  Well how else can you have a conversation about an idea like "Pride" without challenging your opposition's sense of it?

In this case I thought the editing of my post prevented an important discussion from happening on this board in order to protect a majority of posters from having to defend their viewpoints on a philosophical level.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on April 25, 2007, 03:49:18 PM
I wish discussions were more open and less regulated.

I wrote a post once calling out Celtics fans who attacked Ryan Gomes for not being onboard with the tanking.  It was intentionally incendiary because I wanted people to think hard about what right the Celtics brass has to fix games, and also about the lasting consequences of tanking.

No one was attacked individually, but I called the pro-tanking/Gomes attacking group cowardly and uncompetitive and tried to point out that Gomes was one of the few players (maybe the only one?) on our team to graduate college and seemed to actually understand that the odds of the lottory are against us getting a top two pick (which is a FACT that most people seem to breeze over).  A moderator edited out my opening paragraph because it, "attacked a group of people." 

I thought that this was a poor decision by the mod because it prevented these people from actually having to consider and defend their viewpoints from being A)Cowardly B) Non-Competive and C) Based on a poor grasp of mathematics and odds. 

My point was that we talk about Celtics Pride all the time, but when I tried to start a fiery discussion about what that actually means it was snuffed out (in my opinion) because the ideas involved weren't concrete enough, but rather based in philosophy.  Well how else can you have a conversation about an idea like "Pride" without challenging your opposition's sense of it?

In this case I thought the editing of my post prevented an important discussion from happening on this board in order to protect a majority of posters from having to defend their viewpoints on a philosophical level.

Since I was the mod who edited your post, I can say that I would absolutely do it again.  You didn't use the word "cowardly", you called other posters "cowards", if I remember correctly.  As you note, you further stated that anybody who didn't agree with you was somehow intellectually inferior to you.  While it was awhile ago, I remember that that entire paragraph used other language that was of a personal and insulting nature.  I didn't edit out anything other than your blatant name-calling and disrespectful language; the rest of your lengthy post was left intact.  Link. (http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=3874) 

From my perspective, we want vigorous debate at times, but we don't want it getting "intentionally incendiary" or "fiery".  If you can't provoke thoughtful debate without resorting to name-calling, I'm not sure this is the right type of atmosphere for you.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: TheProphet on April 25, 2007, 04:11:49 PM
I love the site and it's run very well.  I just wish we can get the [dang] laughing smilie back.  >:( lol
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: shahpound on April 25, 2007, 04:19:47 PM
I don't have a problem with  most of the rules. However, I think many of the people associated with this site do possess some amount of hubris.

The latest example of this was the "Boycott the Celtics" thread and it's subsequent follow-up threads.

With all due respect to everyone who works hard for this site the "Love it or Leave it" attitude is harsh. In addition, I personally perceived the comment that read "starting your own blog isn't that hard" as condescending.

This site does a good job of creating a central location for people to get news, discussion, and information in general regarding the Celtics. However, if the discussion isn't allowed to progress past the axis of positive, pro-Celtics, thoughts, it will unfortunetly be worthless.

There's my .02. I'm sure most will disagree with my opinion, but the fact I can state it creates a healthy forum for discussion and ideas.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on April 25, 2007, 04:30:34 PM
Well its the only site people worries more about Celtics Knowledge than English Knowledge....Hey that works for me  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on April 25, 2007, 04:33:53 PM
there is no pro-Celtics agenda here - that is a pretty obsurd accusation
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ChampKind on April 25, 2007, 04:42:34 PM
I won't be happy until we bring back negative tommy points.  Until then, i've started my own website, inspired by Florida football fans:

www.firejeffclark.com




(note: not a real site)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Mother on April 25, 2007, 04:54:06 PM
Well, it seems obvious that the people from the "you can't boycott" thread that turned into the "Rules Thread (merged)" are not the same people who are in this thread.  Please read those comments before you judge the votes by this thread alone.  

There seem to be those who are not happy with limits to fiery conversation and micromanagment of policy and then there are those who are happy with what they have.  Fine.  I'm super happy with this site.  I think we all are.  The reason this is a hot topic is because this blog is the only one worth investing time and effort into to make it better.  I hope the ownership is aware of this.  It's a blessing to have contravertial feedback.

However, this display of community involvment is not being recognized as such, I'm affraid.  This is not just a blog, but since it is run well, and people are truly passionate about the same thing, we are more than a blog.  This is an imporant distinction to make becasue it changes the view from the roof of the blog.  Do we treat this place like it's just a location to have discussion, or do we treat it like a community?  

What is ownership's plans for this blog?

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on April 25, 2007, 05:01:28 PM
we've always considered this a community, and communities generally have rules that all people agree to in order to have a sense of order and overall well being
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celtfan 3.0 on April 25, 2007, 05:14:20 PM
However, if the discussion isn't allowed to progress past the axis of positive, pro-Celtics, thoughts, it will unfortunetly be worthless.

I don't think that is the case one bit.  I mean, the newest thread as I'm writing this is a post by someone who thinks Gerald Green is terrible.  That is far from positive.  There have been many, many, many negative threads posted about the celtics, as is understandable in a season like this.

I think that the only things the moderators are saying is that A) the negativity can't translate to personal attacks and insults on people, and B) we can't do anything to try and harm the Celtics organization like with boycotts.  I think those are more than fair.

We have had plenty of negative threads.  We have also had PLENTY of VERY fiery discussions.  Check out some of the non-basketball related threads sometime.  They get VERY heated, but for the most part, remain civil and respectful, which is the only reason the mods allow it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: RondoIsAPimp on April 25, 2007, 05:19:54 PM
I wouldn't change anything about this site, props to jeff, roy, bob day, etc.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: redd1985 on April 25, 2007, 09:45:08 PM
we've always considered this a community, and communities generally have rules that all people agree to in order to have a sense of order and overall well being

here, here... Ive been edited a few times for a various infractions, and it really doesnt bother me. Ive never felt like my opinion has been censored, because I have never allowed my opinion to become an attack on any of the posters here or a group of people.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: bostonfan23 on May 08, 2007, 07:49:56 PM
From someone who has posted on over a dozen sports forums, this site is great - the admin do a very nice job. People have to remember that it's tough to control such a large and diverse audience, and that it's usually better to lock something a little bit early than letting something get out of hand.

so to all the mods and Jeff, thanks for your hard work
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: redd1985 on May 28, 2007, 11:38:55 AM
I would like to ask about the Shira Springer thread that was deleted yesterday... Was it wrong completely in conception, or did one of the posters take it too far and it snowballed from there?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chief on May 28, 2007, 11:39:43 AM
I really hope saying "this is the dumbest thread ever" is illegal. When I see posters saying that, it makes me ill. If someone does not like a subject, just avoid it. No need to make comments that would start a war of words.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on May 28, 2007, 11:44:29 AM
I really hope saying "this is the dumbest thread ever" is illegal. When I see posters saying that, it makes me ill. If someone does not like a subject, just avoid it. No need to make comments that would start a war of words.

Comments like that, or "anybody who doesn't support _______ is an idiot" aren't respectful towards other posters, and they'll be edited when I see them.  There is a fine line, though, especially in the trade ideas forum.

As for the Shira thread, I didn't delete that one, but by it's very nature threads like that are going to devolve into crude commentary.  Sometimes the staff is going to preemptively lock threads because they see them headed in a bad direction.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on May 28, 2007, 02:13:37 PM
I think a new rule should be instituted that everyone agree with my point of view, regardless of the fact I am an idiot.  I have been attempting to institute the rule at home, however, my wife does not seem to agree with the rule exept to agree that I am an idiot.

Thanks for your consideration.

Otherwise, I think Jeff and Hobbs and the guys do a great job, which is why they are all millionaires now! (I hope!)
OK, I propose that we pick one hour of one day that we can proclaim as, "ThreadCrasher Hour", and that during that hour, we will ALL wholeheartedly agree with everything ThreadCrasher says. If ya'll can figure out the right day and hour, we can put it in the site calendar.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Smitty on May 28, 2007, 02:26:20 PM
Cfan3,

Is this a personal attack from one of your administrators?

"My two cents. 

If anyone really thinks they will feel better by writing a bunch of expletives on a message board because the celtics didn't get the right ping pong ball, they probably have other problems that should be dealt with."

         - posted by Green17 at 9:26 last night

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Smitty
 

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on May 28, 2007, 02:41:15 PM
Cfan3,

Is this a personal attack from one of your administrators?

"My two cents. 

If anyone really thinks they will feel better by writing a bunch of expletives on a message board because the celtics didn't get the right ping pong ball, they probably have other problems that should be dealt with."

         - posted by Green17 at 9:26 last night

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Smitty

I don't see how that's a personal attack.  It's Green17 stating his reasonable belief that anything somebody needs to be said can be said without profanity.  I think the point was, those who can't write without profanity should either invest in a thesaurus, or investigate why they have such deep-seeded feelings of frustration and anger.

If it's therapeutic for somebody to write down profanity on a message board, fine.  Posters should type all the swears they want, and get it all off their chests.  However, before that poster clicks the "Post" button, he or she should make sure that they go back and delete it (since, presumably, the therapeutic act of writing out the profanity has calmed one's nerves to the extent where they can post rationally again.) 

That's my thought on it, and I'm sure Green17 is on a similar page.  You're welcome to disagree, of course, but there's no reason to suggest that anybody is being oppressed or attacked.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on May 28, 2007, 03:05:11 PM
I wish discussions were more open and less regulated.

I wrote a post once calling out Celtics fans who attacked Ryan Gomes for not being onboard with the tanking.  It was intentionally incendiary because I wanted people to think hard about what right the Celtics brass has to fix games, and also about the lasting consequences of tanking.

No one was attacked individually, but I called the pro-tanking/Gomes attacking group cowardly and uncompetitive and tried to point out that Gomes was one of the few players (maybe the only one?) on our team to graduate college and seemed to actually understand that the odds of the lottory are against us getting a top two pick (which is a FACT that most people seem to breeze over).  A moderator edited out my opening paragraph because it, "attacked a group of people." 

I thought that this was a poor decision by the mod because it prevented these people from actually having to consider and defend their viewpoints from being A)Cowardly B) Non-Competive and C) Based on a poor grasp of mathematics and odds. 

My point was that we talk about Celtics Pride all the time, but when I tried to start a fiery discussion about what that actually means it was snuffed out (in my opinion) because the ideas involved weren't concrete enough, but rather based in philosophy.  Well how else can you have a conversation about an idea like "Pride" without challenging your opposition's sense of it?

In this case I thought the editing of my post prevented an important discussion from happening on this board in order to protect a majority of posters from having to defend their viewpoints on a philosophical level.
I understand what you are saying. The complications in communicating on CelticsBlog stems from the diversity and complexity of the constituency of this community. This place is not just intended to be somewhat family-friendly, but is also intended to be a safe haven along many lines that include gender, race, creed, culture, faith, socio-political and economic background and perspective as well as a multitude of other key components of the human fabric. It makes talking a little bit tricky sometimes.

Trust me on this one amigo, nobody around here is more familiar with this convoluted territory than me. I've figured out that depending upon what I say here, I can create shapes formed of human beings...circles, triangles, squares, rectangles, polygons and even extend them to third-dimensional axes. It is like something along the lines of those old choreographed swimming dance team numbers in movies from the 1940's except usually turns ugly.

On those occasions there is often little I can do to explain to folks that my intent was different from what was perceived. What such instances reveal to us is that it is important for us to communicate more effectively with one another. That begins with assertiveness. Assertiveness simply means not being overly aggressive or overly passive. It means finding a way to express oneself without alienating others but at the same time, not having to bottle up oneself either.

Learning how we may do this takes a bit of doing, but in a town this size built with the intent of providing a place where all lovers of the game of basketball can feel good about their residence and relations in this community, sensitive and effective communication is imperative. And like any physical "town", this one requires a basic form of government that is dedicated to serving the community's overall best interest.

Do we make the rules? Yes, but the rules are derived from what we know about "best-practice" government with regard to websites and what we see demonstrated daily as most healthy for this community at-large. So, that's sort of the layout of the landscape. I've worked in service as Webmaster and Host with websites that literally are the homes of communities over 100 times the size of CelticsBlog. They have far more depth of management and more strict regulation than this place. They have to have it.

What we have here is pretty close to what WE need right now. We are always looking at it. Sometimes we add new rules, practices, procedures policies and guidelines. Sometimes we remove or modify some of those we've implemented. These things have to be done. CelticsBlog is a living, organic entity and it is growing. We are just trying to nurture it in ways that represent the best interests of all here.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Smitty on May 28, 2007, 06:08:03 PM
Roy,

I don't think that I have been guilty of posting profanity on this board.  However, we need to be careful not to remove passion from our discussions.  David Stern has done a marvelous job of removing almost all displays of passion from the game which we love or used to love via his dictatorial rules.  Myself and perhaps others are a little leary of that happening to this board. 

MOST fans (according to a recent poll) find the Spurs very boring.  This is NOT good for the NBA at all.  Sure they play great fundamental basketball, but they simply are NOT exciting at all.  Boring is the only word that comes to mind.  Same with the Pistons of this era, NOT the Pistons of the early 1990s when they had some outstanding personalities such as Isaiah, Big Bill, and Rodman. 

Anything can be taken too far such as the NBA Commish deciding the Suns/Spurs series.  You guys in power need to be cautious that you do not run off the truly passionate C's fans. 

Yes, there is a difference between passion and cursing, but not always.  I come from a hyper-fundy background and they consistently majored on minor issues and missed more important issues due to that mentality.  Let's not allow this great site to follow a similar path.

That is all I am saying.

Peace,

Smitty
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on May 28, 2007, 09:41:08 PM
I won't be happy until we bring back negative tommy points.  Until then, i've started my own website, inspired by Florida football fans:

www.firejeffclark.com




(note: not a real site)
HAHAHAHAHAHA! There's not a day that goes by without at least one fine member of this community giving me a deep belly-laugh. Kudos, Champkind! :)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Scintan on June 01, 2007, 02:42:23 PM
From a newly locked thread:


Quote
how's that for democracy?

thread locked by popular opinion

shooterstouch, leave race out of it or find someplace else to post

those that want to have an intelligent discussion about race can venture over to the Off Topic forum"


Now it's just getting ridiculous here.  Barkley says worse on TNT for crying out loud. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on June 01, 2007, 03:16:02 PM
and what would you have me do with that thread?

at best it was a dumb post that could go nowhere but downhill

at worst, it might have been a troll post trying to bait others into a racial arguement

bottom line is several people were offended and I'd rather err on the side of caution
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Scintan on June 01, 2007, 03:54:23 PM
and what would you have me do with that thread?

at best it was a dumb post that could go nowhere but downhill

at worst, it might have been a troll post trying to bait others into a racial arguement

bottom line is several people were offended and I'd rather err on the side of caution


As I've stated, its your site to do with as you will.  And I agree that it was a dumb post, and one easily proven wrong.  That poster has been called out for such on numerous occasions.  However, if people are going to be able to shut down threads because they get offended by something as mild as that post, you might as well forbid any mention of race ever.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 01, 2007, 04:07:47 PM
and what would you have me do with that thread?

at best it was a dumb post that could go nowhere but downhill

at worst, it might have been a troll post trying to bait others into a racial arguement

bottom line is several people were offended and I'd rather err on the side of caution


As I've stated, its your site to do with as you will.  And I agree that it was a dumb post, and one easily proven wrong.  That poster has been called out for such on numerous occasions.  However, if people are going to be able to shut down threads because they get offended by something as mild as that post, you might as well forbid any mention of race ever.

Personally, if I never had to read another "Danny loves black guys" or "Danny loves white guys" thread on this blog, I'd be very happy.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Scintan on June 01, 2007, 06:55:14 PM
and what would you have me do with that thread?

at best it was a dumb post that could go nowhere but downhill

at worst, it might have been a troll post trying to bait others into a racial arguement

bottom line is several people were offended and I'd rather err on the side of caution


As I've stated, its your site to do with as you will.  And I agree that it was a dumb post, and one easily proven wrong.  That poster has been called out for such on numerous occasions.  However, if people are going to be able to shut down threads because they get offended by something as mild as that post, you might as well forbid any mention of race ever.

Personally, if I never had to read another "Danny loves black guys" or "Danny loves white guys" thread on this blog, I'd be very happy.


I hear you.  I'm sure threads about the "isms" are a difficult thing for mod to have to tread through, especially since a bunch of anonymous people typing on computers isn't going to solve any of the issues or bring about any consensus.


And, honestly, I think that you are all doing a great job the vast majority of the time.  I actually tend to be quite impressed watching y'all getting the job done as well as you do.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Fire Doc Rivers on June 30, 2007, 12:05:36 PM
If u cant handle the stupidity of us posters, maybe u should resign ur position if its too stressful for you.  Sounds like your about to crack.  I mean man it must be really tough reading celtics posts all day.  zzzzzzzz.......zzzzzzzz.......zzzzz
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: VinBakersBartender on June 30, 2007, 12:08:01 PM
Somebody took a turn to negative town
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 30, 2007, 12:08:09 PM
Funny post.  Please follow the rules, and please modify your sig.  Also, future topics like this should be handled via private message.  You already have several strikes against you on this blog after the April Fool's Day fiasco; I would hate to see you do something to get yourself permanently banned.

(Again, I would have preferred to handle this via private message, but if you want to air your dirty laundry out in public, be my guest.)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: VinBakersBartender on June 30, 2007, 12:10:57 PM
Funny post.  Please follow the rules, and please modify your sig.  Also, future topics like this should be handled via private message.  You already have several strikes against you on this blog after the April Fool's Day fiasco; I would hate to see you do something to get yourself permanently banned.

As a fairly new member to this wonderful blogging site what was this about? A private message would work nicely
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: arctic 3.0 on June 30, 2007, 12:13:01 PM
If u cant handle the stupidity of us posters, maybe u should resign ur position if its too stressful for you.  Sounds like your about to crack.  I mean man it must be really tough reading celtics posts all day.  zzzzzzzz.......zzzzzzzz.......zzzzz

don't be a fool

roy and co have done a great service giving us c's fans a place to vent.

all they ask is a little help in return. so before you go running to be the first to post some tidbit you saw on real gm check to see someone has beaten you to it.



Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on June 30, 2007, 12:15:00 PM
You need to take it easy FDR. It sounds to me like you are the one about ready to crack. If you have a bee in your bonnet about Roy, then you should have handled that via personal message.

I suggest you do so. I can't imagine what sort of leverage you thought you were going to gain by assaulting one of the hardest working and most beloved members of this community in public.

Tell me whose thinking is not right?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: jambr380 on June 30, 2007, 12:16:46 PM
Haha, with all the crappy, uneducated posts around here, Roy's are about the only ones that consistently make sense...if you ban someone, can't they just create another user name? seems to bad, reminds me of another celtics blog website I used to go to a couple of years back (before here). Get rid of this clown.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: delontrey on June 30, 2007, 12:17:56 PM
yea give him the boot.. dissin hobby like that.. who does this guy think he is?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: bballdog384 on June 30, 2007, 12:18:32 PM
Roy should be the new GM/Coach/President of the C's
Then we'd start to win some games!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on June 30, 2007, 12:21:50 PM
Haha, with all the crappy, uneducated posts around here, Roy's are about the only ones that consistently make sense...if you ban someone, can't they just create another user name? seems to bad, reminds me of another celtics blog website I used to go to a couple of years back (before here). Get rid of this clown.
No, there are bans and then there are bans. The ones I tend to employ don't even allow for frontpage access and come complete with personal background information and residential satellite photographs.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: jambr380 on June 30, 2007, 12:23:19 PM
Roy should be the new GM/Coach/President of the C's
Then we'd start to win some games!

I can honestly say that these past 4-5 years would have probably been a lot different, in a good way, if Roy was the GM of the 'tics...okay okay, enough butt kissing...


No, there are bans and then there are bans. The ones I tend to employ don't even allow for frontpage access and come complete with personal background information and residential satellite photographs.

That is good to know- you guys run a real tight ship around here...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: stanthompsonismyhero on June 30, 2007, 12:29:29 PM
Roy, I've only been a member for about a month, but I think you and the other admins do a great job.  TP for the measured way in which you dealt with an unjust public insult. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: timepiece33 on June 30, 2007, 12:33:30 PM
Agree Roy.  You do a great job. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Pawtucket Pat on June 30, 2007, 12:36:13 PM
Haha, with all the crappy, uneducated posts around here, Roy's are about the only ones that consistently make sense...if you ban someone, can't they just create another user name? seems to bad, reminds me of another celtics blog website I used to go to a couple of years back (before here). Get rid of this clown.
No, there are bans and then there are bans. The ones I tend to employ don't even allow for frontpage access and come complete with personal background information and residential satellite photographs.

Is that a joke? Residential satellite photographs? I'm starting to feel a little exposed. Are you watching me right now Bob Day?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on June 30, 2007, 12:45:55 PM
Haha, with all the crappy, uneducated posts around here, Roy's are about the only ones that consistently make sense...if you ban someone, can't they just create another user name? seems to bad, reminds me of another celtics blog website I used to go to a couple of years back (before here). Get rid of this clown.
No, there are bans and then there are bans. The ones I tend to employ don't even allow for frontpage access and come complete with personal background information and residential satellite photographs.

no freakin way.


It's called the Freedom of Information Act, Kate. The hippies finally got something right! Ha-ha! Just kidding. But not really.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: 2short on June 30, 2007, 01:03:20 PM
roy once disagreed with me about Cousy being held back by celts brass from saying more  :-[....but honestly ?
Not only is roy hobbs THE NATURAL but he consistantly puts up good reads and keeps things at a nice even keel around here
I'm putting his name in for coach if we can ever get rid of doc
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on June 30, 2007, 01:03:59 PM
Haha, with all the crappy, uneducated posts around here, Roy's are about the only ones that consistently make sense...if you ban someone, can't they just create another user name? seems to bad, reminds me of another celtics blog website I used to go to a couple of years back (before here). Get rid of this clown.
No, there are bans and then there are bans. The ones I tend to employ don't even allow for frontpage access and come complete with personal background information and residential satellite photographs.

Is that a joke? Residential satellite photographs? I'm starting to feel a little exposed. Are you watching me right now Bob Day?
Not at all, Pat. I never use such tactics except to protect CelticsBlog or members of this community and only then in special situations that might potentially pose harm to someone or ones. These are things you never want to have to do and I abide by a very strict set of codes and rules with regard to such matters. Rights to privacy are extremely important and we respect those greatly around here.

Since I've been involved with CelticsBlog there has only been two instances were I had to uncover personal information on people in order to get to the bottom of some issues. As those resolved, neither one of those situations turned out to be particularly threatening and were thus dropped from further pursuit and forgotten about.

This situation doesn't look dangerous either but then again, FDR is having one of his "moments" so I have to pay attention to that. I'm usually sort of a last resort around here with things like this. I don't normally get involved with admin and moderator issues.

When someone attacks a staff member like what we saw here though, it is our policy to take that staff out of the loop of the problem and try to resolve the issue between the rest of us. Today though, I simply happened to be the only other staff person around when this went down. Others will be around soon and I don't think they are going to be at all happy with what they see. So I imagine this little incident will be concluded pretty soon.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: bostonfan23 on June 30, 2007, 01:06:14 PM
I would hate to see you do something to get yourself permanently banned.

Really? I wouldn't.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 30, 2007, 01:10:49 PM
Thanks for all of the positive comments, guys.  And rest assured, if Danny ever offers me the job of Coach / GM / President, I'll keep you guys apprised of what's going on so that the blog has plenty to argue about.  Of course, in that instance, threads calling for my head would probably be a daily occurrence.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: pearljammer10 on June 30, 2007, 01:32:19 PM
Roy if you become a high authority in the celtics office, i would love for you to come on the board and listen to some of the proposals on here and put them into action. Or at least check with all of us before you make a trade.  ;D Thanks! haha
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ConnerHenry on June 30, 2007, 01:41:19 PM
Roy should be the new GM/Coach/President of the C's
Then we'd start to win some games!

Good Lord!

I appreciate RH like everyone else, but as long as Wyc owns this team I'm not wishing this role on anyone.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: PrimusSucks on June 30, 2007, 01:52:09 PM
Roy should be the new GM/Coach/President of the C's
Then we'd start to win some games!

Or at the very least we would trade anything we had to to get Gasol in here....
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Mike Honcho on June 30, 2007, 01:53:18 PM
Haha, with all the crappy, uneducated posts around here, Roy's are about the only ones that consistently make sense...if you ban someone, can't they just create another user name? seems to bad, reminds me of another celtics blog website I used to go to a couple of years back (before here). Get rid of this clown.
No, there are bans and then there are bans. The ones I tend to employ don't even allow for frontpage access and come complete with personal background information and residential satellite photographs.

Is that a joke? Residential satellite photographs? I'm starting to feel a little exposed. Are you watching me right now Bob Day?
Not at all, Pat. I never use such tactics except to protect CelticsBlog or members of this community and only then in special situations that might potentially pose harm to someone or ones. These are things you never want to have to do and I abide by a very strict set of codes and rules with regard to such matters. Rights to privacy are extremely important and we respect those greatly around here.

Since I've been involved with CelticsBlog there has only been two instances were I had to uncover personal information on people in order to get to the bottom of some issues. As those resolved, neither one of those situations turned out to be particularly threatening and were thus dropped from further pursuit and forgotten about.

This situation doesn't look dangerous either but then again, FDR is having one of his "moments" so I have to pay attention to that. I'm usually sort of a last resort around here with things like this. I don't normally get involved with admin and moderator issues.

When someone attacks a staff member like what we saw here though, it is our policy to take that staff out of the loop of the problem and try to resolve the issue between the rest of us. Today though, I simply happened to be the only other staff person around when this went down. Others will be around soon and I don't think they are going to be at all happy with what they see. So I imagine this little incident will be concluded pretty soon.

Wow.  I did not expect this.  Is there any way to modify privacy settings?  While I appreciate the mods here, and understand that this happens only in dire situations, it is still a little unsettling to think that you guys go to these lengths to keep order.  
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on June 30, 2007, 02:03:46 PM
Thanks for all of the positive comments, guys.  And rest assured, if Danny ever offers me the job of Coach / GM / President, I'll keep you guys apprised of what's going on so that the blog has plenty to argue about.  Of course, in that instance, threads calling for my head would probably be a daily occurrence.

Comes witht the teritory  ;D

Good Job Roy
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: shahpound on June 30, 2007, 02:19:53 PM
I would also be interested in removing my personal information.


And Roy, Just in case you were looking for some unsolicited criticism.... (most people don't, so please skip if your not interested!)

You do a great job on CB. However, I think your overall "net" reputation has suffered based on your constant bashing of CT (over, and over, and over again). It gets really old. You take apart that guy for everything from his spelling/grammar to the validity of his sources. I think you have a right to do it and I even agree with your exercising that right in the beginning. At this point though, I think you've done more harm to yourself than good for the credibility of Real GM. I would love to have discussed this over there, but Its been about 3 weeks and my account still hasn't been approved.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: bostonfan23 on June 30, 2007, 02:51:53 PM
I would also be interested in removing my personal information.


And Roy, Just in case you were looking for some unsolicited criticism.... (most people don't, so please skip if your not interested!)

You do a great job on CB. However, I think your overall "net" reputation has suffered based on your constant bashing of CT (over, and over, and over again). It gets really old. You take apart that guy for everything from his spelling/grammar to the validity of his sources. I think you have a right to do it and I even agree with your exercising that right in the beginning. At this point though, I think you've done more harm to yourself than good for the credibility of Real GM. I would love to have discussed this over there, but Its been about 3 weeks and my account still hasn't been approved.


Everyone bashes him...kind of unfair to pick on RH for that statement. None of the admin and most posters on this blog take anything CT says seriously, so I don't think you should point out just Roy. He just has more posts than everyone else so you probably just see higher volume from him.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: FLCeltsFan on June 30, 2007, 02:59:26 PM
I have been around Celtics Blog for many years (and many server moves) and post on many boards.  Celtics Blog has is a class act and Roy Hobbs as a moderator does a great job of keeping it so.  Thanks for all your hard work Roy and Bob. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on June 30, 2007, 03:42:40 PM
I would want everyone to know that what tiny bit of personal information some do include in their profiles here in the form of an username, email address or whatever is quite secure. Most people don't provide any personal information about themselves or create a persona second to themselves for use here.

Only a few CB staff members even have access to such info and none of us are even interested in anything about it other than keeping it secure. That's just part of the responsibility that goes with running a site like this. As for what it takes for me to find out who someone is if doing such a thing might be warranted, that seldom take any more than a single IP address and it is not even possible for anyone to access this website without providing one of those. Sometimes, it doesn't even take that much.

There is no big security focus with the CelticsBlog staff that they dwell upon every day. I take care of 99+% of that with how this website is setup and by keeping strong software security measures regularly updated in order to try to protect everyone in this community. That's the way you want things like this...to be out of the way and not bother. The folks that manage this place and contribute content to it have better, more positive things to do than be worried about security.

On the other hand, I would hope that CelticsBloggers can take some comfort knowing that if something around here does turn truly ugly like it has on a couple of occasions, that we have the means to get to the bottom of it and, get it resolved pretty quickly. I don't think there is really much more to say about it than that because this capability too is something that is needed in order to run and maintain a site like CelticsBlog well. It just goes with the territory. It's no big deal...just part of the job.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 30, 2007, 04:32:53 PM
I would also be interested in removing my personal information.


And Roy, Just in case you were looking for some unsolicited criticism.... (most people don't, so please skip if your not interested!)

You do a great job on CB. However, I think your overall "net" reputation has suffered based on your constant bashing of CT (over, and over, and over again). It gets really old. You take apart that guy for everything from his spelling/grammar to the validity of his sources. I think you have a right to do it and I even agree with your exercising that right in the beginning. At this point though, I think you've done more harm to yourself than good for the credibility of Real GM. I would love to have discussed this over there, but Its been about 3 weeks and my account still hasn't been approved.


A couple of things.

First, I have never criticized CT for his spelling or grammar, except for him saying something along the lines of "Whatup, Boston, this is Ryen Gomes".  I'm pretty sure Ryan can spell his own name correctly.  That was the point where CT officially jumped the shark for me.  I'm not sure if you got to see that thread or one of the corresponding ones before they were deleted, but I think that changed a lot of people's perspective.  Most of the pro-CT posters apparently missed that completely.

Secondly, CT was a liar and was doing a disservice to all of the good posters over at RealGM.  Many agreed with me.  That board was getting a lot of undeserved criticism for being a joke, and that was do to CT and his fanboys.  I mean, there were multiple threads calling for moderators to quit or be suspended, etc.  That was all caused by one confirmed liar.  Again, it's too bad, because RealGM is a good board.

Third, CT has no sources.  Thus, they have no validity.

Lastly, I don't really care about my "net" credibility.  I didn't post anything that wasn't true, and I posted concerning CT less than ten times in total.  A lot of the less sophisticated RealGMers got on my case about it, and for awhile I defended myself, and then gave up.  The majority of my handful of RealGM posts are about discussing basketball, not some fraudulent attention [prostitute].  I try to post intelligently and fairly at all times, but if posters have a problem with my methodology or point of view, they're certainly entitled to that disagreement.

Anyway, I appreciate the comments, but I stand by what I said.  The CT fiasco was a negative for the RealGM Celtics board, and I'm glad to see that they finally suspended him.

EDIT: Also, thank you again to everybody's kind words.  I didn't leave this thread open to be a "praise Roy" thread, but instead to allow FDR to voice his (in my opinion unfounded) criticism.  I'm flattered and humbled by everything said above (even if you all are hopelessly sucking up. ;))
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: TripleOT on July 01, 2007, 01:58:29 AM
If I had to moderate a board where posters feel compelled to start threads like "Should I change my username?" every day,  I would probably give up blogging and take up gardening. 

How about having to read 4 or 5 pages where two posters debate about their previous debate, over and over again?  Or the newjacks who feel compelled to start threads like "Why I like the Ray Allen trade" three days and 16 pages after the topic was vetted to death? 

Roy and the other mods have a thankless job.  I actually prefer that they make fun of the knuckleheads who have no respect for the rules of this board, or are too lazy or stupid to read and comprehend them.  Keep of the good work, Roy and company (and even you Edgar). 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on July 01, 2007, 09:41:44 AM
If I had to moderate a board where posters feel compelled to start threads like "Should I change my username?" every day,  I would probably give up blogging and take up gardening. 

How about having to read 4 or 5 pages where two posters debate about their previous debate, over and over again?  Or the newjacks who feel compelled to start threads like "Why I like the Ray Allen trade" three days and 16 pages after the topic was vetted to death? 

Roy and the other mods have a thankless job.  I actually prefer that they make fun of the knuckleheads who have no respect for the rules of this board, or are too lazy or stupid to read and comprehend them.  Keep of the good work, Roy and company (and even you Edgar). 

O.k. How about starting one...

Why trading Delonte Over Gerald was a BIG mistake  :'(

Kidding triple.. and a little out of Topic. Sorry Roy  ;D
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ced on July 25, 2007, 09:08:47 AM
come on....give me a freakin break. get off your admin power trip
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 09:17:35 AM
Please read the site rules.  Also, in the future, please post this in the appropriate forum.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 09:39:33 AM
Hobbs,

If you're going to lock threads and censor what people can talk about on the forum, at least get it right.

"Technically, the new law does not make it illegal to play poker on the Internet. Instead, it makes it illegal for any bank, credit card company or other financial intermediary to process transfers to or from an Internet gaming site."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/opinion/main2061902_page2.shtml

You stated in the thread that you locked it because, "The government has declared that playing internet poker for money is illegal, and as such its discussion is prohibited on Celticsblog."

This is not at all the case. As most of these companies, both the poker sites and intermediaries employ no american workers and do not consider themselves "gambling" sites because poker is a game of skill it is not illegal to play.

This law is far from concrete as it was sneaked into a bill just before it's passing. There are many loopholes because of it's rushed processing, I personally use a foreign based intermediary to transfer funds between my bank account and Full Tilt poker.

I happen to be a professional poker player as well and there is nothing illegal about what I do.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 09:50:59 AM
As I stated, it is the position of the United States government that online poker is illegal.  For more information, see here (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/037a4aad30cb6a67) and here (http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2005/03/06/news/state/sta01.txt), among other sites.  You may certainly disagree with the Department of Justice, but for purposes of this blog, I'm willing to trust their interpretation.

As you are "professional poker player", I will assume that you have no formal legal training.  If you're going to be snarky and challenge my authority to lock threads, "at least get it right."
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on July 25, 2007, 09:54:23 AM
snarky

thats a great word!  lol
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 10:05:12 AM
Hobbs... my point is not one person has been arrested in the US for playing online poker. The interpretation of this law is just like any other, even constitutional amendments like the right to bear arms or raise militia are under debate for interpretation.

Great that you provide a google link for your legal documentation, while the other document proves absolutely nothing to support your argument.

Some quotes form your own article:
"Supporters of the legislation point to a November 2002 ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, in which a three-judge panel concluded a federal anti-gambling law, called the Wire Act, did not apply to all Internet gambling. It was intended to target sports wagering, the judges said."

"There is no doubt that both the Clinton and Bush administrations take the position that online poker is illegal," Shulman said. "They allude to the Wire Act and other federal laws, but upon careful analysis, not one legal expert agrees."

My link on the other hand is from a reputable news source which states internet poker is not illegal.

If I walked into a police station and said I play online poker, no one would even blink.

so if you want to mock me go ahead (I would be warned for this had I done it), all I said was you didn't have all your facts straight.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on July 25, 2007, 10:06:37 AM
snarky

thats a great word!  lol

hobbs dropped the snarky bomb yesterday to... love that word
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 10:13:36 AM
The debate of interpretation stems from whether poker is considered "gambling", which the internet sites maintain it is not.

If you search you're google article in fact the word poker only appears once (when not attached to partypoker, which operates a casino).

"PartyGaming alleges that the Wire Act does not apply to online casinos and online poker companies. Its case is built around the fact that in February 2001 United States District Court Judge Stanwood Duval, whilst looking to the actual language of the Wire Act, ruled that it "does not prohibit Internet gambling 'on a game of chance'." Duval's ruling was upheld November 21, 2002 by the US Fifth Circuit Federal Appeals Court."

The vast majority of federal legislation has been aimed at sportsbooks and casinos. In your google article hobbs, the people they reference as being charged with criminal activity were operating sports books, not internet poker sites.

There are several pro players who advertise the fact they play internet poker, and when you play on these sites CAN SEE THEM PLAYING. If this was so illegal you think they'd arrest phil ivey for gambling $200,000 everyday online from his vegas home.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Voom on July 25, 2007, 10:17:55 AM
As you are "professional poker player", I will assume that you have no formal legal training.  If you're going to be snarky and challenge my authority to lock threads, "at least get it right."

Mr. Hobbs,

There is no reason to mock someone for debating an action of yours. Try to keep it on an intellectual level.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 10:20:59 AM
Like I said, while the statute may be open to interpretation, that interpretation isn't for me, you, or anybody else on this blog to make (assuming we have no members of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the Department of Justice on this blog.)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 10:21:42 AM
More quotes. Yay! (clearly this is an issue I have an opinion about)

"The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), signed into law by President Bush on October 13, 2006, makes it illegal for online gambling sites to accept funds or wagers from the United States if the underlying gambling activity violates existing federal, state or tribal law. The law does not make the player liable in any way, but makes the site liable for accepting funds or wagers associated with illegal Internet gambling.

As an online poker player located in the United States, you are not violating the UIGEA or any other federal law, but you may be violating state or tribal law depending on the laws of the state or Native American Reservation where you are located. It is the player's responsibility to determine the legality of playing Internet poker under the law where he is located."
http://www.pokerlistings.com/US-poker-rooms

again, all I said was get your facts straight.

there is no interpretation, I cannot be arrested for playing online poker.

anddddd I'm done.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 10:24:31 AM
Again, which do you expect Celticsblog to side with here, the legal interpretation of online gambling sites, or the legal interpretation of the United States government?  It is the official position of the United States government that the action is illegal.  Case closed.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on July 25, 2007, 10:25:01 AM
Isnt there a rule that says Moderators and Admins decitions have to be respected? Even though is o.k. to debate. Like Penaltys and Expulsions in soccer or FutBol as i like to call it.


Ahh yes...there one. ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 10:31:01 AM
Isnt there a rule that says Moderators and Admins decitions have to be respected? Even though is o.k. to debate. Like Penaltys and Expulsions in soccer or FutBol as i like to call it.


Ahh yes...there one. ;)

Lol.  Yes, Edgar, we're an oligarchy here.  A benevolent oligarchy for the most part, but an oligarchy all the same.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 10:33:50 AM
Again, which do you expect Celticsblog to side with here, the legal interpretation of online gambling sites, or the legal interpretation of the United States government?  It is the official position of the United States government that the action is illegal.  Case closed.

ahhhhhh!
it's not just the interpretation of gambling sites! it's the judges and legal experts quoted in the very articles you cite!

the US supreme court has come nowhere close to this case, this was a bill merely passed by congress. It has gone almost no formal judicial review, hence all the loopholes and ambiguity. this has not touched the judicial branch!

and when it has, there has been almost no clear rulings on it! especially regarding internet poker sites.

again, your original post stated that it is illegal to play online poker for money in the US, and this is not true.

hobbs, this is absolutely nothing personal, this is just clearly an issue I feel opinionated about. feel free to lcok the thread if this is just waisting your time  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: KuberskiIsMyHero on July 25, 2007, 10:36:00 AM
It's true, its not illegal. 

But whatever, we see that the powers that be shall make decisions for whatever they want... ::)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on July 25, 2007, 10:38:40 AM
You people need to lay off of Roy and do so now. He is just doing his job. He is providing the exact type of moderation around here we desire and his actions in regard to this particular topic are inline with CelticsBlog at this time.

Roy did not create those posting rules related to illegal activity here. Better than 90% of the ones we have were created over the years by bright legal minds and are standard on thousands of websites across the internet.

Those rules are always evolving, but given where they are right now in relation to current U.S. law, I believe Roy's decision to lock the thread for now was the correct one. If this legal area clarifies in the future in such a way that such discussions are clearly legal, then we may amend our posting rules to make accommodation for the changes. Meanwhile, there are plenty of places on the web you can go discuss the subject if you wish.

The most important thing for all of you to consider right now is that launching personal insult toward Roy or otherwise trying to start a fight with him is only going to result in multiple suspensions and/or permanent bans from this website. You truly do need to read the posting rules here. Doing so and abiding by them are requirements of membership.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 10:40:52 AM
again, your original post stated that it is illegal to play online poker for money in the US, and this is not true.

What I said is:

Quote
The government has declared that playing internet poker for money is illegal, and as such its discussion is prohibited on Celticsblog.

This is absolutely a true statement.  That's exactly what the government has declared, in the articles I cited above.  You guys can disagree with the government all you want, but I'd suggest taking it up with your Congressperson, rather than with me.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 10:52:15 AM
who is launching personal insult? this is a discussion/debate just like any we would have on the celtics (this should be in off topic.. I can't do anything about this).

and no, as I have posted several times, that is not a true statement.

"The new law won't make it a crime to play poker online; instead it blocks banks from processing gambling winnings – which is why players are now cashing in their virtual chips. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/13/politics/main2087917.shtml

this is what I have maintained all along.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on July 25, 2007, 10:55:53 AM
just let it go and move on!  this thread probably should have been locked as soon as it was created.  it was combative in design from the get go and challenging to the mod. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on July 25, 2007, 10:58:27 AM
just let it go and move on!  this thread probably should have been locked as soon as it was created.  it was combative in design from the get go and challenging to the mod. 
The first message was out of context
but then it became a very interesting debate
And...
u have to give the lawyer the chance to make his case  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 11:00:11 AM
Sigh... 

Did you read the articles I cited to?  First, there are multiple Federal statutes that the government says applies here, rather than just the one you keep citing to.  Secondly, you are trusting the word of whoever wrote that article -- presumably a reporter -- over the United States Department of Justice. 

This isn't really a debate, Willy.  This is you being stubborn, and refusing to admit what I clearly cited to:  the US government has declared online poker to be illegal.  That's good enough for the blog.  You're wrong, and I'm not participating in this "debate" any further.  You can debate online poker all you want, and I'm not even taking a position on whether it *should* be legal or not.  However, the United States government doesn't think that it is, and that's really all there is to say.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: blake on July 25, 2007, 11:04:36 AM
You have to understand where Hobbs is coming from.  CB is a just a blog and doesn't have an attorney on staff.  So CB has to do their best to govern from their given resources.  CB sees it as something that could be iffy and would not like to jeopardize all of the hard work up to this point for one thread about poker.  Not that anything would ever materialize, but things have a way of snowballing (AI trade rumors).  So let's agree to disagree and talk about something else.  
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 11:06:11 AM
Quote
The US Department of Justice has consistently maintained that online gambling is illegal. In a letter to US broadcast organisations dated 11 June 2003, John G.Malcolm, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, of the United States Department of Justice wrote;

"Notwithstanding their frequent claims of legitimacy, Internet gambling and offshore sportsbook operations that accept bets from customers in the United States violate Sections 1084, 1952, and 1955 of 18 of the United States Code, each of which is a Class E felony. Additionally, pursuant to Title 18. United States Code. Section 2, any person Or entity who aids or abets in the commission of any of the above-listed offenses is punishable as a principal violator of those statutes. The Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing these statutes and we reserve the right to prosecute violators of the law."

Quote
Supporters of making North Dakota the first U.S. home for Internet poker sites face a difficult hurdle -- the federal Justice Department believes the idea is illegal.

In letters to Nevada and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Justice Department attorneys have said they believe Internet gambling runs afoul of federal laws against using wire communications to place bets.

Quote
"There is no doubt that both the Clinton and Bush administrations take the position that online poker is illegal," Shulman said.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cavman on July 25, 2007, 11:06:59 AM
This is Celticsblog, not pokerblog.

I know it is summer and we are bored and looking for topics, but please.... wrangling this long over you're 'right' to talk about this.  Celticsblog is a voluntary society.  They can prohibit such talk all they want.  And... that's cool w/me.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on July 25, 2007, 11:09:15 AM
You have to understand where Hobbs is coming from. CB is a just a blog and doesn't have an attorney on staff.  So CB has to do their best to govern from their given resources.  CB sees it as something that could be iffy and would not like to jeopardize all of the hard work up to this point for one thread about poker.  Not that anything would ever materialize, but things have a way of snowballing (AI trade rumors).  So let's agree to disagree and talk about something else.  
I would LOVE to see Roy´s face in here
 ;D
Now... When I say Debate i mean Conversation. ( only semantics Roy)

Now moving on.... :) Theres a blog out there, lets join.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 11:13:01 AM
You have to understand where Hobbs is coming from. CB is a just a blog and doesn't have an attorney on staff.  So CB has to do their best to govern from their given resources.  CB sees it as something that could be iffy and would not like to jeopardize all of the hard work up to this point for one thread about poker.  Not that anything would ever materialize, but things have a way of snowballing (AI trade rumors).  So let's agree to disagree and talk about something else. 
I would LOVE to see Roy´s face in here
 ;D

Lol.  I think what blake meant is that we don't have an attorney on *retainer*.  If Jeff wants to send me a healthy check to cover my fees, I can research the issue and give him an official Celticsblog position as to the propriety of online gambling, specifically as related to poker.  Until such time, I'm going to let the Department of Justice do the talking. ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on July 25, 2007, 11:15:24 AM
You have to understand where Hobbs is coming from. CB is a just a blog and doesn't have an attorney on staff.  So CB has to do their best to govern from their given resources.  CB sees it as something that could be iffy and would not like to jeopardize all of the hard work up to this point for one thread about poker.  Not that anything would ever materialize, but things have a way of snowballing (AI trade rumors).  So let's agree to disagree and talk about something else. 
I would LOVE to see Roy´s face in here
 ;D

Lol.  I think what blake meant is that we don't have an attorney on *retainer*.  If Jeff wants to send me a healthy check to cover my fees, I can research the issue and give him an official Celticsblog position as to the propriety of online gambling, specifically as related to poker.  Until such time, I'm going to let the Department of Justice do the talking. ;)


Does a healthy does of 'Tommy Points' work?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 11:17:00 AM
You have to understand where Hobbs is coming from. CB is a just a blog and doesn't have an attorney on staff.  So CB has to do their best to govern from their given resources.  CB sees it as something that could be iffy and would not like to jeopardize all of the hard work up to this point for one thread about poker.  Not that anything would ever materialize, but things have a way of snowballing (AI trade rumors).  So let's agree to disagree and talk about something else. 
I would LOVE to see Roy´s face in here
 ;D

Lol.  I think what blake meant is that we don't have an attorney on *retainer*.  If Jeff wants to send me a healthy check to cover my fees, I can research the issue and give him an official Celticsblog position as to the propriety of online gambling, specifically as related to poker.  Until such time, I'm going to let the Department of Justice do the talking. ;)


Does a healthy does of 'Tommy Points' work?

Hey, if Jeff implements the "Tommy Points for free stuff" suggestion, they might.  I have my eyes set on the Celticsblog Ferrari. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on July 25, 2007, 11:19:02 AM
Hey, if Jeff implements the "Tommy Points for free stuff" suggestion, they might.  I have my eyes set on the Celticsblog Ferrari. 

i got shotgun first, since it was my idea..lol ;D
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 11:28:28 AM
Sigh... 

Did you read the articles I cited to?  First, there are multiple Federal statutes that the government says applies here, rather than just the one you keep citing to.  Secondly, you are trusting the word of whoever wrote that article -- presumably a reporter -- over the United States Department of Justice. 

This isn't really a debate, Willy.  This is you being stubborn, and refusing to admit what I clearly cited to:  the US government has declared online poker to be illegal.  That's good enough for the blog.  You're wrong, and I'm not participating in this "debate" any further.  You can debate online poker all you want, and I'm not even taking a position on whether it *should* be legal or not.  However, the United States government doesn't think that it is, and that's really all there is to say.

The US government has never officially stated that playing online poker is illegal. "it is the position of the bush administration" is far from legal precedence. All the statutes to which you refer address online gambling, primarily sportsbooks and casinos. There is no official ruling from any court on any level which states that poker is grouped into this.

The one statute that does address online poker, is the one I keep bringing up, which never states that it is ILLEGAL to play online poker. it just addresses the funding of online poker.

and who is the one launching personal attacks again? I have maintained a simple point all along, and have just been talked down to.

i'm going to lunch, I hope this is locked by the time I get back lol.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dobbs on July 25, 2007, 11:28:47 AM
Quote
give him an official Celticsblog position as to the propriety of online gambling, specifically as related to poker.

As luck would have it, you already have that person, and he is me.  ;)

I think that part of the furor over this topic was merely in the choice of words used to communicate between the two parties, to begin with.  The UIGEA does not specifically state that online poker is illegal.  So a blanket statement of "online poker is illegal" is incorrect.  You can still play poker on the Internet for free, and it is perfectly legal to do so.

Now, when there's money involved, it gets dicey...

There are many many layers of interpretation of the UIGEA, but what it boils down to is this:  the law was designed primarily to criminalize the transfer of money between players and gambling sites and to criminalize those that make it their business [the gambling sites] to accept wagers on "games of chance".  Whether you believe poker is a game of chance or not is another point of debate -- suffice it to say that most poker players (such as myself) believe it is a game of skill.  That's another matter for another post.

The law does not propose to criminalize and prosecute individual gamblers.  This would be a futile effort; a totally unenforceable enterprise.  I think this is what many people are referring to when they say that "online poker is not illegal". 

How does it relate to Celticsblog?  It's not a question of legality, as there are plenty of forums on the Internet that are solely dedicated to the discussion of poker.  Discussion of poker is not illegal.  Celticsblog will never be prosecuted for allowing members to discuss poker or any form of gambling in an online forum.  It's merely a matter of preference; if the moderators and administrators don't want a particular type of content discussed, then it is fully within their right to disallow that type of content.  Do I agree with the decision of the blog to forbid any type of discussion of poker?  Personally, no, I do not.  But I respect and fully support the rules and wishes of those that run this site and abide by their desire to keep that type of content off of the blog, and so should you. 

Besides, there are plenty of other places that you can go to engage in meaningful (and I daresay more accurate and valuable advice) discussion of poker than a basketball team blog.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 11:33:44 AM
It's merely a matter of preference; if the moderators and administrators don't want a particular type of content discussed, then it is fully within their right to disallow that type of content.  Do I agree with the decision of the blog to forbid any type of discussion of poker?  Personally, no, I do not.  But I respect and fully support the rules and wishes of those that run this site and abide by their desire to keep that type of content off of the blog, and so should you. 

I whole heartedly agree, this is not my blog, I do no work to maintain it, so if they don't want something like this discussed, that is their choice. My original post was to contest the point hobbs had made that it is illegal for an individual to play online poker in the United States.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 11:41:16 AM
You can still play poker on the Internet for free, and it is perfectly legal to do so.

Which is why I stated "for money". ;)

Quote
Do I agree with the decision of the blog to forbid any type of discussion of poker?

For the record, that's not an accurate description of the blog's position; neither myself nor anybody else forbid "any type of discussion of poker".  However, until the US DOJ changes its position, the discussion of online poker for money is prohibited.

Quote
My original post was to contest the point hobbs had made that it is illegal for an individual to play online poker in the United States.

Come on, Willy.  Don't mischaracterize my words.  I stated that it is the position of the United States government that playing internet poker for money is illegal.  I didn't say it is my position, and I didn't say that all online poker is illegal.  Please don't falsely state my position again, as it should be eminently clear by this point.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on July 25, 2007, 11:45:31 AM
when I listed off things you should do to pass the time this summer, I don't remember including "badger the mods" on the list

this site needs Danny to do something to give us something to talk about  ::)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BringToughnessBack on July 25, 2007, 11:53:34 AM
The real question is who would be a better Texas Hold Em player..Danny or Doc...My guess is Doc..who would ever think behind that 24/7 smile would be a bluff!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on July 25, 2007, 11:56:55 AM
The real question is who would be a better Texas Hold Em player..Danny or Doc...My guess is Doc..who would ever think behind that 24/7 smile would be a bluff!


That's tough.


Doc will use the exact same strategy no matter what his hand is. 


Ainge will change his strategy three times for each hand. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 25, 2007, 11:58:19 AM
The real question is who would be a better Texas Hold Em player..Danny or Doc...My guess is Doc..who would ever think behind that 24/7 smile would be a bluff!


That's tough.


Doc will use the exact same strategy no matter what his hand is. 


Ainge will change his strategy three times for each hand. 

This post is absolutely hilarious, and deserves a TP.  Well done.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 11:59:11 AM
Come on, Willy.  Don't mischaracterize my words.  I stated that it is the position of the United States government that playing internet poker for money is illegal.  I didn't say it is my position, and I didn't say that all online poker is illegal.  Please don't falsely state my position again, as it should be eminently clear by this point.

Hobbs, I apologize if you are reading this as a personal attack on yourself, it is not. I am not trying to misrepresent what you said, but you quoted no one in you original post (in the locked thread) and have no such quotes from the US government that specifically reference Internet Poker as illegal by US law. The one quote you have about the "position of the bush administration" is from an attorney and partial owner of CARD PLAYER MAGAZINE.

with no direct quote and no references which proves your point (in the regard to which I was challenging it, that playing online poker [EDIT: for money] specifically has by no court been found to be an illegal act for a US citizen), I have no choice but to take this as your opinion and your own interpretation.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on July 25, 2007, 12:01:01 PM
The real question is who would be a better Texas Hold Em player..Danny or Doc...My guess is Doc..who would ever think behind that 24/7 smile would be a bluff!


That's tough.


Doc will use the exact same strategy no matter what his hand is. 


Ainge will change his strategy three times for each hand.  

hahaha, this is too good wdheeli, nice one.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dobbs on July 25, 2007, 01:05:22 PM
I don't believe the Mormon faith permits the telling of complete and utter falsehood, so Doc might actually be the better player.  ;D

All you'd have to do is narrow his hand range!

Danny, are you holding QJ?

Danny, do you have a flush draw?

Danny, that king of clubs hit you on the turn, didn't it?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BringToughnessBack on July 25, 2007, 01:12:52 PM
The real question is who would be a better Texas Hold Em player..Danny or Doc...My guess is Doc..who would ever think behind that 24/7 smile would be a bluff!


That's tough.


Doc will use the exact same strategy no matter what his hand is. 


Ainge will change his strategy three times for each hand. 

 ;D That is perfectly stated and sums up our current Celtics management/coaching situation to a tee. TP for wdleehi!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: the orange soda kid on August 02, 2007, 04:51:17 PM
I just wanted to briefly express my frustration with the locking of the Len Bias Sports Pickle thread and also vent about my disapointment with the way this site is sometimes run.

I want to make it 100% clear that I'm fully aware that this is a private site, that Jeff has taken a tiny little Celtics love site and it turned it into one of the top 5 or 10 sports blogs online, and that Jeff and his Mods can do whatever they please.  As such, I really can't be anything but thankful with Jeff and everybody else who work so hard to make this site what it is. 

But I do feel strongly that the repressive "this thread is locked!" and "stop posting new threads!" attitude around here brings this site down greatly.  I'll admit I appear to be completely in the minority here, as most people agreed with the Len Bias threadstarter and thus probably enjoy the CelticsBlog atmosphere.  But what could have been a great discussion once again turned into a locked thread and a dead end.  And this happens far to often for my liking.

Again, no disrespect to Jeff or the Mods - you do a wonderful job at maintaining the site and keeping it exactly how you like it.  However, I think at times that is what holds it back.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 02, 2007, 04:57:53 PM
When 99% of responses are "this is disgusting" or "please lock this thread", I don't see a likelihood of it turning into a "great discussion".  I just don't see what positive could have come out of it, and at some point, you have to listen to your readership.  I made it clear that Brendan didn't do anything wrong in posting the article, but the thread itself wasn't generating anything productive.

As for the thread started about obeying the posting rules, at times reminders are necessary.  I'm not sure what about that thread you found objectionable, but I 100% stand by Edgar for starting it.

I know you meant no disrespect, and the entire staff appreciates constructive criticism, as posted here.  I disagree, though, that locking threads is in any way "repressive".
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: davemonsterband on August 02, 2007, 04:58:58 PM
disregard this, sorry mods, some moron got his hand on my cpu at work
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Scintan on August 02, 2007, 05:14:13 PM
Kid, welcome to the modern world.  What was acceptable and funny as recently as the 1980's and even the 1990's is now politically incorrect and unacceptable.  We had a thread, just for example, on a Patriots site that was mocking Vick by pointing out examples of songs that would be banned in parks he was playing in (who let the dogs out, etc....) and people went nuts about that too.

It's just a product of living in an era where people have taken the first amendment concept of the right to free speech and twisted it to mean the right to not be offended.  If you think CelticsBlog is bad, go try Columbia University for a day.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 02, 2007, 05:24:09 PM
Here' one of your quotes from that thread...

Hey Orange Soda, you must be a kid because there is no way you lived through Len's death and would find anything funny about the title or article at all.

In fact, I went through the guys site and found only 1 remotely funny pun about Bill Walsh being the victim of the East Coast West Coast Offense War.... like I said, remotely funny, but it seems this guy just likes to talk about dead people, reference dead people, or make fun of people facing charges (Vick).

Check out The Onion (onion.com).  They are who this guy is trying to be and the difference is, Onion comes up with actual humor, not just tasteless crap.

No, I didn't live through Len's death.  But that doesn't change anything.  This is a style of humor that is designed to be slightly offensive - if you don't like, don't go to his site. 

And I do know the Onion - I also know that the guy who does SportsPickle writes for the Onion - so apparently they like what he does.
And here's what I say...

Whatever. The article could not possibly have been less funny and in more poor taste. That of course reflects nothing more than the opinion of an expert on dark humor and the majority sentiment of the human race with regard to such matters. I'm sure this fundamental concept seems does not exist beyond either your or Scintan's grasp.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Cullain on August 02, 2007, 05:30:52 PM
Here' one of your quotes from that thread...

Hey Orange Soda, you must be a kid because there is no way you lived through Len's death and would find anything funny about the title or article at all.

In fact, I went through the guys site and found only 1 remotely funny pun about Bill Walsh being the victim of the East Coast West Coast Offense War.... like I said, remotely funny, but it seems this guy just likes to talk about dead people, reference dead people, or make fun of people facing charges (Vick).

Check out The Onion (onion.com).  They are who this guy is trying to be and the difference is, Onion comes up with actual humor, not just tasteless crap.

No, I didn't live through Len's death.  But that doesn't change anything.  This is a style of humor that is designed to be slightly offensive - if you don't like, don't go to his site. 

And I do know the Onion - I also know that the guy who does SportsPickle writes for the Onion - so apparently they like what he does.
And here's what I say...

Whatever. The article could not possibly have been less funny and in more poor taste. That of course reflects nothing more than the opinion of an expert on dark humor and the majority sentiment of the human race with regard to such matters. I'm sure this fundamental concept seems does not exist beyond either your or Scintan's grasp.

I did live through the Bias death.  It was just when I was really getting into basketball, and it impacted me a lot.  But still - I don't get why it was such an offensive article that the thread discussing it had to be locked down.  Len Bias's death was sad, but it wasn't tragic(he killed himself), and it happenned 20 years ago.  Is it seriously too soon?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: the orange soda kid on August 02, 2007, 05:37:30 PM
The bottom line (to me) is that Len Bias killed himself by being irresponisble.  He wasn't killed by a drunk driver, he didn't have cancer, it wasn't a bizarre accident...had that been the case, this would be different.  He was doing something illegal and he overdosed. 

You've never heard people make John Belushi jokes?  Kurt Cobain jokes?  What's the difference between the two?  I suspect the difference might just be that those who are bothered by this now are Celtics fans...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on August 02, 2007, 05:38:03 PM
But I do feel strongly that the repressive "this thread is locked!" and "stop posting new threads!" attitude around here brings this site down greatly.

Im in the stop starting new threads crowd, although I didn't have a problem with keepin the other one open...

as far as new threads, they tick me off because its impossible to have a cogent conversation about anything, as everyone is discussing the same points on other threads. I think its limiting the argument, because far too quickly a new thread starts, often addressing the same thing previously stated or leaving important discussion points/questions unanswered.

It also annoys me because when you start a new thread, it gets a kind of infusion of attention because it will sit on the side active bar....but when people just start rapid firing threads it takes that away and makes perfectly good topics unvisited because people were too lazy to look even briefly to see if there was an ongoing discussion.

as a person who is here quite a bit its extremely annoying.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: IHeartCeltics on August 02, 2007, 05:39:23 PM
Celticsblog is the top destination for very, very sensitive Celtics fans.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: IHeartCeltics on August 02, 2007, 05:47:51 PM
It's also worth mentioning that DJ Gallo, the man behind SportsPickle, contributes to the Onion as well as ESPN.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cool breeze on August 02, 2007, 05:49:34 PM
Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent. Some people think that the article is funny, while the rest of us recognize it to be the worst attempt at humor in quite some time. The only thing I was offended by was the fact that the article was presented as 'humor' when, at best, it was pitiful and empty. I appreciate humor- especially in it's lowest and most crude forms- but it was devoid of humor entirely.

The difference between CelticsBlog and The Invisible Sports Pikl is that if that rag were only actually made of paper, I could actually use it as toilet tissue.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celtfan 3.0 on August 02, 2007, 05:50:06 PM
I have to say, I was not following the celtics when Len Bias died.  I was only 6, and still lived in Tokyo.  But that article was not only insensitive to Bias and his family, but also to KG. 

I also want to second Roy's point that most of the comments by posters on this site was one of disgust and requests to lock the thread.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 02, 2007, 05:56:42 PM
Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent.

Bingo.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 02, 2007, 05:58:58 PM
Here' one of your quotes from that thread...

Hey Orange Soda, you must be a kid because there is no way you lived through Len's death and would find anything funny about the title or article at all.

In fact, I went through the guys site and found only 1 remotely funny pun about Bill Walsh being the victim of the East Coast West Coast Offense War.... like I said, remotely funny, but it seems this guy just likes to talk about dead people, reference dead people, or make fun of people facing charges (Vick).

Check out The Onion (onion.com).  They are who this guy is trying to be and the difference is, Onion comes up with actual humor, not just tasteless crap.

No, I didn't live through Len's death.  But that doesn't change anything.  This is a style of humor that is designed to be slightly offensive - if you don't like, don't go to his site. 

And I do know the Onion - I also know that the guy who does SportsPickle writes for the Onion - so apparently they like what he does.
And here's what I say...

Whatever. The article could not possibly have been less funny and in more poor taste. That of course reflects nothing more than the opinion of an expert on dark humor and the majority sentiment of the human race with regard to such matters. I'm sure this fundamental concept seems does not exist beyond either your or Scintan's grasp.

I did live through the Bias death.  It was just when I was really getting into basketball, and it impacted me a lot.  But still - I don't get why it was such an offensive article that the thread discussing it had to be locked down.  Len Bias's death was sad, but it wasn't tragic(he killed himself), and it happenned 20 years ago.  Is it seriously too soon?
I think it is too soon. That's why we saw the strong ripple that was just beginning. It was hitting many nerves and chords in many places in both space and time.

Most Celtics fans seem to me to appreciate a certain amount of dark humor and I promise everyone here that the entire assemblage of CelticsBlog staff does, but that article was inappropriate and I doubt there is a fine dark humor author out there that would disagree with me on that.

There is a way to use such device toward good end and art. That piece did neither. It was simply cheap, poorly timed, inconsiderate and unimaginative regardless of whatever association the author has or may not have with DJ and the Onion or whoever.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: the orange soda kid on August 02, 2007, 05:59:25 PM
Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent.

Bingo.

I understand that.  But why lock it - why not let it die its own quiet death?  If a thread truly isn't worth a [dang] then there's no need to respond - it will simply go away on its own, no?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 02, 2007, 06:03:51 PM
Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent.

Bingo.

I understand that.  But why lock it - why not let it die its own quiet death?  If a thread truly isn't worth a [dang] then there's no need to respond - it will simply go away on its own, no?

You think threads dealing with potentially inflammatory content which a majority of posters find distasteful are going to die a quiet death?  Especially when numerous posters are calling for the thread to be locked?  The internet just doesn't work that way.  Those threads have a way of turning into something nasty.  Heck, the Reggie Lewis memorial thread turned sour; I can't imagine where this one would have gone, but it certainly wouldn't have simply fizzled out into oblivion.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dwlefty13 on August 02, 2007, 06:10:30 PM
Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent.

Bingo.

I understand that.  But why lock it - why not let it die its own quiet death?  If a thread truly isn't worth a [dang] then there's no need to respond - it will simply go away on its own, no?
The thread was completely offensive son. To let it continue only would have brought out a heated argument between posts about the topic which could lead to someone being offensive and being banned. Which is why the thread wasn't good and was saved before it turned ugly. Thanks again R.H.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: the orange soda kid on August 02, 2007, 06:14:16 PM
fair enough.  we disagree.  i've said my piece. 

back to not being able to wait for november - i think we can all agree on that one.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: George Meyer on August 02, 2007, 06:27:23 PM
Quote
That of course reflects nothing more than the opinion of an expert on dark humor and the majority sentiment of the human race with regard to such matters.

The majority sentiment of the human race is exactly the wrong arbiter of dark humor. That's why it's dark, Bob.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Amir on August 02, 2007, 06:27:41 PM
All this complaining and groaning about why or why not threads are being locked and the job our moderators are doing is really starting to get on me. If your so concerned, leave and join another forum. Its that simple. I wonder why, like another poster said, this is one of the best fan-created sports blog in the country? Hmmm,I would think the jobs of Jeff and the mods have something to do with that, wouldn't you?

When you create a blog or site as successful as this one then Ill hear you out but, c'mon.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: davemonsterband on August 02, 2007, 06:31:06 PM
Celticsblog is the top destination for very, very sensitive Celtics fans.

I'm with you 110%.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Scintan on August 02, 2007, 06:40:46 PM
Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent.

Bingo.

I understand that.  But why lock it - why not let it die its own quiet death?  If a thread truly isn't worth a [dang] then there's no need to respond - it will simply go away on its own, no?

You think threads dealing with potentially inflammatory content which a majority of posters find distasteful are going to die a quiet death?  Especially when numerous posters are calling for the thread to be locked?  The internet just doesn't work that way.  Those threads have a way of turning into something nasty.  Heck, the Reggie Lewis memorial thread turned sour; I can't imagine where this one would have gone, but it certainly wouldn't have simply fizzled out into oblivion.


Actually, a significant portion of the internet does, in fact, work that way.  I know because, other than a couple of sports sites, that's the only part of the internet I find worth paying any attention to.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 02, 2007, 06:41:52 PM
Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent.

Bingo.

I understand that.  But why lock it - why not let it die its own quiet death?  If a thread truly isn't worth a [dang] then there's no need to respond - it will simply go away on its own, no?

You think threads dealing with potentially inflammatory content which a majority of posters find distasteful are going to die a quiet death?  Especially when numerous posters are calling for the thread to be locked?  The internet just doesn't work that way.  Those threads have a way of turning into something nasty.  Heck, the Reggie Lewis memorial thread turned sour; I can't imagine where this one would have gone, but it certainly wouldn't have simply fizzled out into oblivion.


Actually, a huge portion of the internet does, in fact, work that way.

Link?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticsclay on August 02, 2007, 06:46:55 PM
Is there still a way to few locked threads? I know there used to be a thing called the junkyard. I would kind of like to see what all the fuss is about.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 02, 2007, 06:52:45 PM
Is there still a way to few locked threads? I know there used to be a thing called the junkyard. I would kind of like to see what all the fuss is about.

Locked threads can, in almost all circumstances, be viewed; deleted threads cannot be.  This thread was locked, and can be viewed here (http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=8578.0).  People are free to come to their own conclusion as to where that thread was headed.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticsclay on August 02, 2007, 06:54:39 PM
Thanks Roy. I found the article stupid and not very amusing. It angers me when untalented people are given such powerful podiums. Makes me think I deserve my own tv show or comedy tour in comparison.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 02, 2007, 06:59:10 PM
Quote
That of course reflects nothing more than the opinion of an expert on dark humor and the majority sentiment of the human race with regard to such matters.

The majority sentiment of the human race is exactly the wrong arbiter of dark humor. That's why it's dark, Bob.
I didn't associate the human race as being connoisseurs of dark humor, George. I've asked you before not to try to put words in my or other people's mouthes.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Scintan on August 02, 2007, 07:13:51 PM
Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent.

Bingo.

I understand that.  But why lock it - why not let it die its own quiet death?  If a thread truly isn't worth a [dang] then there's no need to respond - it will simply go away on its own, no?

You think threads dealing with potentially inflammatory content which a majority of posters find distasteful are going to die a quiet death?  Especially when numerous posters are calling for the thread to be locked?  The internet just doesn't work that way.  Those threads have a way of turning into something nasty.  Heck, the Reggie Lewis memorial thread turned sour; I can't imagine where this one would have gone, but it certainly wouldn't have simply fizzled out into oblivion.


Actually, a huge portion of the internet does, in fact, work that way.

Link?


Link?  Come on Roy, you've surely surfed the net enough to know.  Shall I give some examples?  Wonkette/Kos/Vox Popoli/Huffington Post/Tim Blair/Protein Wisdom.....
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: George Meyer on August 02, 2007, 07:14:33 PM
Quote
I didn't associate the human race as being connoisseurs of dark humor, George. I've asked you before not to try to put words in my or other people's mouthes.

Bob, first of all, it was a joke. Secondly, I quoted you exactly. Thirdly, I have made pains to distance myself from our previous unfortunate verbal tiff, apologizing to Roy (who I misjudged) and sending you a private email explaining that it was a misunderstanding. If every time I make a post it's going to be interpreted by you in a negative light, I think it's no longer me who's the problem. Seriously.

Oh, and fourthly, I didn't say you associated the human race as being connoisseurs of dark humor. I said it was impossible for them to serve as arbiters. Maybe you just didn't get the joke...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: coachenew on August 02, 2007, 07:24:43 PM
I am stunned by those that did not find the article completely inappropriate and offensive.  Offensive to the late Len Bias, the Bias family, the Celtics, Kevin Garnett specifically and of course REAL CELTICS FANS.  If you were to young to remember 1986 or not alive then go do some research on the death of Len Bias.  Watch the reaction from his college coach at the podium.  Read quotes from Larry Bird, heck dig up the student paper from the University of Maryland.  He was a good kid who made a poor choice when celebrating.  And yes, it was a tragedy.  When a talented young man loses his life at that age with the world at his finger tips, that is tragic.  Shame on anyone claiming to be a Celtics fan or a sports fan for that matter that wants to give that clown and his article anymore attention.  I could care less if he contributes to the Onion or ESPN.  ESPN employees guys like Skip Bayless, please, don't use that to support his "credentials."

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Scintan on August 02, 2007, 07:36:21 PM
I am stunned by those that did not find the article completely inappropriate and offensive.  Offensive to the late Len Bias, the Bias family, the Celtics, Kevin Garnett specifically and of course REAL CELTICS FANS.  If you were to young to remember 1986 or not alive then go do some research on the death of Len Bias.  Watch the reaction from his college coach at the podium.  Read quotes from Larry Bird, heck dig up the student paper from the University of Maryland.  He was a good kid who made a poor choice when celebrating.  And yes, it was a tragedy.  When a talented young man loses his life at that age with the world at his finger tips, that is tragic.  Shame on anyone claiming to be a Celtics fan or a sports fan for that matter that wants to give that clown and his article anymore attention.  I could care less if he contributes to the Onion or ESPN.  ESPN employees guys like Skip Bayless, please, don't use that to support his "credentials."




I was plenty old enough.  So what?  When did Len Bias become off limits?  He was an utter moron for doing what he did, and he dashed the hopes of millions in the Celtics Nation, and probably shortened the careers and lessened the ring totals of the big three with his idiotic selfishness.  There's an entire internet thing about such idiots called "The Darwin Awards".  Heck, I've got the books.  I've got the Blanche Knott "Truly Tasteless" books from the 80's, too.  Why don't you swing by and maybe you can burn them all....
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: kgiessler on August 02, 2007, 07:48:32 PM
Ok, so they locked it.

Was it really that big of a loss?  If the majority of replies are "lock this", then it makes sense to me.

I've had threads locked that I wanted to keep talking in a few times, and they were far less offensive and much more meaningful.  It upsets me.  Oh well.

I find another one of the tens of excellent threads that are concurrently running and I forget about it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: davemonsterband on August 02, 2007, 08:04:51 PM
I am stunned by those that did not find the article completely inappropriate and offensive.  Offensive to the late Len Bias, the Bias family, the Celtics, Kevin Garnett specifically and of course REAL CELTICS FANS.  If you were to young to remember 1986 or not alive then go do some research on the death of Len Bias.  Watch the reaction from his college coach at the podium.  Read quotes from Larry Bird, heck dig up the student paper from the University of Maryland.  He was a good kid who made a poor choice when celebrating.  And yes, it was a tragedy.  When a talented young man loses his life at that age with the world at his finger tips, that is tragic.  Shame on anyone claiming to be a Celtics fan or a sports fan for that matter that wants to give that clown and his article anymore attention.  I could care less if he contributes to the Onion or ESPN.  ESPN employees guys like Skip Bayless, please, don't use that to support his "credentials."


I was plenty old enough.  So what?  When did Len Bias become off limits?  He was an utter moron for doing what he did, and he dashed the hopes of millions in the Celtics Nation, and probably shortened the careers and lessened the ring totals of the big three with his idiotic selfishness. 

I'm glad someone said what all of us non conservatives were thinking. TP.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: DivingCowens on August 02, 2007, 08:20:25 PM
You've never heard people make John Belushi jokes?  Kurt Cobain jokes?  What's the difference between the two?  I suspect the difference might just be that those who are bothered by this now are Celtics fans...

Just 2 points:

1. I am the one who pointed out that you didn't live through it and I maintain that fact as determinate of your view on this.  At the same time, I agree that the thread should not have been locked and never requested that it should be.  In fact, I would enjoy hearing how everyone else had felt about it, as we have been able to do in this thread.

The bottom line (to me) is that Len Bias killed himself by being irresponisble.  He wasn't killed by a drunk driver, he didn't have cancer, it wasn't a bizarre accident...had that been the case, this would be different.  He was doing something illegal and he overdosed. 

2. Now, I hate to sound patronizing, but again you have shown your youth.  You didn't live through Belushi, probably not Cobain, and we know not through Bias.  If you had, you would never make the comparisons.

a. John Belushi did cocaine and god knows what other crap for YEARS before he ended up on smack and doing himself in during a bender.

b. Kurt Cobain was an admitted heroin addict for a decade.  His suicide was only a surprise to anyone who never listened to any of the songs he wrote o ead any inteview he eve gave.

c. Len Bias, by all accounts of friends, family, and people who knew him HAD NEVER TRIED COCAINE BEFORE THAT NIGHT.  He was not a "user" by any stretch and it, in fact, was a "bizarre accident" to use your words.  That was what was so sad.  Many times in aticles and the like I have head his death cited as a major factor in the decline of cocaine use towards the end of the 1980's.  Simply because new users weren't as willing to try after hearing that a perfect physical specimen like Len Bias died after 1 use.

Now, again, I did not think the thread should be locked.  I do, however, think that it should be locked for you to stop throwing fuel on the fire.

Just kidding.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 02, 2007, 08:33:50 PM
I agree we should be able to have intelligent discussion on practically anything around here. However, there are some who simply try to hijack this community for their own purposes without regard to others whatsoever. This is not a great problem at CelticsBlog but it does happen and when it does, it destroys whatever integrity the discussion may have had otherwise.

You can never get a fool to understand that though. This is just another one of those instances it seems. Nothing much going on here but a lot of people's time being wasted over poorly premised argument that was further fueled by a couple of others. Enough is enough. It is time for this community to move on and the solutions to issues such as this are simple and straightforward.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: The Steal By Bird on August 02, 2007, 08:40:10 PM
I am stunned by those that did not find the article completely inappropriate and offensive.  Offensive to the late Len Bias, the Bias family, the Celtics, Kevin Garnett specifically and of course REAL CELTICS FANS.  If you were to young to remember 1986 or not alive then go do some research on the death of Len Bias.  Watch the reaction from his college coach at the podium.  Read quotes from Larry Bird, heck dig up the student paper from the University of Maryland.  He was a good kid who made a poor choice when celebrating.  And yes, it was a tragedy.  When a talented young man loses his life at that age with the world at his finger tips, that is tragic.  Shame on anyone claiming to be a Celtics fan or a sports fan for that matter that wants to give that clown and his article anymore attention.  I could care less if he contributes to the Onion or ESPN.  ESPN employees guys like Skip Bayless, please, don't use that to support his "credentials."


I was plenty old enough.  So what?  When did Len Bias become off limits?  He was an utter moron for doing what he did, and he dashed the hopes of millions in the Celtics Nation, and probably shortened the careers and lessened the ring totals of the big three with his idiotic selfishness. 

I'm glad someone said what all of us non conservatives were thinking. TP.

If being disgusted by that article means someone is a conservative, then it makes me very proud to say how big of a conservative I am.

Think it's funny?  Go tell it face to face to Len's family.

Show some class. 

And as far as 'dashing the hopes of millions in the Celtics Nation'is concerned......I'm sure that is the most important thing about the aftermath of his untimely death.  How it affected you.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 02, 2007, 08:46:30 PM
I think the majority of the perception problem here just went away.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on August 02, 2007, 09:23:09 PM
The thread being locked didn't surprise me, its the cost of doing business around here, if its too sensitive go somewhere where they play rougher. Do I think it should have been locked? I don't care one way or another, but this didn't silence anyone or infringe on anyone's rights. Its not like anyone got kicked out for finding the pickle article funny, I thought, like the poster before me, that the article was lacking in class, humor and consideration for others....but I don't begrudge anyone who found it funny, and I didn't attack anyone who did. I wrote in the forum something nasty to the author but thats where it ends. I expressed myself, just like I think everyone else got a chance to.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 02, 2007, 11:57:19 PM
Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent.

Bingo.

I understand that.  But why lock it - why not let it die its own quiet death?  If a thread truly isn't worth a [dang] then there's no need to respond - it will simply go away on its own, no?

You think threads dealing with potentially inflammatory content which a majority of posters find distasteful are going to die a quiet death?  Especially when numerous posters are calling for the thread to be locked?  The internet just doesn't work that way.  Those threads have a way of turning into something nasty.  Heck, the Reggie Lewis memorial thread turned sour; I can't imagine where this one would have gone, but it certainly wouldn't have simply fizzled out into oblivion.


Actually, a huge portion of the internet does, in fact, work that way.

Link?


Link?  Come on Roy, you've surely surfed the net enough to know.  Shall I give some examples?  Wonkette/Kos/Vox Popoli/Huffington Post/Tim Blair/Protein Wisdom.....

You cited the Daily Kos, Wonkette, and the Huffington Post as examples of sites where threads "die a quiet death" without getting nasty?  I'm at a total loss as to the point you're trying to make, Scintan, since those sites are some of the most inflammatory and biased sites on the internet, and their threads often devolve into name-calling and mud-slinging as soon as somebody disagrees with the majority.  That's exactly what we *don't* want Celticsblog turning into.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wheres rondo? on August 03, 2007, 12:29:45 AM
Edited and banned.  For anybody who caught that, that's exactly how you *don't* express disagreement.  Why a poster would come on here and attack the staff with repeated use of profanity is beyond me.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on August 03, 2007, 08:43:54 AM
the quality of the blog has gone way down over the last few days. i have not seen so much inappropriateness and disrespect in the few years i have been here! its sad really.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Donoghus on August 03, 2007, 09:10:00 AM
Look, I was one of the people who requested the thread to be locked yesterday.  And it wasn't because i'm "conservative" in my views or anything.  (Actually, i'm about as far from conservative on most things as anyone).

I requested the lock because i felt that the article brought zero to Celticsblog, much like the Tedy Bruschi thread from last week.  It was a tasteless article that was making light of a very serious and unfortunate event in the past (Len Bias' death).  I just felt that any discussion on such a horrendous attempt at humor was just non-beneficial to this blog and wasn't worth the time to discuss. That's it.

 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: priceisright on August 10, 2007, 12:44:17 PM
Hey everyone, long time listener, rare poster.  I'm writing because it seems to me that the locking of threads is out of hand.  I realize that I'm only a user of this site, and that I'm beholden to the terms of use as designed by the site administrators.  That said, it's getting to the point where I'd rather read Celtic forums on other sites purely so that I don't have to worry about the 1st amendment being suppressed.  Often times threads seem to get locked for very subjective reasons.

I want to be careful with this post, as I do really enjoy CelticBlog.  It's an excellent site, with (mostly) respectful and erudite fans.  And, as stated, I realize the terms of use are entirely up to the site administrators. 

That disclaimer aside, frankly, I'm stunned given the liberal nature of the internet that more people aren't up in arms over this issue.  Am I the only one that feels this site is much too militant?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Donoghus on August 10, 2007, 12:51:25 PM
The locking of the two threads regarding the mentality of Celtics fans this morning were rightfully justified.

Those threads were going nowhere and was just bickering between a handful of posters.  Those threads contributed nothing.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ManUp on August 10, 2007, 12:52:49 PM
No comment

*looks to the left, and right for RoyHobbs*
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 10, 2007, 12:53:24 PM
Quote
That said, it's getting to the point where I'd rather read Celtic forums on other sites purely so that I don't have to worry about the 1st amendment being suppressed

As Jeff and the rest of the staff aren't government actors, the First Amendment doesn't apply here.  Jeff has created a set of community standards here which may be more strict than other sites, but which also keep the tone of discussion on here respectful and civil. 

Threads may be locked at times for discretionary reasons, but the staff almost uniformly provides an explanation of why the thread was locked.  I certainly don't think that staff actions are in any way arbitrary or biased. 

I haven't been on the board this morning, so I don't know exactly what was locked, but I will trust to the discretion of the other moderators and administrators on this board, who have proven themselves to be fair and just time and time again.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: warriorspirit on August 10, 2007, 12:54:42 PM
I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. Yes you want free speech and the ability to debate topics from many angles. However when a topic has degraded to the point were is just bickering and the main debate has been lost then you should stop it. Also when people start to attack each other on a personal basis it needed to be dealt with. (attack the idea not the person who said it). I for one have been on sites that take a very loss (if any) form of control. Those sites are very hard to work on because you have so much garbage to filter though. You need to have rules and keep everyone in line or it will become anarchy.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: kamakawiwaole on August 10, 2007, 12:56:42 PM
i agree somewhat too.  i find often threads aren't given a chance and its frustrating to go into a thread be ready to comment then realize its locked.  i understand some threads should be locked but it does occur a lot.

i understand why, but at the same time it would be nice to use a little more rational before locking threads.

cheers

kamakaw
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 10, 2007, 12:57:11 PM
The locking of the two threads regarding the mentality of Celtics fans this morning were rightfully justified.

Those threads were going nowhere and was just bickering between a handful of posters.  Those threads contributed nothing.

As one who locked one..heres what i think..
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on August 10, 2007, 12:58:39 PM
Hey everyone, long time listener, rare poster.  I'm writing because it seems to me that the locking of threads is out of hand.  I realize that I'm only a user of this site, and that I'm beholden to the terms of use as designed by the site administrators.  That said, it's getting to the point where I'd rather read Celtic forums on other sites purely so that I don't have to worry about the 1st amendment being suppressed.  Often times threads seem to get locked for very subjective reasons.

I want to be careful with this post, as I do really enjoy CelticBlog.  It's an excellent site, with (mostly) respectful and erudite fans.  And, as stated, I realize the terms of use are entirely up to the site administrators. 

That disclaimer aside, frankly, I'm stunned given the liberal nature of the internet that more people aren't up in arms over this issue.  Am I the only one that feels this site is much too militant?

Militant is an awfully strong word. Deferential to a certain standard of etiquette would probably better describe the goings on here. If you are a frequent visitor to the site you can pretty much predict what will and what will not get locked.

That said there is some inconsistencies that occur, although that could be attributed to the fact that there are times of high volume and lack of mods?! Not sure. But the quality of the site as a whole is excellent and for stickier subjects, "Off Topic Discussions" are available where I believe the mods will have some leniency.

BTW Shout out to all the mods and administrators who do what they do here. It is truly an exceptional place to voice opinions. Great job.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 10, 2007, 01:03:24 PM
=
That said there is some inconsistencies that occur, although that could be attributed to the fact that there are times of high volume and lack of mods?! Not sure.

Basically, that's right.  There are hundreds and thousands of responses on this site daily, and it's hard for mods to read each and every post.  In addition to moderating this board, we all have fairly busy full-time jobs, as well.  If posters think a thread is inappropriate, they should either PM one of the mods, or use the "report to a moderator" button.  It definitely makes our jobs easier.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 10, 2007, 01:04:48 PM
If a thread with a real topics gets locked because of posters getting off topics and just bickering, posters are free to start a new post on the original topic of the thread.


If a topic is locked because of the the actual topic, don't restart the the thread.



If you are not sure why a topic is locked, feel free to PM the staff member that locked it.  Ask, we will surely give you a more detailed explanation. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on August 10, 2007, 01:05:47 PM
I started one of the locked threads here hoping to get some discussion as to how opinions on the trades had changed over time and knew there was a very good chance it may be locked if the other poster decided to participate. But I fully expected what occured. No big deal. You move on. Unfortunately I thought that was a pretty decent piece of writing and now its gone. Oh well.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: tb727 on August 10, 2007, 01:06:51 PM
Hey everyone, long time listener, rare poster.  I'm writing because it seems to me that the locking of threads is out of hand.  I realize that I'm only a user of this site, and that I'm beholden to the terms of use as designed by the site administrators.  That said, it's getting to the point where I'd rather read Celtic forums on other sites purely so that I don't have to worry about the 1st amendment being suppressed.  Often times threads seem to get locked for very subjective reasons.

I want to be careful with this post, as I do really enjoy CelticBlog.  It's an excellent site, with (mostly) respectful and erudite fans.  And, as stated, I realize the terms of use are entirely up to the site administrators. 

That disclaimer aside, frankly, I'm stunned given the liberal nature of the internet that more people aren't up in arms over this issue.  Am I the only one that feels this site is much too militant?


I agree with you too.  I've been a bit lazy looking for other Celtic forums to join so perhaps I should take that route.  But some things do seem a bit extreme here.  The Kevin Garnett post the other day about him "tearing his ACL", I thought was funny.  (I must admit I am a bit nervous writing that I thought it was funny because I feel I now may be banned.)  But the thread was locked and the poster banned for 2 weeks.

Obviously things can be misconstrued through writing (mood and tone specifically).  But personally I feel some people should lighten up.  Just my thoughts for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 10, 2007, 01:08:08 PM
I started one of the locked threads here hoping to get some discussion as to how opinions on the trades had changed over time and knew there was a very good chance it may be locked if the other poster decided to participate. But I fully expected what occured. No big deal. You move on. Unfortunately I thought that was a pretty decent piece of writing and now its gone. Oh well.

Actually it was , and ur post was just fine
but the thread goes the wrong way.
Thanks for understanding.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 10, 2007, 01:09:58 PM
I started one of the locked threads here hoping to get some discussion as to how opinions on the trades had changed over time and knew there was a very good chance it may be locked if the other poster decided to participate. But I fully expected what occured. No big deal. You move on. Unfortunately I thought that was a pretty decent piece of writing and now its gone. Oh well.

Actually it was , and ur post was just fine
but the thread goes the wrong way.
Thanks for understanding.


Though the title needs a little more thought next time. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 10, 2007, 01:13:23 PM
I started one of the locked threads here hoping to get some discussion as to how opinions on the trades had changed over time and knew there was a very good chance it may be locked if the other poster decided to participate. But I fully expected what occured. No big deal. You move on. Unfortunately I thought that was a pretty decent piece of writing and now its gone. Oh well.

Actually it was , and ur post was just fine
but the thread goes the wrong way.
Thanks for understanding.


Though the title needs a little more thought next time. 

yes indeed... Nobody likes to be called like that. well...yeah nobody
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 10, 2007, 01:14:07 PM
Hey everyone, long time listener, rare poster.  I'm writing because it seems to me that the locking of threads is out of hand.  I realize that I'm only a user of this site, and that I'm beholden to the terms of use as designed by the site administrators.  That said, it's getting to the point where I'd rather read Celtic forums on other sites purely so that I don't have to worry about the 1st amendment being suppressed.  Often times threads seem to get locked for very subjective reasons.

I want to be careful with this post, as I do really enjoy CelticBlog.  It's an excellent site, with (mostly) respectful and erudite fans.  And, as stated, I realize the terms of use are entirely up to the site administrators. 

That disclaimer aside, frankly, I'm stunned given the liberal nature of the internet that more people aren't up in arms over this issue.  Am I the only one that feels this site is much too militant?


I agree with you too.  I've been a bit lazy looking for other Celtic forums to join so perhaps I should take that route.  But some things do seem a bit extreme here.  The Kevin Garnett post the other day about him "tearing his ACL", I thought was funny.  (I must admit I am a bit nervous writing that I thought it was funny because I feel I now may be banned.)  But the thread was locked and the poster banned for 2 weeks.

Obviously things can be misconstrued through writing (mood and tone specifically).  But personally I feel some people should lighten up.  Just my thoughts for what it's worth.

There are clear rules against starting misleading thread titles.  There are clear rules against trolling and baiting other posters.  That type of "joke" isn't permitted, and it upset a lot of posters.  That particular user also has a history of inappropriate content.  The locking of the thread and the suspension were absolutely appropriate, and  I would do the same thing again.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on August 10, 2007, 01:14:54 PM
I started one of the locked threads here hoping to get some discussion as to how opinions on the trades had changed over time and knew there was a very good chance it may be locked if the other poster decided to participate. But I fully expected what occured. No big deal. You move on. Unfortunately I thought that was a pretty decent piece of writing and now its gone. Oh well.

Actually it was , and ur post was just fine
but the thread goes the wrong way.
Thanks for understanding.


Though the title needs a little more thought next time. 
Agreed, I always name the thread first and then type the post. I should go back and revisit the title more often.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: priceisright on August 10, 2007, 01:16:49 PM
I appreciate the insights, and I do appreciate the hard work put in by the administrators.  Further, and to be clear, my "1st amendment" and "militant" comments were just hyperbole to spark conversation.  As stated, I fully understand that the administrators of the site can run it however they wish.

That said, locking threads because posters are "off topics and just bickering" seems entirely subjective.  What are the rules governing "off topic"?  What constitutes "bickering"?

Also, I completely agree tb727 about the acl tear post.  Perhaps the rules for baiting are clear, but was it really necessary to ban someone 2 weeks for simply having a dark sense of humor?  I suppose if they had a history, then I guess...

I would probably be happier with the site if it could be entirely user moderated (ala Digg, CL, /., etc), but alas, those systems are not easy to implement...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: kamakawiwaole on August 10, 2007, 01:19:01 PM
ok with some threads they get locked too quickly.  people say "oh well its going nowhere"  well if it gets locked then how can it get back on course.  i visit this site a lot but not as much as many of the posters here, and often times i want to comment on a thread (about the topic)  even if the last posters have taken it off the topic, but i dont get a chance because its locked.

so maybe you could use a little more discretion before locking threads.

thanks

cheers

kamakaw
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 10, 2007, 01:21:39 PM
As W says before kamakawiwaole if u think the topc is interesting u can always start a thread again, and maybe ask for the other posters to keep on topic.
Beleive me, Mods are not Kindergarden teachers and we cant be reasoning with every single poster

Although sometimes its fun ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 10, 2007, 01:22:17 PM
I appreciate the insights, and I do appreciate the hard work put in by the administrators.  Further, and to be clear, my "1st amendment" and "militant" comments were just hyperbole to spark conversation.  As stated, I fully understand that the administrators of the site can run it however they wish.

That said, locking threads because posters are "off topics and just bickering" seems entirely subjective.  What are the rules governing "off topic"?  What constitutes "bickering"?

Also, I completely agree tb727 about the acl tear post.  Perhaps the rules for baiting are clear, but was it really necessary to ban someone 2 weeks for simply having a dark sense of humor?  I suppose if they had a history, then I guess...

I would probably be happier with the site if it could be entirely user moderated (ala Digg, CL, /., etc), but alas, those systems are not easy to implement...


I'll try to say this as respectfully as possible, but the rules and the application thereof aren't going to be changed.  We'll listen to concerns, but the whole "this place is oppressive, I prefer other blogs" vibe that some users have is pointless.  If there are other blogs people prefer, they can post there, where content pushes the envelope a little more.  We link to just about every Celtics blog and site on the internet in our "bookmarks" folder, so for those who feel too oppressed, they're welcome to try something new.

Again, the ACL post was misleading, and constituted baiting.  Also, I'm pretty sure there are, in fact, clear rules about how users are to conduct themselves here.  Again, I fully admit that some sites allow more than we do here, but I'm personally okay with that.

As for kamakawiwaole's suggestion about giving threads a chance to sort themselves out, I know that generally moderators ask posters to get back on track before locking a thread.  However, some posts are doomed from the start.  It's probably something to be paid attention to, but certain threads (such as the ACL one) can't be resurrected under any circumstances.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: tb727 on August 10, 2007, 01:32:06 PM
I appreciate the insights, and I do appreciate the hard work put in by the administrators.  Further, and to be clear, my "1st amendment" and "militant" comments were just hyperbole to spark conversation.  As stated, I fully understand that the administrators of the site can run it however they wish.

That said, locking threads because posters are "off topics and just bickering" seems entirely subjective.  What are the rules governing "off topic"?  What constitutes "bickering"?

Also, I completely agree tb727 about the acl tear post.  Perhaps the rules for baiting are clear, but was it really necessary to ban someone 2 weeks for simply having a dark sense of humor?  I suppose if they had a history, then I guess...

I would probably be happier with the site if it could be entirely user moderated (ala Digg, CL, /., etc), but alas, those systems are not easy to implement...


I'll try to say this as respectfully as possible, but the rules and the application thereof aren't going to be changed.  We'll listen to concerns, but the whole "this place is oppressive, I prefer other blogs" vibe that some users have is pointless.  If there are other blogs people prefer, they can post there, where content pushes the envelope a little more.  We link to just about every Celtics blog and site on the internet in our "bookmarks" folder, so for those who feel too oppressed, they're welcome to try something new.

Again, the ACL post was misleading, and constituted baiting.  Also, I'm pretty sure there are, in fact, clear rules about how users are to conduct themselves here.  Again, I fully admit that some sites allow more than we do here, but I'm personally okay with that.

As for kamakawiwaole's suggestion about giving threads a chance to sort themselves out, I know that generally moderators ask posters to get back on track before locking a thread.  However, some posts are doomed from the start.  It's probably something to be paid attention to, but certain threads (such as the ACL one) can't be resurrected under any circumstances.

Thanks for this!  I never even knew it was there.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Pawtucket Pat on August 10, 2007, 01:46:13 PM
I pretty much agree that the mods are a little hardcore here, and I'm not crazy about it myself. Problem is, where else are you going to go? Sure, there are plenty of other Celtics blogs out there, but none of them have the following that this one does. There's little to no interaction on the boards, comparitively speaking, on the other blogs I've checked out, and the users don't seem to be as knowledgeable, in general.

So while it's vaguely disconcerting that the mods here are so strict, at the same time, it's kind of the price you have to pay for quality. At the end of the day, it's probably a good thing, or at least not a very bad thing.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 10, 2007, 01:57:22 PM
I would probably be happier with the site if it could be entirely user moderated (ala Digg, CL, /., etc), but alas, those systems are not easy to implement...
Actually setting up and maintaining user moderated systems are not nearly as complicated as setting up a true online community such as CelticsBlog that is not so different from a virtual small town. User moderated systems also have a nasty tendency to grow, burn out and die too and naturally we don't want that.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: RONDO#1 on August 10, 2007, 01:58:06 PM
Someone should lock this thread.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on August 10, 2007, 02:07:24 PM
some cheese to go with ur wine. (http://www.zanyzeus.co.nz/images/Photos/wine_and_cheese.jpg)if a thread gets locked, no big deal...QTIP (Quit Taking It Personally). u know what the rules are (u agreed to them when u registered), if u dont like how the site is conducted, u have the choice to leave.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celtfan 3.0 on August 10, 2007, 02:08:43 PM
My two cents.

Like Roy said, Mods, including myself, all pretty much have our 9-5 jobs, and read and moderate this board on the side.  It's not like we're paid staff, and in that sense we're no different then any other poster here.  We're just a bunch of imperfect human beings that make decisions on a subjective basis who happen to be die hard Celtic fans.  The only difference is that we have been recruited to help moderate this board.  I don't think any of us are on a power trip about it, but we all love this board and want the conversation to go smoothly.

Many posters here don't have a big issue with how threads are moderated.  Some do.  That's the nature of having such a large community.  We're never going to be able to please anyone.  I know for a fact that if this site was as loosely moderated as the Real GM board, I would not post here.  If posts like "KG tears an ACL" were all over the place, I'd stop coming here altogether. 

You should also consider the fact that over the past month or so, the number of new members have jumped quite a bit.  This means more and more threads are being started every day.  Every time I log on, there are 5 new threads.  That's a lot to keep an eye on.  There's 10 threads being started on the same topic, new posters coming in every day, etc.  Yes, we make mistakes, yes many of our decisions are subjective.  That's human nature.

Ultimately, the level of moderation on this board encourages respectful and intelligent conversation, which is what I personally am after.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 10, 2007, 03:48:26 PM
The premise of this topic stems from a misperception based on something other than facts. What premises those are, I have no idea, but I do know that anyone that thinks CelticsBlog admins and moderators are locking topics left and right don't know what they are talking about.

Here's some facts. In the last three days (counting today which makes it 2.5 days) there have been 147 new topics started and 2714 posts made. During the same period there have been exactly 3 topics locked. All totaled for the last week or so, there have probably been five or six topics locked.

That doesn't count topics that got locked because the topics got moved of course. Those have nothing to do with this discussion. This discussion has been about how heavy-handed CB staff is and how we are squelching first amendment rights. Hogwash.

Topics get moved because people, usually newbies, start topics in the wrong place sometimes. Those need to be moved to where they belong. The whole idea of having multiple forums is so that people can have some sense that when they enter one, they know what is going to be in there.

We have a LOT of newbies around here. Our membership has grown almost 39% since May. That means that out of our 3200 some odd members, around 1250 of them have been here around three months or less. At the time of this post, we've had 177 join since the first of August.

Here's some more facts. In terms of new topics created and posts made, our current forum activity is over twice as high as our historical average (which includes the current numbers). The August growth rate to date is over 60% higher than the total average growth rate. Our most active days by far have been during the off-season with as many as 2,200 online at times in recent weeks.

These are the facts and they reflect the reason why we have so many moved topics. What we don't have though, is even a single shred of fact to demonstrate that CelticsBlog staff locks too many threads.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on August 10, 2007, 10:15:54 PM
bob day, u just shut down this thread, my master ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 10, 2007, 11:12:33 PM
I think perhaps some of our folks may not realize that when we move a topic from one forum to another, we post a locked redirection topic that contains the name of the original thread. That redirection topic serves as a sign post for people who may have been interested in the original topic, but unaware of where it was relocated. Those MOVED topic notices are far more numerous than locked topics.

Probably better than 95% of the moderator actions taken around here on average involve merging and moving topics, and modifying posts (usually topic titles) with stickying, splitting, locking and deleting making up a small percentage. Here's another way to put all this in proper perspective. In the last two days there have been around 100 new topics started and around 2000 new posts made in these forums. During the same period, there were 26 moderator actions taken. Locked topics comprised 3 of those. It was a big period for thread-locking.

Welcome to the exciting world of CelticsBlog moderation!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 11, 2007, 12:15:28 AM
The premise of this topic stems from a misperception based on something other than facts. What premises those are, I have no idea, but I do know that anyone that thinks CelticsBlog admins and moderators are locking topics left and right don't know what they are talking about.

Here's some facts. In the last three days (counting today which makes it 2.5 days) there have been 147 new topics started and 2714 posts made. During the same period there have been exactly 3 topics locked. All totaled for the last week or so, there have probably been five or six topics locked.

That doesn't count topics that got locked because the topics got moved of course. Those have nothing to do with this discussion. This discussion has been about how heavy-handed CB staff is and how we are squelching first amendment rights. Hogwash.

Topics get moved because people, usually newbies, start topics in the wrong place sometimes. Those need to be moved to where they belong. The whole idea of having multiple forums is so that people can have some sense that when they enter one, they know what is going to be in there.

We have a LOT of newbies around here. Our membership has grown almost 39% since May. That means that out of our 3200 some odd members, around 1250 of them have been here around three months or less. At the time of this post, we've had 177 join since the first of August.

Here's some more facts. In terms of new topics created and posts made, our current forum activity is over twice as high as our historical average (which includes the current numbers). The August growth rate to date is over 60% higher than the total average growth rate. Our most active days by far have been during the off-season with as many as 2,200 online at times in recent weeks.

These are the facts and they reflect the reason why we have so many moved topics. What we don't have though, is even a single shred of fact to demonstrate that CelticsBlog staff locks too many threads.

Im sure u calculate all this numbers using an (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_Rtq8N71Go4MBFwijzbkF/SIG=12f4s0tne/EXP=1186892092/**http%3A//www.uib.es/c-calculo/scimgs/fc/tc1/imatges/abaco.jpg)  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 11, 2007, 12:42:24 AM
HEHEHEHEHE! Thanks Edgar. That is twice you've made me laugh tonight! :)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 11, 2007, 12:50:15 AM
HEHEHEHEHE! Thanks Edgar. That is twice you've made me laugh tonight! :)

Lol....  im feeling creative tonight ...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: IamTheTruth on August 13, 2007, 10:14:14 AM
... This is the worst of the Celtics blogs. Without Flcelticsfan and the forum, no one would come here. I think stating and debating these things should be an option here. Doubt the moderators will agree but I think it is about time celtics fans on the internet had the right to voice their opinions!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Rainman on August 13, 2007, 10:17:05 AM
You're joking right?

This is probably the BEST Celticsblog.........
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 13, 2007, 10:18:29 AM
See, sheer trolling like this will get you banned.  If you had a valid opinion, or posted something constructive, that's cool.  But to come on here and say we're the worst blog on the internet?  That's ban-worthy.

Please go back to your blog.  We know who you are.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Donoghus on August 13, 2007, 05:10:10 PM
... This is the worst of the Celtics blogs. Without Flcelticsfan and the forum, no one would come here. I think stating and debating these things should be an option here. Doubt the moderators will agree but I think it is about time celtics fans on the internet had the right to voice their opinions!

He got two TP's for that post?   ???
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 13, 2007, 05:13:23 PM
... This is the worst of the Celtics blogs. Without Flcelticsfan and the forum, no one would come here. I think stating and debating these things should be an option here. Doubt the moderators will agree but I think it is about time celtics fans on the internet had the right to voice their opinions!

He got two TP's for that post?   ???
Yes I mean theres always people with an agenda, remember u can give more than one after a while.
Hey in other news Ure halway to a STAR!!! Shiny!!!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Donoghus on August 13, 2007, 08:16:47 PM
... This is the worst of the Celtics blogs. Without Flcelticsfan and the forum, no one would come here. I think stating and debating these things should be an option here. Doubt the moderators will agree but I think it is about time celtics fans on the internet had the right to voice their opinions!

He got two TP's for that post?   ???
Yes I mean theres always people with an agenda, remember u can give more than one after a while.
Hey in other news Ure halway to a STAR!!! Shiny!!!

Thanks.  Nice to crack "New Three" territory. 8)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Pawtucket Pat on August 16, 2007, 12:18:19 PM
Quote from: AdrianoMG6 on Today at 07:32:03 AM
hobbs why u movin this post? it's more celtic related then some others u have on the celtics talk!


"Are you really that obtuse? 

You're talking about the Minnesota Timberwolves.  They're another team in the NBA.  They have a different owner, GM, coach, fanbase, city, and roster than the Boston Celtics.  This shouldn't be too hard for you to figure out."


The above quote was made by Roy Hobbs today in another thread. I wanted to point out the hypocritical nature of this comment, and the seemingly unjustified elevation of the hostilities towards the original poster. Hobbs called the poster obtuse using the "have you stopped beating your wife" trick, by asking if he was that obtuse, implying that he, in fact, was, since he had already made the comment.

Perhaps there was bad blood from that poster in the past, I'm not privy to anything like that, but it seems to me that the poster simply asked a question that was legitimate to him, and Hobbs amped up the hostilities and violated one of the rules he so strictly enforces by using a derogatory description of the poster.

Obviously I love the Celtics and this site, and I have nothing against any of the people who do a fine job moderating and keeping the site at the level of quality it is at, but I have to say that I thought this comment was out of line, hypocritical, and unnecessary. I'd hope Hobbs would remember his own short fuse next time before admonishing and/or banning other posters.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 16, 2007, 01:15:05 PM
The poster in question has a long history of deliberately ignoring the rules.  I don't want to get into his disciplinary history too much, but it is a substantial one.  His challenging my authority to move the thread in this instance was in no way an innocent question. 

The word "obtuse", in common parlance, carries with it a meaning of deliberately being dense or difficult.  I don't see it, when used in this context, as a personal attack.  Any poster who challenges a moderator's authority to move a thread about the Minnesota Timberwolves to the Around the NBA forum must be being deliberately obstructive.

I would hazard a guess that anybody complaining about my use of this word had to look it up in the dictionary.  In the context it was used, it was a perfectly appropriate observation.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on August 16, 2007, 01:32:07 PM
I'd have to agree, Adriano was obviously baiting Hobbs here. That kid is constantly picking a fight with Hobbs, not with edgar or wd or jeff or something but with Hobbs, its pretty obvious where the conversation would've gone.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Pawtucket Pat on August 16, 2007, 02:01:28 PM
The poster in question has a long history of deliberately ignoring the rules.  I don't want to get into his disciplinary history too much, but it is a substantial one.  His challenging my authority to move the thread in this instance was in no way an innocent question. 

The word "obtuse", in common parlance, carries with it a meaning of deliberately being dense or difficult.  I don't see it, when used in this context, as a personal attack.  Any poster who challenges a moderator's authority to move a thread about the Minnesota Timberwolves to the Around the NBA forum must be being deliberately obstructive.

I would hazard a guess that anybody complaining about my use of this word had to look it up in the dictionary.  In the context it was used, it was a perfectly appropriate observation.

Fair enough. If there is some kind of long-standing history there, I can understand the agitation.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Pawtucket Pat on August 17, 2007, 11:54:07 AM
I'd have to agree, Adriano was obviously baiting Hobbs here. That kid is constantly picking a fight with Hobbs, not with edgar or wd or jeff or something but with Hobbs, its pretty obvious where the conversation would've gone.

I think it is worth mentioning that Hobbs seems to get "baited" a lot more than other mods. Could that have something to do with arrogant statements like the one above ("I would hazard a guess that anybody complaining about my use of this word had to look it up in the dictionary.")?

It seems that Hobbs does his fair share of "baiting" as well, and pompous statements like the one above are par for the course. I for one found it a rude statement to make and am perfectly familiar with the word obtuse as well as it's standard usage. I'd also suggest that Mr. Hobbs make his way to dictionary.com and show me where it says that the definition for the word obtuse  includes being willfully or deliberately difficult. You might be surprised to learn that it simply means slow-witted or dim, which doesn't seem much different than calling someone stupid, which I think we can all agree is a personal attack.

If there is a history there, I can understand the agitation. However, it still seems hypocritical to me and I think it's naive to suggest that Hobbs doesn't invite at least a little of this baiting onto himself.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 17, 2007, 11:59:53 AM
I'd have to agree, Adriano was obviously baiting Hobbs here. That kid is constantly picking a fight with Hobbs, not with edgar or wd or jeff or something but with Hobbs, its pretty obvious where the conversation would've gone.

I think it is worth mentioning that Hobbs seems to get "baited" a lot more than other mods. Could that have something to do with arrogant statements like the one above ("I would hazard a guess that anybody complaining about my use of this word had to look it up in the dictionary.")?

It seems that Hobbs does his fair share of "baiting" as well, and pompous statements like the one above are par for the course. I for one found it a rude statement to make and am perfectly familiar with the word obtuse as well as it's standard usage. I'd also suggest that Mr. Hobbs make his way to dictionary.com and show me where it says that the definition for the word obtuse  includes being willfully or deliberately difficult. You might be surprised to learn that it simply means slow-witted or dim, which doesn't seem much different than calling someone stupid, which I think we can all agree is a personal attack.

If there is a history there, I can understand the agitation. However, it still seems hypocritical to me and I think it's naive to suggest that Hobbs doesn't invite at least a little of this baiting onto himself.


Why are you trying to bait Roy Hobbs? 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 17, 2007, 12:00:42 PM
Before calling out members of the staff, Pat, I would suggest you be willing to back your statements up with facts.  Please, point me to examples of my "baiting" other posters.  I find it comical that somebody with only a handful of posts is calling me out; I sense an agenda, and if you continue to make unfounded accusations, it's something that will be dealt with.

By the way, if you go to google or yahoo, there are over 100,000 search results where deliberate and obtuse are used in conjunction, as in "deliberately obtuse".  Amazing how that works.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Pawtucket Pat on August 17, 2007, 01:19:25 PM
I'd have to agree, Adriano was obviously baiting Hobbs here. That kid is constantly picking a fight with Hobbs, not with edgar or wd or jeff or something but with Hobbs, its pretty obvious where the conversation would've gone.

I think it is worth mentioning that Hobbs seems to get "baited" a lot more than other mods. Could that have something to do with arrogant statements like the one above ("I would hazard a guess that anybody complaining about my use of this word had to look it up in the dictionary.")?

It seems that Hobbs does his fair share of "baiting" as well, and pompous statements like the one above are par for the course. I for one found it a rude statement to make and am perfectly familiar with the word obtuse as well as it's standard usage. I'd also suggest that Mr. Hobbs make his way to dictionary.com and show me where it says that the definition for the word obtuse  includes being willfully or deliberately difficult. You might be surprised to learn that it simply means slow-witted or dim, which doesn't seem much different than calling someone stupid, which I think we can all agree is a personal attack.

If there is a history there, I can understand the agitation. However, it still seems hypocritical to me and I think it's naive to suggest that Hobbs doesn't invite at least a little of this baiting onto himself.


Why are you trying to bait Roy Hobbs? 

I don't post much, but I'm on the boards every day. I assume you have access to number of log-ins and site visits. Feel free to check them and my profile; I've been a member of the blog since day one at the new site and was a member for well over a year at the previous site as well before the switch.

I don't see myself as "baiting" anyone; I'm not trying to start an argument. I just think Hobbs often times comes across as quite arrogant when dealing with posters, and the example above was a perfect case in point.

Hobbs made a rude comment yesterday to another poster, which I said was inapprorpriate and hypocritical. Hobbs edited my comment and deleted my criticism and invited me to post my thoughts in the appropriate forum, which I understood and acquiesced to. When I stated my case, Hobbs made his, and did so in an arrogant way, suggesting that perhaps I didn't understand the word and that's why I felt the way I did, which was false. I was going to let it go, but it really bothered me and I felt that I should let Hobbs know, in the appropriate forum, which I was told this is, that I felt his words were unneccessary. Hobbs responded in kind that if I continue on the subject that I will be "dealt with."

This is exactly the kind of hostile environment that I feel Hobbs fosters in such cases. Maybe you both think I'm baiting you, but I'm honestly just a huge Celtics fan who loves both the blog and the forums, but am often bothered by Hobbs's tone in threatening disciplinary action with posters. I don't view myself as a "problem" poster or anything of the sort. Again, I don't post much but am an avid reader of the site and forums. However, given that this is the suggestion thread, I'd suggest that Hobbs please display a bit more tact and a bit less arrogance in such matters.

Finally, I'm not going to go through Hobbs's posts and point out cases in which I think he's being less than polite--though I certainly could--because that doesn't seem like it will get anything anywhere. I think my point is valid--Hobbs invites potential trouble cases onto himself from time to time--and all I'd like is for Hobbs to acknowledge that sometimes he might be a bit heavy-handed, rather than denying it and threatening me.

That said, I'll leave it at that. I love the site and don't want to get myself kicked off, which, sadly, seems a distinct possibility. It's a shame that an agenda-free honest discussion could devolve to that point, but so it is, I suppose. I've said my piece.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on August 17, 2007, 01:22:25 PM
Now that's snarky.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 17, 2007, 01:26:14 PM
Again, PP, unless you're going to actually use examples, baiting is *exactly* what your post is.  It is inappropriate to say "Hobbs often baits posters" without giving examples.  In the case of Adriano, he was deliberately picking a fight over something that was completely and utterly asinine:  whether a post entirely about the Minnesota Timberwolves belonged in the around the NBA section.  He was the textbook definition of somebody being deliberately and stubbornly obtuse.

I have over 6,000 posts on here, and literally hundreds of moderators actions.  I've received only a handful of complaints, so I feel fairly good about the job I'm doing on here.  While I have no major problem with your criticism, I am going to respond to it when I believe that it is unfounded.

Again, discussion is welcomed; calling a staff member "arrogant" and "pompous" without foundation is not.  While I have spoken to some members more harshly than others at times, almost uniformly that is due to a long history of that poster either pushing the envelope, or having a lengthy disciplinary record.  I stand by each and every one of my posts on this board.

Let me say, however, that I have a hard time believing that you are simply interested in an innocent discussion as to the merits of moderator action.  For somebody who is just a huge Celtics fan and wants to talk about the team, you've made yourself awfully conspicuous with your unfounded criticisms.  That doesn't necessarily bode well for your future here.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 17, 2007, 01:53:40 PM
I'd have to agree, Adriano was obviously baiting Hobbs here. That kid is constantly picking a fight with Hobbs, not with edgar or wd or jeff or something but with Hobbs, its pretty obvious where the conversation would've gone.

I think it is worth mentioning that Hobbs seems to get "baited" a lot more than other mods. Could that have something to do with arrogant statements like the one above ("I would hazard a guess that anybody complaining about my use of this word had to look it up in the dictionary.")?

It seems that Hobbs does his fair share of "baiting" as well, and pompous statements like the one above are par for the course. I for one found it a rude statement to make and am perfectly familiar with the word obtuse as well as it's standard usage. I'd also suggest that Mr. Hobbs make his way to dictionary.com and show me where it says that the definition for the word obtuse  includes being willfully or deliberately difficult. You might be surprised to learn that it simply means slow-witted or dim, which doesn't seem much different than calling someone stupid, which I think we can all agree is a personal attack.

If there is a history there, I can understand the agitation. However, it still seems hypocritical to me and I think it's naive to suggest that Hobbs doesn't invite at least a little of this baiting onto himself.


Why are you trying to bait Roy Hobbs? 

I don't post much, but I'm on the boards every day. I assume you have access to number of log-ins and site visits. Feel free to check them and my profile; I've been a member of the blog since day one at the new site and was a member for well over a year at the previous site as well before the switch.

I don't see myself as "baiting" anyone; I'm not trying to start an argument. I just think Hobbs often times comes across as quite arrogant when dealing with posters, and the example above was a perfect case in point.

Hobbs made a rude comment yesterday to another poster, which I said was inapprorpriate and hypocritical. Hobbs edited my comment and deleted my criticism and invited me to post my thoughts in the appropriate forum, which I understood and acquiesced to. When I stated my case, Hobbs made his, and did so in an arrogant way, suggesting that perhaps I didn't understand the word and that's why I felt the way I did, which was false. I was going to let it go, but it really bothered me and I felt that I should let Hobbs know, in the appropriate forum, which I was told this is, that I felt his words were unneccessary. Hobbs responded in kind that if I continue on the subject that I will be "dealt with."

This is exactly the kind of hostile environment that I feel Hobbs fosters in such cases. Maybe you both think I'm baiting you, but I'm honestly just a huge Celtics fan who loves both the blog and the forums, but am often bothered by Hobbs's tone in threatening disciplinary action with posters. I don't view myself as a "problem" poster or anything of the sort. Again, I don't post much but am an avid reader of the site and forums. However, given that this is the suggestion thread, I'd suggest that Hobbs please display a bit more tact and a bit less arrogance in such matters.

Finally, I'm not going to go through Hobbs's posts and point out cases in which I think he's being less than polite--though I certainly could--because that doesn't seem like it will get anything anywhere. I think my point is valid--Hobbs invites potential trouble cases onto himself from time to time--and all I'd like is for Hobbs to acknowledge that sometimes he might be a bit heavy-handed, rather than denying it and threatening me.

That said, I'll leave it at that. I love the site and don't want to get myself kicked off, which, sadly, seems a distinct possibility. It's a shame that an agenda-free honest discussion could devolve to that point, but so it is, I suppose. I've said my piece.


Yet you continue to bring up your problem with a member of the staff without any evidence. 


If you have a problem, feel free to contact others on the staff with the reasons and evidence of such problem. 


But repeatedly calling out a single member of the staff on a public forum looks like you are trying to bait him into an action. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Pawtucket Pat on August 17, 2007, 02:29:46 PM
Again, PP, unless you're going to actually use examples, baiting is *exactly* what your post is.  It is inappropriate to say "Hobbs often baits posters" without giving examples.  In the case of Adriano, he was deliberately picking a fight over something that was completely and utterly asinine:  whether a post entirely about the Minnesota Timberwolves belonged in the around the NBA section.  He was the textbook definition of somebody being deliberately and stubbornly obtuse.

I have over 6,000 posts on here, and literally hundreds of moderators actions.  I've received only a handful of complaints, so I feel fairly good about the job I'm doing on here.  While I have no major problem with your criticism, I am going to respond to it when I believe that it is unfounded.

Again, discussion is welcomed; calling a staff member "arrogant" and "pompous" without foundation is not.  While I have spoken to some members more harshly than others at times, almost uniformly that is due to a long history of that poster either pushing the envelope, or having a lengthy disciplinary record.  I stand by each and every one of my posts on this board.

Let me say, however, that I have a hard time believing that you are simply interested in an innocent discussion as to the merits of moderator action.  For somebody who is just a huge Celtics fan and wants to talk about the team, you've made yourself awfully conspicuous with your unfounded criticisms.  That doesn't necessarily bode well for your future here.

That's fine. Again, I have no "agenda" as it were. I'm not sure if you think this is some sinister move by someone you've banned to come back and harass you or some such ill-conceived plan, but it is what it is. From perusing forums, it seems there is a heavy-handedness, which you qualify but admit to ("While I have spoken to some members more harshly than others at times, almost uniformly that is due to a long history of that poster either pushing the envelope, or having a lengthy disciplinary record."). It would seem that I simply catch those instances from time and time and remember them, perhaps unjustly given the circumstances.

I understand it's a difficult position, and I think the mods do a great job. I didn't mean to insult the work you do, but merely offer up constructive criticism on something I perceived. There's no sense in dragging this out, so I'll leave it at that.

Go Celts!  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 17, 2007, 02:44:13 PM
Fair enough, Pat.  Trust me, there will be no residual hard feelings, if that's something you're worried about.  It's hard sometimes to separate the trouble-makers from the constructive posters, and we've had an influx of the former around here, which probably makes things harder on everybody.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 17, 2007, 03:04:54 PM
Why don't we just let this issue go. Pat, with all due respect, I don't think Roy was baiting anyone. There was history there and much more than you know. I don't blame Roy at all for addressing it the way he did. I understand where you are coming from though and I think that deserves some recognition. I appreciate your concern that folks around here treat each other properly. I can see where Roy's comment could be interpreted as insensitive and out of bounds of our posting rules when one does not have the benefit of knowing the original context of his remarks.

This textual medium whereby we all congregate is imperfect. It is not easy to convey thought as well as we would like and equally challenging to offer background as may be needed to address the issues we discuss. This is the essence of this current discussion as I see it. I don't think Roy was baiting anyone and I don't think you are baiting Roy. To me it is just an example of two opinions being expressed from two different perspectives. In this case the main sticking point is that you were unaware of the background of Roy's comment. Otherwise, I think you two would see eye to eye. I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time but I do believe that is the sum of the dilemma.

Being a CelticsBlog administrator or moderator carries high standards with it. Staff members are expected to perform at near mythical levels of impeccability. That being said, there is no reason any CelticsBlog staff member should ever have to feel they need to be a pin cushion or punch toy for anyone who wants to try to hold those standards over their heads. Those are just cheap shots and as far as I'm concerned anyone who tries to embarrass or otherwise hurt a CelticsBlog staff member in these forums shouldn't be too surprised if that staff member returns the favor. That is a human thing and we'll never rob a staff member of standing up in public on his/her own behalf.

What I think we need to do now is diffuse this current dialog into more positive and less personal discussion. Let's let it go and learn from it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 17, 2007, 03:14:00 PM
We've worked it out, Bob.  The power of PMs, right? 8)



Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 17, 2007, 04:16:14 PM
We've worked it out, Bob.  The power of PMs, right? 8)
Most excellent. I commend you both. Smart people working out smart solutions is a fine thing.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SHEEEEEEEEEED on August 18, 2007, 02:18:53 AM
let's clamor for our constitutionally, no, god given rights of freedom of speech, expression, and information to be upheld on our favorite celtics posting site of CHOICE (remember that, without us YOU ARE NOTHING).  Here, in this thread.  Because apparently you can't anywhere else.

Roy, since you publicly attacked me in a thread for no particular reason other than your pathetic power mongering, and asked me to put my critiques in *ahem* "the proper thread", here they are.

and by the way, this post at large is disgusting.  you force your users to bring up issues here so you can gang up on them with flawed arguments and scant debate tactics?

...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 18, 2007, 02:22:41 AM
let's clamor for our constitutionally, no, god given rights of freedom of speech, expression, and information to be upheld on our favorite celtics posting site of CHOICE (remember that, without us YOU ARE NOTHING).  Here, in this thread.  Because apparently you can't anywhere else.

Roy, since you publicly attacked me in a thread for no particular reason other than your pathetic power mongering, and asked me to put my critiques in *ahem* "the proper thread", here they are.

and by the way, this post at large is disgusting.  you force your users to bring up issues here so you can gang up on them with flawed arguments and scant debate tactics? 

Um...  the "public attack" you suffered was an admonition not to call other posters illiterate or incompetent.  You launched a long diatribe about the Celticsblog site rules, which you are far from an expert on. 

Again, you are welcome to be as "disgusted" by our policies as you want, but by being here, you have to comply with them.  One of those rules is not personally attacking others. 

I would also note, for your edification, that the Constitutional freedoms of speech and expression do not apply to private entities like Celticsblog.  Also, there is no "freedom of information" found anywhere in the United States Constitution. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SHEEEEEEEEEED on August 18, 2007, 02:24:36 AM
Exhibit A: http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=9301.msg152158#msg152158

and i wasn't even looking...priceless
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SHEEEEEEEEEED on August 18, 2007, 02:29:54 AM
let's clamor for our constitutionally, no, god given rights of freedom of speech, expression, and information to be upheld on our favorite celtics posting site of CHOICE (remember that, without us YOU ARE NOTHING).  Here, in this thread.  Because apparently you can't anywhere else.

Roy, since you publicly attacked me in a thread for no particular reason other than your pathetic power mongering, and asked me to put my critiques in *ahem* "the proper thread", here they are.

and by the way, this post at large is disgusting.  you force your users to bring up issues here so you can gang up on them with flawed arguments and scant debate tactics? 

to the last poster with problems being "baited" by roy hobbs, you are not alone

Um...  the "public attack" you suffered was an admonition not to call other posters illiterate or incompetent.  You launched a long diatribe about the Celticsblog site rules, which you are far from an expert on. 

Again, you are welcome to be as "disgusted" by our policies as you want, but by being here, you have to comply with them.  One of those rules is not personally attacking others. 

I would also note, for your edification, that the Constitutional freedoms of speech and expression do not apply to private entities like Celticsblog.  Also, there is no "freedom of information" found anywhere in the United States Constitution. 

really?  isn't the 93rd amendment freedom of cheese, shoelaces, and information?  you are the master at losing semantic games.  as you can clearly see (unless it's been moderated yet), i say "constitutionally, no, god given" to indicate that these are inalienable rights; that no source of authority can take away.  i think i learned that in 4th or so grade.

nowhere did i claim that they do pertain to celticsblog.  its evident that they dont.  why do you think i am writing all this?

also, please show me where i personally attacked someone.  i was merely trying to help the original poster from understanding the "negativity" and "ignorance" that has become synonomous with celticsblog in his mind.

i would appreciate you stop defaming me in public arenas as well roy.  this is now the third time in the past 15 minutes
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SHEEEEEEEEEED on August 18, 2007, 02:39:32 AM
[Edited.]  Okay, I'm not going to let you lie in here.  You've been given some leeway to give your opinion, but making up blatant lies crosses a line. -R.H.

i really forget what was said here.  and since you have 3 times deleted my reply, which asked what i said here, i'm just editing it in place.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on August 18, 2007, 10:19:46 AM
I have a suggestion to the moderators, when members have disagreements and want to spout off, why not let them, unedited. It's fabulous entertainment to the rest of us who love watching them making themselves look silly. BTW I'm using silly but I'm sure people can substitute their own words for silly.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Bob Day on August 18, 2007, 11:52:53 AM
I have a suggestion to the moderators, when members have disagreements and want to spout off, why not let them, unedited. It's fabulous entertainment to the rest of us who love watching them making themselves look silly. BTW I'm using silly but I'm sure people can substitute their own words for silly.
I agree with this in principle and we do prefer to allow people to have their say, but sometimes we just have to clean things up. That is most usually caused by someone who wishes exercise their first amendment rights around here by trampling all over the first amendment rights of others.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on August 18, 2007, 03:15:50 PM
I understand, but I think you're missing out on a gold mine. I mean, Bob, you, Hobbs, Jeff, Edgar, et al are all extremely intelligent, confident, and possess extraordinary verbal bebating skills. If someone like the..ahem.. gentleman above wants to let it fly, let them and sell the viewing rights. Have designated times of the week where a moderator or administrator will be available in a chatroom, charge a small fee for entrance therefore youngsters can not get in and view something offensive and have at. I'm telling you I'd pay to see some of the debate there. I may not be the only one.

Of course this is all tongue in cheek but maybe the moderator of the day debate isn't a bad idea, open forum.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 18, 2007, 03:18:08 PM
That's some funny stuff, Nick.  I call dibs on all the people complaining about CB trampling on their Constitutional rights. ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on August 18, 2007, 03:36:37 PM
You know the more I think of it the more I think it might work. Set a time maybe 9:00PM EST, once a week, maybe twice. Advertise on the frontpage the moderator/administrator and subject based on weekly polling of subject material. Charge $4.99/hour billed to Visa/MC/Amex minimum one hour. Think of the servers you'll be able to afford if this explodes.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on August 19, 2007, 12:13:46 AM
That's some funny stuff, Nick.  I call dibs on all the people complaining about CB trampling on their Constitutional rights. ;)

Apparently you're a glutton for punishment eh? Funny/ironic thing: This first amendment argument has been made so many times, that  every new thread dedicated to it is in violation of site rules in and of its self because here is already a pre-existing thread on it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Gamble34 on August 22, 2007, 01:28:36 PM
I keep getting a "Your Comment is Too Short Message" even though I wrote:

"House will definitely be the backup PG, he has too much offensive talent to sit behind USC's second-best guard last year.

I happen to think Davis will beat Powe out eventually, again due to a higher overall skill level.  The problem with Powe is his height, if he were 6'10", I think he'd have a chance, but when you have 2 undersized PF, the guy with the best skills will win out.  Provided he's not 300 pounds."

Obviously not too short, anyone have this experience?  Sorry if this has been addressed before, I didn't have the ambition to read all 15 pages.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 22, 2007, 01:31:18 PM
I keep getting a "Your Comment is Too Short Message" even though I wrote:

"House will definitely be the backup PG, he has too much offensive talent to sit behind USC's second-best guard last year.

I happen to think Davis will beat Powe out eventually, again due to a higher overall skill level.  The problem with Powe is his height, if he were 6'10", I think he'd have a chance, but when you have 2 undersized PF, the guy with the best skills will win out.  Provided he's not 300 pounds."

Obviously not too short, anyone have this experience?  Sorry if this has been addressed before, I didn't have the ambition to read all 15 pages.


Look here

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=7822.0 (http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=7822.0)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: banty19 on August 24, 2007, 06:35:20 PM
I have no agenda on this issue because I don't post here often and have no plans on doing so. I also understand why you guys are so strict about moderating. You're probably hoping to one day sell the site and don't want to alienate a buyer. With that said, you might want to be a little more prudent with your post locking.

I don't think any of you guys know what it feels like to have a post locked. These people are sometimes putting significant effort into their posts. Do you know what happens when this effort is for naught? You completely alienate them. Sure, there are some users that are worth alienating. With the number of locked posts here, I doubt this is completely the case.
Once again, I could care less if you actually follow my suggestion. Heck, "ban me" if you like. My username has about 15 posts to my credit and there's no way anybody can truly be banned from a web site.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 24, 2007, 06:41:20 PM
I have no agenda on this issue because I don't post here often and have no plans on doing so. I also understand why you guys are so strict about moderating. You're probably hoping to one day sell the site and don't want to alienate a buyer. With that said, you might want to be a little more prudent with your post locking.

I don't think any of you guys know what it feels like to have a post locked. These people are sometimes putting significant effort into their posts. Do you know what happens when this effort is for naught? You completely alienate them. Sure, there are some users that are worth alienating. With the number of locked posts here, I doubt this is completely the case.
Once again, I could care less if you actually follow my suggestion. Heck, "ban me" if you like. My username has about 15 posts to my credit and there's no way anybody can truly be banned from a web site.

First, why would we ban you?

Secondly, what do you mean by the "number of locked posts" here?  We're averaging less than one per day, I believe, excluding moved posts.  It's not like it's a huge problem.  I think there was one post locked today, and none that I can think of other than that this week. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on September 05, 2007, 11:01:17 AM
I understand that rules are rules and you guys gotta do what you gotta do and I respect that.

However after posting a thread about our countries drug laws i recieved this message.  In no way was I endorsing doing or dealing drugs in any way.  It was written in a perfectly adult manner (i believe) yet recieved this message.

"Do not discuss illegal activities."


Quote
While the Celticsblog staff encourages discussion of a wide variety of topics, threads related to certain topics may be locked or deleted at any time because the staff deems them to be of a contentious, inflammatory, illegal, or otherwise inappropriate nature.  Decisions related to such threads will solely be in the staff’s discretion."

"Locked."

Can somebody clear this up for me?  How is this different than debating the morality of Capital Punishment where killing, rape, murder, and kidnapping are all being talked about freely... aren't those illegal activities?  I was talking about it in the same way.

I can understand that the post may have brought in some immature posters but couldn't it have had a chance to play out a bit? I mean the Capital Punishment post brought out some racist statements? 

I love being here (read all day and post most of it) but am really shocked that that thread got locked... i tried (and believe) that I was abiding by site rules.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on September 05, 2007, 11:07:55 AM
Also,

I would have PM'ed this but I do not know who locked the thread.

My apologies... not trying to make a thing out of it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on September 05, 2007, 11:21:57 AM
Marco, sounds like it would have been a good debate but you gotta figure the amount of:

"What are you high?"

"Take that straw out of you nose!"

"You're cracked!"

"Guess that argument went up in smoke."

would have ruled the roost and only gotten the thread locked for that purpose alone. But I think its a very good discussion that needs to be discussed considering we are losing that war and "Just say no" doesn't work.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on September 05, 2007, 11:24:48 AM
Hey guys...

sorry i didn't see that the post was just moved... i will delete the last one.

Also Nick, I definatly understand that... but we could have at least played it out a bit and cut it off if it did indeed get stupid like that.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on September 05, 2007, 11:44:10 AM
Hey guys...

sorry i didn't see that the post was just moved... i will delete the last one.

Also Nick, I definatly understand that... but we could have at least played it out a bit and cut it off if it did indeed get stupid like that.
Agree completely but sometimes when the subject skirts the line that close you just gotta say "Oh, well. I tried." and forget it. I know I've had one of my threads shut down under somewhat similar circumstances. Knew it might be ahead of time. "Oh well. I tried."
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: KuberskiIsMyHero on September 05, 2007, 11:48:30 AM
Shhh....free speech is dead, pass it on.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Celtic Fan Forever on September 05, 2007, 11:52:19 AM
Shhh....free speech is dead, pass it on.

This is not a democracy, and it shouldn't be one either. There are no government rules regarding free speech on an online message board. The mods here have a right to lock threads they feel go against the integrity of this site or are discussing illegal matters.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on September 05, 2007, 12:11:32 PM
Shhh....free speech is dead, pass it on.

This is not a democracy, and it shouldn't be one either. There are no government rules regarding free speech on an online message board. The mods here have a right to lock threads they feel go against the integrity of this site or are discussing illegal matters.

Thanks for stating the obvious Celtics fan.  I just wanted an anwser as to why it is seen as an "unfit topic" while under the Capitol Punishment thread people are saying things like "If i could pull the trigger, tie the knot, or throw the switch myself i would"...and get away with it.  Like I said, i was in no way shape or form endorsing the use or sale of drugs.  I was just trying to raise an issue that is an important one concerning the State of the Nation.  I'm saying I feel I abided by all rules... and considering not one signle moderator or administer has yet to anwser me angers me. 

at least they didn't delete my posts.... they just buried them on page 16 of an old thread... can you say "black bagged."
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on September 05, 2007, 12:12:58 PM
but noone will ever know what I said exactly because that WAS deleted...

i'm over it.  Just wish it was handled a little better that's all.  Just doesn't fit the precedent of professionalism and courtesy I have experienced before is all.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SShoreFan on September 05, 2007, 12:44:41 PM
but noone will ever know what I said exactly because that WAS deleted...



So does that mean you wont be able to pull a Charles Barkley and say that you were misquoted?  :-)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on September 05, 2007, 12:52:23 PM
Quote
I'm saying I feel I abided by all rules... and considering not one signle moderator or administer has yet to anwser me angers me.

The administrators / moderators all have full-time jobs.  The reason for the locking of the thread were explained in the initial post; the topic of legalization of drugs is one of those subjects that the staff has, in its discretion, decided not to allow.  While some people can argue about this issue intelligently, it's something where many cannot.  Threads of that nature simply turn into a forum for drug users to come in and make one-liners, and it's not something the staff has an interest in. 

Simply put: we don't want it discussed.  It's one of the narrow category of topics that are off-limits to us, and that's something that has to be accepted.

As for your thread being "buried", this is the proper thread for it, as the site rules make clear.  We treated you no differently than we would anybody else.  It has nothing to do with your topic, but rather with a uniform policy used in the case of all similar thread.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Brendan on September 05, 2007, 01:14:50 PM
I understand why the mods made their decision, but I disagree with it. I've also seen some of the mods use the threat of retribution to stifle debate, aqcusing posters of making personal attacks or breaking the rules and warning them, when the poster is attacking a mod's arguments in the course of a debate. I would suggest two guidelines:

1. When an admin locks, deletes, ghosts etc a thread, they leave their handle so there is some accountability and the OP can contact back (i.e. through PM) to get a clarification. In Marco's thread, I had no idea what it was about, and wouldn't have known that drug legalization was out of bounds for thread topics, except I PM'd him.

2. Admins should not rebuke posters for a post that is directed at the admin, within the course of normal discussion. If a poster challenges an admin while the admin is moving threads, moderating, etc. then by all means. But when an admin is acting as a poster, there is at least a strong appearance of impropriety when that same admin threatens a challenging poster. We all get attached to our arguments and sometimes its easy to take a substantive challenge personally, and thus over react.

That's just my two cents; generally I think the mods do a great job on the board, there is always lots of talk, and you can usually count on a heads up before more serious action occurs. And we don't really have a lot of junk on the site either, which is great.

 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on September 05, 2007, 01:30:02 PM
1. When an admin locks, deletes, ghosts etc a thread, they leave their handle so there is some accountability and the OP can contact back (i.e. through PM) to get a clarification. In Marco's thread, I had no idea what it was about, and wouldn't have known that drug legalization was out of bounds for thread topics, except I PM'd him.

In the case where a member of the staff locks and edits a thread (as in the present case), their handle is left behind; it says who the thread was edited by.  Thus, in this instance, at the bottom of the post it states "Last Edit: Today at 11:52:15 AM by Roy Hobbs".  I agree with you that in case where a thread is locked without editing, the staff should identify the reasons for the locking, etc.

Quote
2. Admins should not rebuke posters for a post that is directed at the admin, within the course of normal discussion. If a poster challenges an admin while the admin is moving threads, moderating, etc. then by all means. But when an admin is acting as a poster, there is at least a strong appearance of impropriety when that same admin threatens a challenging poster. We all get attached to our arguments and sometimes its easy to take a substantive challenge personally, and thus over react.

I agree completely with this one, as well, and hope it's not something I'm guilty of.  If people are legitimately debating, somebody shouldn't hold the "I'm a mod" card over the other person's head.  The only times I can remember mentioning my position are when I'm trying to get a thread back on track, or I'm trying to rebuke a poster (and their are some posters who on occasion need rebuking, due to a history of misbehavior).  If this is something that people notice as a problem, they should PM either that staff member, or another member of the staff, and ask what their intentions are, etc. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  While I understand why people disagree with the locking of the thread, it's one of those topics that is simply taboo around here.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on September 05, 2007, 01:41:48 PM
1. When an admin locks, deletes, ghosts etc a thread, they leave their handle so there is some accountability and the OP can contact back (i.e. through PM) to get a clarification. In Marco's thread, I had no idea what it was about, and wouldn't have known that drug legalization was out of bounds for thread topics, except I PM'd him.

In the case where a member of the staff locks and edits a thread (as in the present case), their handle is left behind; it says who the thread was edited by.  Thus, in this instance, at the bottom of the post it states "Last Edit: Today at 11:52:15 AM by Roy Hobbs".  I agree with you that in case where a thread is locked without editing, the staff should identify the reasons for the locking, etc.

Quote
2. Admins should not rebuke posters for a post that is directed at the admin, within the course of normal discussion. If a poster challenges an admin while the admin is moving threads, moderating, etc. then by all means. But when an admin is acting as a poster, there is at least a strong appearance of impropriety when that same admin threatens a challenging poster. We all get attached to our arguments and sometimes its easy to take a substantive challenge personally, and thus over react.

I agree completely with this one, as well, and hope it's not something I'm guilty of.  If people are legitimately debating, somebody shouldn't hold the "I'm a mod" card over the other person's head.  The only times I can remember mentioning my position are when I'm trying to get a thread back on track, or I'm trying to rebuke a poster (and their are some posters who on occasion need rebuking, due to a history of misbehavior).  If this is something that people notice as a problem, they should PM either that staff member, or another member of the staff, and ask what their intentions are, etc. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  While I understand why people disagree with the locking of the thread, it's one of those topics that is simply taboo around here.

Roy, just for future reference what are those subjects not to be discussed. I saw abortion was another that wasn't allowed. I happen to enjoy some of the political debate during these *YAWN* offseason months. What other topics should I not explore?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on September 05, 2007, 01:46:56 PM
I'm constantly in an argument in offtopic about one thing or another, but I think I keep it relatively separate between what I post and what needs modding. If someone feels like I or any other mod are abusing their power, PM them. We're all very reasnable and there is a set of checks and balances (other mods, admins and BOB) to make sure that everything gets throughly reviewed.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on September 05, 2007, 02:04:41 PM
Quote
Roy, just for future reference what are those subjects not to be discussed. I saw abortion was another that wasn't allowed. I happen to enjoy some of the political debate during these *YAWN* offseason months. What other topics should I not explore?

Those are the two biggies, other than things that are already specifically set forth in the site rules (conspiracy towards damage, illegal activity, discussions of a sexual and/or lewd nature, etc.)  There may be additional topics that I'm blanking on right now, but those are the biggest.  Everything else is pretty much treated on a case-by-case basis.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on September 05, 2007, 02:59:57 PM
Just wondering if anyone would give me an answer to my question earlier.  Whoever locked the thread didn't leav initials so i have noone to direct questions to.  I mean, I'm never really pushing anything on this blog and I just wanted anwsers.  Like I said before, we can talk about killing people in an adult manner but nothing else?

I never thought i would get black bagged on this site.

Sigh...  did you check back into the comments / suggestions thread?  Your answer was left there.  You can feel you were "black bagged" all you want, but your concerns have been addressed.  We left a reason for why the post was locked, we cited the proper rules, and we responded to you in the comments / suggestions thread.  What more is it that you want?

Also, as I noted in the comments / suggestions thread, you can see what mod edited your post at the bottom of the post.  I locked it, and it's there, plain as day, showing I was the one who did it.  Again, I'm not seeing your issue here.

Anyway, I'm done wasting time on this issue with you.  Your thread was locked because in our discretion it's not a topic that is conducive to productive conversation.  That's the end of it.

-Roy

That is my fault for not seeing the responses you posted in the buried thread... i tried keeping on top of it but I to have a full time job and did not see it till you pointed it out so... my bad, I expected someone to maybe answer me by PM.. .but it's neither here nor there.  Also, please don't use Guised threats towards me.  i know it doesn't matter if you ban me... or i leave or not since this is free, i just think we can treat each other in a respectable manner.  I understand now what you are saying by full time job/stuff ont he screen and whatnot.

Maybe because this topic has been discussed in the passed and the thread ran out of control or whatnot... i understand.  I never knew it was "out of bounds" and I apologize.  I just felt unanswered. But thanks for the sarcasm soaked response, makes me feel great.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on September 05, 2007, 03:59:48 PM
Quote
But thanks for the sarcasm soaked response, makes me feel great.

Two things here:

1)  It is frustrating when you repeatedly attack the staff for not responding to your arguments, and send them private messages to that effect, when they have clearly done so (in a thread you have previously posted in);

2) I fail to see any sarcasm in my response to your PM; it was fairly straight forward.  However, I would note that you yourself have resorted to sarcasm in at least one subsequent post along the lines of "drugs are bad".  As I noted there, I would suggest you not continue this course of behavior.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on September 05, 2007, 04:07:07 PM
i wasn't being sarcastic.  drugs are bad.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on September 05, 2007, 04:20:43 PM
I'm constantly in an argument in offtopic about one thing or another, but I think I keep it relatively separate between what I post and what needs modding. If someone feels like I or any other mod are abusing their power, PM them. We're all very reasnable and there is a set of checks and balances (other mods, admins and BOB) to make sure that everything gets throughly reviewed.
[/glow]

I have much love for you Indeed and you know that.  But I have yet to see one occasion of a thread being unlocked.  As a matter of fact, the thread in question was locked in no less than 5 minutes.  I guarantee noone was asked about it at all.  When I asked repededly... for an hour why, noone anwser me and when I did it was (rather Snarkily) by Roy Hobbs.  I wish you could have seen the OP because you would have seen i wasn't advocating drugs in any way, it's a legitmate political topic and a legitimate problem/issue in our country.  Maybe politics should just be banned altogether... along with religion.  It's rather hypocritical to say we can "hypothetically" talk about throwing the switch or pulling the trigger in an excution but can't have an intelligent conversation about "drug policy".  I have spoken my peace. and will no longer talk about this.  My jaw really just dropped when my post was locked in 5 minutes with vague and questionable policies being quoted as the reason and being blatantly disregarded in threads just below the one i posted.  But hey... like i said, it's you guy's rules and you gotta do what you gotta do I guess... just thought WE ALL were above it that's all.

Sorry it got so ugly, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on September 05, 2007, 04:25:00 PM
Quote
  My jaw really just dropped when my post was locked in 5 minutes with vague and questionable policies being quoted as the reason and being blatantly disregarded in threads just below the one i posted

Again:  we have jobs.  Celticsblog isn't a full-time occupation.  Your thread was locked with an explanation.  You were then provided a further explanation in this thread about an hour afterward.  You were provided a *third* explanation by PM.  I'm really having a hard time seeing what your gripe is.

Let me reiterate, we lock threads in our discretion.  Certain topics aren't allowed to be discussed.  You're not allowed to incite a riot, you're not allowed to post lewd photos, and you're not allowed to talk about the legalization of illegal drugs.  It's discretionary, and no, nothing you say is going to change that in this particular instance. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Marco Vincent on September 05, 2007, 04:39:17 PM
1. Inciting a riot

2. Posting lewd photos

3.  talking about the legalization of illegal drugs

these are all in the same category?

the difference is the first 2 are physical actions which harm others.  I don't see it in 3. 

and if so... why can't we talk about abortion... which IS legal?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on September 05, 2007, 04:43:30 PM
1. Inciting a riot

2. Posting lewd photos

3.  talking about the legalization of illegal drugs

these are all in the same category?

the difference is the first 2 are physical actions which harm others.  I don't see it in 3. 

and if so... why can't we talk about abortion... which IS legal?


If starting a conversation about legalizing a drug is so important to you, go to a different forum that will allow you to do so. 


The staff of this site has decided that this a conversation that we are not willing to referee when posters start putting up inappropriate responses (which will happen on this site sad to say). 


Meanwhile you have not added anything to change anyones mind.  Instead, you are coming off as an immature whiner.  From all you previous post, I did not believe this to be the case.  But you are really changing some poster impression of you. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on September 05, 2007, 04:48:05 PM
Roy just thought of a few threads I was going to post to see if they fall into that touchy subject, locked thread area:

"Adolph Hitler...gotta love him!"

"Religion Sucks"

"If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to...."

"What country should we blow up and destroy next?"

"The best way to overthrow a government is..."

"Top 10 sexual positions"

"Your favorite Superbad cartoon recreation"

"Osama bin Laden...why he's right!"

"Aren't sheep cute?"

"My favorite mass murderer"

"Top ten words that sound like yuck"

"Why can't we have rulers like Saddam Hussein?"

"Favorite thing to rub on your boyfriend"

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on September 05, 2007, 04:53:04 PM
Lol.  Funny stuff, Nick.  Some of those might actually make for acceptable debate. ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on September 05, 2007, 05:15:52 PM
the internets are a big place, there are plenty of places to discuss all types of topics

we've chosen to limit the topics to discuss here - please understand that and respect it

thanks
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on September 05, 2007, 05:29:09 PM
Roy just thought of a few threads I was going to post to see if they fall into that touchy subject, locked thread area:

"Adolph Hitler...gotta love him!"

"Religion Sucks"

"If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to...."

"What country should we blow up and destroy next?"

"The best way to overthrow a government is..."

"Top 10 sexual positions"

"Your favorite Superbad cartoon recreation"

"Osama bin Laden...why he's right!"

"Aren't sheep cute?"

"My favorite mass murderer"

"Top ten words that sound like yuck"

"Why can't we have rulers like Saddam Hussein?"

"Favorite thing to rub on your boyfriend"



lollololololololololololololololololololol
Man I almost cant resist throwing this loud laugh, that surely will make me look like an Idiot in my office bcause of u
This one specially

"If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to...."  ;D

I will put this one in my nominateds for post of the year
I will
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on September 05, 2007, 05:51:18 PM

lollololololololololololololololololololol
Man I almost cant resist throwing this loud laugh, that surely will make me look like an Idiot in my office bcause of u
This one specially

"If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to...."  ;D

I will put this one in my nominateds for post of the year
I will

Lol.  I'd like to hear some of those suggestions, myself.  I'm sure they'd all be thoughtful and kind. ;)

Like, "If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to marry my supermodel sister".

That's what you were anticipating, right, Nick?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on September 05, 2007, 05:54:18 PM

lollololololololololololololololololololol
Man I almost cant resist throwing this loud laugh, that surely will make me look like an Idiot in my office bcause of u
This one specially

"If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to...."  ;D

I will put this one in my nominateds for post of the year
I will

Lol.  I'd like to hear some of those suggestions, myself.  I'm sure they'd all be thoughtful and kind. ;)

Like, "If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to marry my supermodel sister".

That's what you were anticipating, right, Nick?

Sure , Roy, Sure  :D
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on September 05, 2007, 06:07:19 PM

lollololololololololololololololololololol
Man I almost cant resist throwing this loud laugh, that surely will make me look like an Idiot in my office bcause of u
This one specially

"If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to...."  ;D

I will put this one in my nominateds for post of the year
I will

Lol.  I'd like to hear some of those suggestions, myself.  I'm sure they'd all be thoughtful and kind. ;)

Like, "If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to marry my supermodel sister".

That's what you were anticipating, right, Nick?
My sister's a lesbian so good luck!!

Course then you'ld probably have the same sex life as most married guys, none.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of:

... buy me a beer.

... come through on that promise and pay for my season tickets.

... come down to the station. I need legal representation.

... buy me another beer.

... go date my lesbian sister. (Ooops already discussed that.)

well you get the idea.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: kozlodoev on January 30, 2008, 06:50:38 PM
Quote
The hateing will never stop.

Quote
this is just blatent hating, and an opinion that won't be shaken.

Comments like the above need to stop, now.  I would suggest that everybody read our posting rules, which state:

Quote
Do not label fellow posters in a way that is likely to provoke a negative response.  Dependent upon context, examples include, but are not limited to, "fake fan", "bandwagon fan", "not a real fan", "hater", "koolaid drinker", etc.

It's unfortunate that so many here are unable to engage in legitimate debate -- whether through lazyness or inability -- so they instead attack, caricature, and tear down others, without even considering the validity of the opposing viewpoint.

Do not do it again.  The next person to use any derivative of the word "hater", "hating", etc. in this thread is getting suspended.


Last time I checked, saying "this post is hate" and "you are a hater" were two distinctly different things. Whereas the first one points out the characteristics of a specific opinion, the second one labels an individual. Just to clarify, you don't have to be a hater to deliver an opinion that's pure hate, just the same way you don't have to be stupid in general to make a stupid post.

Now the question is, why is this not the first occasion on which I have a problem with how Roy enforces forum regulations.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on January 30, 2008, 06:54:26 PM
kozlodoev,

Use semantics all you want.  I was involved in drafting the rules, so I've got a pretty good idea what they do and what they don't mean.  I see no distinction whatsoever between "You're a hater" and "you're hating".  I mean, wouldn't the very definition of "hater" be something along the lines of "one who hates" or "one engaged in the act of hating"?  The use of either word simply caricatures one's opinion, without adding any merit to a conversation.  It's shorthand for actually having to respond to an argument, and it doesn't engender the respect towards others that we require at all times here.

Regardless, if you find yourself repeatedly disagreeing with how I enforce the rules, perhaps another Celtics forum would be more to your liking.  You can find a list of other Celtics blogs and sites by looking to your left, or by clicking on the "links" menu in the overhead menu bar.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on January 30, 2008, 06:56:39 PM
Quote
The hateing will never stop.

Quote
this is just blatent hating, and an opinion that won't be shaken.

Comments like the above need to stop, now.  I would suggest that everybody read our posting rules, which state:

Quote
Do not label fellow posters in a way that is likely to provoke a negative response.  Dependent upon context, examples include, but are not limited to, "fake fan", "bandwagon fan", "not a real fan", "hater", "koolaid drinker", etc.

It's unfortunate that so many here are unable to engage in legitimate debate -- whether through lazyness or inability -- so they instead attack, caricature, and tear down others, without even considering the validity of the opposing viewpoint.

Do not do it again.  The next person to use any derivative of the word "hater", "hating", etc. in this thread is getting suspended.


Last time I checked, saying "this post is hate" and "you are a hater" were two distinctly different things. Whereas the first one points out the characteristics of a specific opinion, the second one labels an individual. Just to clarify, you don't have to be a hater to deliver an opinion that's pure hate, just the same way you don't have to be stupid in general to make a stupid post.

Now the question is, why is this not the first occasion on which I have a problem with how Roy enforces forum regulations.

Not sure why you would have questions.

Roy interpretation of the rule seems right on. 


Instead of debating the point, the response labels the original point as the ramblings of a person who is biased based on some sort of 'hate' towards certain person. 

Saying someone is 'a hater' or stating this is 'just hating' is the same thing. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: kozlodoev on January 30, 2008, 07:08:35 PM
kozlodoev,

Use semantics all you want.  I was involved in drafting the rules, so I've got a pretty good idea what they do and what they don't mean.  I see no distinction whatsoever between "You're a hater" and "you're hating". 

Regardless, if you find yourself repeatedly disagreeing with how I enforce the rules, perhaps another Celtics forum would be more to your liking.  You can find a list of other Celtics blogs and sites by looking to your left, or by clicking on the "links" menu in the overhead menu bar.

I am not using semantics. I see a very substantial difference between addressing an opinion and addressing an individual. For example, the fact that I don't agree with some of your rulings in the forum doesn't mean that I find that you are an unjust person.

I understand that CB is, in effect, your forum, and taking part in it is not an unalienable human right. You're free to take this post as a friendly advise, food for thought or not to take it at all.

There, I'm off my soap box.

@wdleehi: Well, apparently it is just me who thinks that you the person are such and such and this particular opinion is such and such are two different things. Then again, not much I can do about the whole situation other than bring up the point. Cheers.

P.S. I haven't ever seen anyone being warned for referencing the 'kool aid' though I'm sure it's been all around the place since Day 1 of the forum...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on January 30, 2008, 07:18:09 PM
kozlodoev,

Use semantics all you want.  I was involved in drafting the rules, so I've got a pretty good idea what they do and what they don't mean.  I see no distinction whatsoever between "You're a hater" and "you're hating". 

Regardless, if you find yourself repeatedly disagreeing with how I enforce the rules, perhaps another Celtics forum would be more to your liking.  You can find a list of other Celtics blogs and sites by looking to your left, or by clicking on the "links" menu in the overhead menu bar.

I am not using semantics. I see a very substantial difference between addressing an opinion and addressing an individual. For example, the fact that I don't agree with some of your rulings in the forum doesn't mean that I find that you are an unjust person.

I understand that CB is, in effect, your forum, and taking part in it is not an unalienable human right. You're free to take this post as a friendly advise, food for thought or not to take it at all.

There, I'm off my soap box.

@wdleehi: Well, apparently it is just me who thinks that you the person are such and such and this particular opinion is such and such are two different things. Then again, not much I can do about the whole situation other than bring up the point. Cheers.

P.S. I haven't ever seen anyone being warned for referencing the 'kool aid' though I'm sure it's been all around the place since Day 1 of the forum...


Put it this way, two of the 'official' of this site are making this call the exact same way.  And I am pretty sure the rest of the 'officials' are calling it the same way. 

Should make it easy for the rest of the 'players' to adjust to. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: kozlodoev on January 30, 2008, 07:25:21 PM
Put it this way, two of the 'official' of this site are making this call the exact same way.  And I am pretty sure the rest of the 'officials' are calling it the same way. 

Should make it easy for the rest of the 'players' to adjust to. 
The last time I brought an issue was when the famous 'obtuse' incident happened with about the same success. 'Semantics' is an interesting, shifty concept. Always works against the players, it seems. And it doesn't seem to create a precenent either (see 'obtuse' incident, part 2).

Well, I guess all the players can do is swallow hard and keep posting.  ;D
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: WillyBeamin on January 30, 2008, 07:41:11 PM
Don't bother kozo, the rules that apply to posters don't apply to the moderators. Using the word "hater" to describe how Chris' opinion on TA will not change no matter what, is apparently more offensive then having Wdheeli or RH call my posts unintelligent (when in fact most people agreed with my argument) and classify me as someone who is "unable" to or to "lazy" to make a legitimate argument. When in reality I made plenty of valid arguments, and RH chose to pull one line from one of several posts.

"whether through lazyness or inability -- so they instead attack, caricature, and tear down others, without even considering the validity of the opposing viewpoint."

did any one get the sense I was "tearing down" chris, or attacking him personally? we were having a debate, and I described his opinion of TA as that of a hater, or in my interpretation stubborn.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on January 30, 2008, 07:42:14 PM
Quote
P.S. I haven't ever seen anyone being warned for referencing the 'kool aid' though I'm sure it's been all around the place since Day 1 of the forum...

We revise the rules from time to time; this one has been in effect for several months, but not since the blog's inception.  Recently, the word hasn't been used as an attack -- and really, hasn't been used at all -- so there's been no reason to issue warnings.

Quote
I am not using semantics. I see a very substantial difference between addressing an opinion and addressing an individual. For example, the fact that I don't agree with some of your rulings in the forum doesn't mean that I find that you are an unjust person.

Let's use the example you gave above, regarding the use of the word "stupid".  Calling somebody "stupid", or calling their opinion "stupid" might be distinct, in terms of actual intent.  However, oftentimes the only message that comes across is that one poster is insulting another.  That's not respectful behavior, nor is the use of the words "hating", "hater", etc.  They caricature and insult one's arguments.

Also, I do want to note that the list of terms included in the rule is not exhaustive; note the text of the actual rule, which includes the following language: "examples include, but are not limited to," and "etc."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion; that's why we have this thread in the first place.  I'm sure it seems like very few of the complaints get anywhere, but I'd like to think that's because we try to act reasonably the first time around.  While I'm sure every member of this staff is fallible, we're trying to keep this place as clean as possible.  In this instance, nobody was suspended, banned, or even personally warned; quotations were given, but names were not referenced.  We were simply enforcing a rule, in as logical a manner as we could.  While I am sure many people disagree with a number of our rules, I do think that by and large those rules are enforced consistently and fairly.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on January 30, 2008, 07:47:06 PM
Quote
we were having a debate, and I described his opinion of TA as that of a hater, or in my interpretation stubborn.

Why, then, use the word that is against the rules?  The word "hater" is a loaded term.

I would re-emphasize that you were not called out by name, nor were you suspended or banned.  No fewer than two posters used the language, and after there was some discussion amongst the staff, a general warning was issued.  You are obviously taking this more personally than it was intended; if it had been the intent of the staff to single you out, you would have been sent a private message and/or been singled out by name.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: kozlodoev on January 30, 2008, 07:49:33 PM
Quote
I am not using semantics. I see a very substantial difference between addressing an opinion and addressing an individual. For example, the fact that I don't agree with some of your rulings in the forum doesn't mean that I find that you are an unjust person.

Let's use the example you gave above, regarding the use of the word "stupid".  Calling somebody "stupid", or calling their opinion "stupid" might be distinct, in terms of actual intent.  However, oftentimes the only message that comes across is that one poster is insulting another.  That's not respectful behavior, nor is the use of the words "hating", "hater", etc.  They caricature and insult one's arguments.

Also, I do want to note that the list of terms included in the rule is not exhaustive; note  your the text of the actual rule, which includes the following language: "examples include, but are not limited to," and "etc."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion; that's why we have this thread in the first place.  I'm sure it seems like very few of the complaints get anywhere, but I'd like to think that's because we try to act reasonably the first time around.  While I'm sure every member of this staff is fallible, we're trying to keep this place as clean as possible.  In this instance, nobody was suspended, banned, or even personally warned; quotations were given, but names were not referenced.  We were simply enforcing a rule, in as logical a manner as we could.  While I am sure many people disagree with a number of our rules, I do think that by and large those rules are enforced consistently and fairly.
You make a good point and I'll take it. Cheers.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: kenmaine on January 30, 2008, 09:01:37 PM
Hi,
Infrequent poster here, but I really enjoy the site.
It's a good thing that the moderators are trying to keep things civil. I suppose I'd be upset too if I thought I'd been singled out unfairly, but without some oversight the level of discourse could deteriorate pretty rapidly. There's enough name-calling and foul language around. IMO this site is about enjoying the Celtics and basketball in general, should be fun.
Anyway, not being a saint myself, that's enough preaching- just felt like putting in my two cents.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BASSTHUMPER on January 30, 2008, 09:07:15 PM
Roy Hobbs holdin it down again...much respect
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: TripleOT on May 01, 2008, 12:14:20 AM
The Mod's Creed;

"Don't Hate, Regulate"
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 01, 2008, 12:25:04 AM
The Mod's Creed;

"Don't Hate, Regulate"

I have that tattooed on my forearm ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on May 01, 2008, 12:49:13 AM
The Mod's Creed;

"Don't Hate, Regulate"

I have that tattooed on my forearm ;)

I have another

Talk strange...they wont get it.  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on May 01, 2008, 08:58:16 AM
(http://www.aboutbillythekid.com/YG1_Regulators2.JPG)

THE REGULATORS!!

I wonder which is Edgar, which is Roy, which is wd, which is Redz, which is Donny, and which is IP.

Here's my order left to right:

Donny, Roy, Redz, wd, Edgar, IP.

What say you? 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Donoghus on May 01, 2008, 09:38:47 AM
Nice, I'm Kiefer.  That means I made it to the sequel.  I can deal with that.  ;)

Poor Roy, gets gunned down by a lunatic in an outhouse.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on May 01, 2008, 09:47:05 AM
(http://www.aboutbillythekid.com/YG1_Regulators2.JPG)

THE REGULATORS!!

I wonder which is Edgar, which is Roy, which is wd, which is Redz, which is Donny, and which is IP.

Here's my order left to right:

Donny, Roy, Redz, wd, Edgar, IP.

What say you? 

I'm saying wdleehi, Dons, Edgar, me, IP, Redz

(Come on.  I *have* to be Billy.)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on May 01, 2008, 09:49:49 AM
You know, I dunno if I like being any of the young guns. You can do worse than Dirty Steve Stephens though.



And no way Roy I do not want to be that guy.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on May 01, 2008, 09:53:42 AM
Does that mean Jeff, the father of this site is

(http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/06/20/64/image_3664206.jpg)

 ???
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 01, 2008, 09:54:17 AM
If ye only new me better you would no I'm sooooooo not Lou Diamond Phillips.  Only gun I ever held was a squirt gun (and a pricing gun)! I guess if I had to pick who I'm most like I'd go with the guy the 2nd from the right.  IF I read IMDB right, that would be Casey Siemaszko    as   Charles 'Charley' Bowdre.

Was it just me or did you always feel like in real life you'd kick butt all over any one of those guys?  Which makes them so much different from the Mods who are, in real life, a ruthless gang of buttkickers!

Howz about The Mods Squad

(real hard time picking who's who here)
(http://i2.iofferphoto.com/img/item/170/373/77/o_ModSquadDVDsm.jpg)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on May 01, 2008, 10:01:26 AM
Okay, IP can be Dirty Steve, and Redz can be Charlie.

wdleehi = Doc
Edgar = Chavez
Redz = Charlie
IP = Dirty Steve
Roy = Billy
Dons = Dick Brewer
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on May 01, 2008, 10:04:37 AM
Okay, IP can be Dirty Steve, and Redz can be Charlie.

wdleehi = Doc
Edgar = Chavez
Redz = Charlie
IP = Dirty Steve
Roy = Billy
Dons = Dick Brewer


There is something you don't expect to see around here.

wdleehi = Doc
 ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 01, 2008, 10:06:58 AM
Okay, IP can be Dirty Steve, and Redz can be Charlie.

wdleehi = Doc
Edgar = Chavez
Redz = Charlie
IP = Dirty Steve
Roy = Billy
Dons = Dick Brewer

Yet another reason why Roy gets the big bucks around here.  Someone's gotta make the tough decisions!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 01, 2008, 10:13:41 AM
I sorta prefer this group of enforcers:

(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/tiffanyortega/4054-warriors-movie-still.gif)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on May 01, 2008, 10:15:13 AM
I sorta prefer this group of enforcers:

(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/tiffanyortega/4054-warriors-movie-still.gif)


That open vest look, just doesn't work well for me. 


Or I should say, just doesn't work for those around me. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on May 01, 2008, 10:35:45 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xITVFgxcDIg

Warrrrrriorrrrrrs. Come out to playyyyyayyyy.
Warrrrrriorrrrrrs. Come out to playyyyyayyyy.
Warrrrrriorrrrrrs. Come out to playyyyyayyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
Warrrrrriorrrrrrs. Come out to playyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 01, 2008, 10:40:18 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xITVFgxcDIg

Warrrrrriorrrrrrs. Come out to playyyyyayyyy.
Warrrrrriorrrrrrs. Come out to playyyyyayyyy.
Warrrrrriorrrrrrs. Come out to playyyyyayyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
Warrrrrriorrrrrrs. Come out to playyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Ohhh, he gets his though, doesn't he!

I must have watched that movie a hundred times in my teens.  The Brooklyn Furies were the best!

(ummm, warning a wee bit of violence)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXPiIuKBiVA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXPiIuKBiVA)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on May 01, 2008, 10:50:32 AM
Me and a couple of buddies walked through picket lines to go see this movie because of all the horrible violence in it and the way it instilled a need to riot in youthes(did you just say yutes?, sorry, different movie) of America.

That was the biggest crock of you know what I ever heard of.

Yeah the Furies ruled but I always liked the sneaky way the Lizzies handled their business.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on May 02, 2008, 11:29:56 PM
so this is what the mods do on the site, lol ;)  jk, u guys are great
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on May 03, 2008, 01:13:57 AM
so this is what the mods do on the site, lol ;)  jk, u guys are great


You have no idea.    ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: JSD on August 14, 2008, 09:53:04 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 14, 2008, 09:55:28 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?

There's no set schedule.  We have very good coverage during the day, and late night at least one of us tends to be around.  Rarely, something will come up when one of us isn't around, but usually, we catch stuff before it escalates.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 14, 2008, 09:56:32 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?


It is all random. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on August 14, 2008, 10:01:10 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?


It is all random. 

WHAT!  You guys told me I needed to be on 24-7 ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Steve Weinman on August 14, 2008, 10:01:56 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?

There's no set schedule.  We have very good coverage during the day, and late night at least one of us tends to be around.  Rarely, something will come up when one of us isn't around, but usually, we catch stuff before it escalates.

Doesn't hurt that there are at least a few who don't seem to sleep  ;)

-sw

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: JSD on August 14, 2008, 10:02:14 PM
Ok one more:

Now do you guys know Jeff personally and when he started up the site he asked you guys to join? Or did you all start off as posters?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 14, 2008, 10:02:41 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?


It is all random. 

WHAT!  You guys told me I needed to be on 24-7 ;)




Hey, you are the one that got the 30% raise.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 14, 2008, 10:02:45 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?


It is all random. 

WHAT!  You guys told me I needed to be on 24-7 ;)

Well, it's only fair that you work the same hours that I do.  ;D
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on August 14, 2008, 10:03:35 PM
Ok one more:

Now do you guys know Jeff personally and when he started up the site he asked you guys to join? Or did you all start off as posters?

I just met Jeff for the first time last week (he was visiting the area on vacation).  I started as a poster, yes - pretty sure we all did.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 14, 2008, 10:04:13 PM
Ok one more:

Now do you guys know Jeff personally and when he started up the site he asked you guys to join? Or did you all start off as posters?



I was a poster.  IP, Don, and Redz were all posters when they were asked.  


I believe Roy, Edgar and Chris were all just poster to begin with.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on August 14, 2008, 10:05:20 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?


It is all random. 

WHAT!  You guys told me I needed to be on 24-7 ;)




Hey, you are the one that got the 30% raise.

Plus time and a half for hours spent while I should be paying attention to my job (double pay for neglecting my children while they're playing with sharp objects)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: JSD on August 14, 2008, 10:08:57 PM
Ok one more:

Now do you guys know Jeff personally and when he started up the site he asked you guys to join? Or did you all start off as posters?



I was a poster.  IP, Don, and Redz were all posters when they were asked.  


I believe Roy, Edgar and Chris were all just poster to begin with.

 I thought you guys were all buddies from high school/college or something. Interesting.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 14, 2008, 10:10:05 PM
Ok one more:

Now do you guys know Jeff personally and when he started up the site he asked you guys to join? Or did you all start off as posters?



I was a poster.  IP, Don, and Redz were all posters when they were asked.  


I believe Roy, Edgar and Chris were all just poster to begin with.

 I thought you guys were all buddies from high school/college or something. Interesting.


I have never meet any of them in real life.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: JSD on August 14, 2008, 10:10:55 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?


It is all random. 

WHAT!  You guys told me I needed to be on 24-7 ;)




Hey, you are the one that got the 30% raise.

Plus time and a half for hours spent while I should be paying attention to my job (double pay for neglecting my children while they're playing with sharp objects)

Wow, I didn't imagine this site being that profitable. Not that it's not a great site, because it is. I just thought figured it cost a lot to maintain
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: JSD on August 14, 2008, 10:12:21 PM
Ok one more:

Now do you guys know Jeff personally and when he started up the site he asked you guys to join? Or did you all start off as posters?



I was a poster.  IP, Don, and Redz were all posters when they were asked.  


I believe Roy, Edgar and Chris were all just poster to begin with.

 I thought you guys were all buddies from high school/college or something. Interesting.


I have never meet any of them in real life.

You guys should rent out a hall and do a "Celticsblog Mod night" or something.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 14, 2008, 10:13:45 PM
Ok one more:

Now do you guys know Jeff personally and when he started up the site he asked you guys to join? Or did you all start off as posters?



I was a poster.  IP, Don, and Redz were all posters when they were asked.  


I believe Roy, Edgar and Chris were all just poster to begin with.

 I thought you guys were all buddies from high school/college or something. Interesting.

Green17 and I went to college together (same graduation year and everything) but didn't know each other.  That's hard to do in a student body of less than 1900.

But yeah, most of the associations among the staff here are internet based.  We're all on good terms, but we tend to live several hundred miles apart.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 14, 2008, 10:15:28 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?


It is all random. 

WHAT!  You guys told me I needed to be on 24-7 ;)




Hey, you are the one that got the 30% raise.

Plus time and a half for hours spent while I should be paying attention to my job (double pay for neglecting my children while they're playing with sharp objects)

Wow, I didn't imagine this site being that profitable. Not that it's not a great site, because it is. I just thought figured it cost a lot to maintain

Redz is pulling your leg.  Our immense salaries are a topic of frequent humor. ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: JSD on August 14, 2008, 10:16:37 PM
Ok one more:

Now do you guys know Jeff personally and when he started up the site he asked you guys to join? Or did you all start off as posters?



I was a poster.  IP, Don, and Redz were all posters when they were asked.  


I believe Roy, Edgar and Chris were all just poster to begin with.

 I thought you guys were all buddies from high school/college or something. Interesting.

Green17 and I went to college together (same graduation year and everything) but didn't know each other.  That's hard to do in a student body of less than 1900.

But yeah, most of the associations among the staff here are internet based.  We're all on good terms, but we tend to live several hundred miles apart.

Wow what a small world.

Did you at least look him up in your yearbook to make sure you didn't see him around and not realize it? (I'm assuming this was for your undergrad)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 14, 2008, 10:16:56 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?


It is all random. 

WHAT!  You guys told me I needed to be on 24-7 ;)




Hey, you are the one that got the 30% raise.

Plus time and a half for hours spent while I should be paying attention to my job (double pay for neglecting my children while they're playing with sharp objects)

Wow, I didn't imagine this site being that profitable. Not that it's not a great site, because it is. I just thought figured it cost a lot to maintain

Redz is pulling your leg.  Our immense salaries are a topic of frequent humor. ;)


Wait, wait.



You thought it was a joke Roy?



Wow.  Jeff worked you over good.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: JSD on August 14, 2008, 10:19:22 PM
Ok one more:

Now do you guys know Jeff personally and when he started up the site he asked you guys to join? Or did you all start off as posters?



I was a poster.  IP, Don, and Redz were all posters when they were asked.  


I believe Roy, Edgar and Chris were all just poster to begin with.

 I thought you guys were all buddies from high school/college or something. Interesting.

Green17 and I went to college together (same graduation year and everything) but didn't know each other.  That's hard to do in a student body of less than 1900.

But yeah, most of the associations among the staff here are internet based.  We're all on good terms, but we tend to live several hundred miles apart.

Wow what a small world.

Did you at least look him up in your yearbook to make sure you didn't see him around and not realize it? (I'm assuming this was for your undergrad)

Actually not every college has a yearbook. nevermind
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: JSD on August 14, 2008, 10:23:26 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?

There's no set schedule.  We have very good coverage during the day, and late night at least one of us tends to be around.  Rarely, something will come up when one of us isn't around, but usually, we catch stuff before it escalates.

Doesn't hurt that there are at least a few who don't seem to sleep  ;)

-sw



Hey look at that, Steve got his first star. Don't you guys have a Mod ritual or something when this happens? ;D


Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on August 14, 2008, 10:29:09 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?


It is all random. 

WHAT!  You guys told me I needed to be on 24-7 ;)




Hey, you are the one that got the 30% raise.

Plus time and a half for hours spent while I should be paying attention to my job (double pay for neglecting my children while they're playing with sharp objects)

Wow, I didn't imagine this site being that profitable. Not that it's not a great site, because it is. I just thought figured it cost a lot to maintain

We could call it quintuple time!  Anything times zero is still zero.  I think the one thing we all have in common is a passion for the site, and that is something money can't buy (well, maybe it could, but for the sake of my point let's just say it couldn't)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on August 14, 2008, 10:32:12 PM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?

There's no set schedule.  We have very good coverage during the day, and late night at least one of us tends to be around.  Rarely, something will come up when one of us isn't around, but usually, we catch stuff before it escalates.


Doesn't hurt that there are at least a few who don't seem to sleep  ;)

-sw



Hey look at that, Steve got his first star. Don't you guys have a Mod ritual or something when this happens? ;D





It goes something like this (this is top secret stuff I'm letting you in on).

(http://www.mnstate.edu/publications/alumnews%20summer%202000/SPEEDOS.jpg)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Donoghus on August 15, 2008, 12:09:56 AM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?

There's no set schedule.  We have very good coverage during the day, and late night at least one of us tends to be around.  Rarely, something will come up when one of us isn't around, but usually, we catch stuff before it escalates.

Doesn't hurt that there are at least a few who don't seem to sleep  ;)

-sw



Hey look at that, Steve got his first star. Don't you guys have a Mod ritual or something when this happens? ;D




Yeah, Steve owes all of us a coffee and a carwash.  In Wdleehi's case, a beer (or seven).
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticsmaniac on August 15, 2008, 04:50:15 AM
can we have more obscenities and dirty words allowed here from now on? And, if not, could you, perhaps, direct me to more disreputable and smut-filled celtics blog?







in the meantime, here are some dirty words that you CAN say on Celtics blog (i think):

buttox

dingleberry

ta-ta's

crap

orgasmic

fart

vasectomy

diarrhea

hoochie-coo

lube

bumbum

knockers

shmuck

panties

cropusculant (well...least it sounds dirty, that is)

arse

rectum

cornhole

poon

kobe bryant (well, same thing)



Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Steve Weinman on August 15, 2008, 10:59:38 AM
I actually have a question for the Mods. Do you guys go by a schedule? or is it just assumed at least one of you guys will be online?

There's no set schedule.  We have very good coverage during the day, and late night at least one of us tends to be around.  Rarely, something will come up when one of us isn't around, but usually, we catch stuff before it escalates.

Doesn't hurt that there are at least a few who don't seem to sleep  ;)

-sw



Hey look at that, Steve got his first star. Don't you guys have a Mod ritual or something when this happens? ;D




Yeah, Steve owes all of us a coffee and a carwash.  In Wdleehi's case, a beer (or seven).

Oh great, thanks for reminding 'em, Jsaad  ;)

-sw
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on August 17, 2008, 02:37:41 PM
can we have more obscenities and dirty words allowed here from now on? And, if not, could you, perhaps, direct me to more disreputable and smut-filled celtics blog?







in the meantime, here are some dirty words that you CAN say on Celtics blog (i think):

buttox

dingleberry

ta-ta's

crap

orgasmic

fart

vasectomy

diarrhea

hoochie-coo

lube

bumbum

knockers

shmuck

panties

cropusculant (well...least it sounds dirty, that is)

arse

rectum

cornhole

poon

kobe bryant (well, same thing)

 ::)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Section 87 on May 14, 2009, 09:05:36 AM
Awww I just tried to respond on my trolled thread but it got locked  :(

Yep, apparently you're not allowed to make jokes about Celtics players, rather you can only poke fun at players who are non-Celtics. ::)

Absolutely correct.  That's why this place is called Celticsblog; fans of other teams are not permitted to insult our players.

Please confine future criticism of our rules to personal messages, or to the dedicated thread in the Comments and Remarks forum.  Regarding this thread, I'd ask you to stay on topic.

Yup. Blind homerism and intolerance are acceptable here; more imporant than impartiality or a sense of humor. Racism, homophobia, mysogyny, and the like, directed against other teams' players and fans, are just fine. Poking fun at a Celtic player is often unacceptable, even when it's harmless, and whether it's actually warranted by an impartial view of the facts is totally irrelevent.

You can usually go off-topic or stretch the rules if it's pro-Celtics off-topic or pro-Celtics rule stretching; otherwise the mods may spank you.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on May 14, 2009, 10:07:19 AM
Yup. Blind homerism and intolerance are acceptable here; more imporant than impartiality or a sense of humor. Racism, homophobia, mysogyny, and the like, directed against other teams' players and fans, are just fine. Poking fun at a Celtic player is often unacceptable, even when it's harmless, and whether it's actually warranted by an impartial view of the facts is totally irrelevent.

You can usually go off-topic or stretch the rules if it's pro-Celtics off-topic or pro-Celtics rule stretching; otherwise the mods may spank you.

Unfortunately, you're misreading our rules.  Nowhere, in this thread or otherwise, has "racism, homophobia, mysogyny, and the like" ever been allowed on Celticsblog.  However, fans of different teams are held to a different standard in terms of criticism of our players.  It's one thing to be mean-spirited toward Lebron James; it's quite another for a Cavs (or Lakers or Bulls) fan to attack or insult Celtics players.  That's why there's a different rule for them:

Quote
Celticsblog welcomes fans of all teams to engage is respectful commentary and debate.  However, attacking or insulting the Celtics, Celtics fans, or Celticsblog moderators will result in an immediate and permanent ban.  There will be no tolerance for baiting, trolling, or other disrespectful conduct.

In other words, it may be okay for a Celtics fan to say "Lebron stinks" on Celticsblog, while it's *not* okay for a Cavs fan to say "KG stinks" on Celticsblog.  Hopefully, that's clear to everyone.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 14, 2009, 10:25:52 AM
Yup. Blind homerism and intolerance are acceptable here; more imporant than impartiality or a sense of humor. Racism, homophobia, mysogyny, and the like, directed against other teams' players and fans, are just fine. Poking fun at a Celtic player is often unacceptable, even when it's harmless, and whether it's actually warranted by an impartial view of the facts is totally irrelevent.

You can usually go off-topic or stretch the rules if it's pro-Celtics off-topic or pro-Celtics rule stretching; otherwise the mods may spank you.

Unfortunately, you're misreading our rules.  Nowhere, in this thread or otherwise, has "racism, homophobia, mysogyny, and the like" ever been allowed on Celticsblog.  However, fans of different teams are held to a different standard in terms of criticism of our players.  It's one thing to be mean-spirited toward Lebron James; it's quite another for a Cavs (or Lakers or Bulls) fan to attack or insult Celtics players.  That's why there's a different rule for them:

Quote
Celticsblog welcomes fans of all teams to engage is respectful commentary and debate.  However, attacking or insulting the Celtics, Celtics fans, or Celticsblog moderators will result in an immediate and permanent ban.  There will be no tolerance for baiting, trolling, or other disrespectful conduct.

In other words, it may be okay for a Celtics fan to say "Lebron stinks" on Celticsblog, while it's *not* okay for a Cavs fan to say "KG stinks" on Celticsblog.  Hopefully, that's clear to everyone.

AKA, homecourt advantage...we worked hard for it  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on May 14, 2009, 10:31:44 AM
Yup. Blind homerism and intolerance are acceptable here; more imporant than impartiality or a sense of humor. Racism, homophobia, mysogyny, and the like, directed against other teams' players and fans, are just fine. Poking fun at a Celtic player is often unacceptable, even when it's harmless, and whether it's actually warranted by an impartial view of the facts is totally irrelevent.

You can usually go off-topic or stretch the rules if it's pro-Celtics off-topic or pro-Celtics rule stretching; otherwise the mods may spank you.

Unfortunately, you're misreading our rules.  Nowhere, in this thread or otherwise, has "racism, homophobia, mysogyny, and the like" ever been allowed on Celticsblog.  However, fans of different teams are held to a different standard in terms of criticism of our players.  It's one thing to be mean-spirited toward Lebron James; it's quite another for a Cavs (or Lakers or Bulls) fan to attack or insult Celtics players.  That's why there's a different rule for them:

Quote
Celticsblog welcomes fans of all teams to engage is respectful commentary and debate.  However, attacking or insulting the Celtics, Celtics fans, or Celticsblog moderators will result in an immediate and permanent ban.  There will be no tolerance for baiting, trolling, or other disrespectful conduct.

In other words, it may be okay for a Celtics fan to say "Lebron stinks" on Celticsblog, while it's *not* okay for a Cavs fan to say "KG stinks" on Celticsblog.  Hopefully, that's clear to everyone.

I think it should be clear of course that while saying "KG stinks" would not be allowed by a Cavs fan, a well constructed argument on why they feel Lebron is a better player than KG is absolutely appropriate. 

There is always a fine line between good debate, and just trying to get a rise out of people.  And when you are a known fan of an opposing team, posting on a forum like that, that line is even finer (and probably moved over a few inches).
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on May 14, 2009, 01:22:26 PM
And of course if a Celtics fan wants to say that "KG stinks", that's okay too because usually the comment will come out with a detailed explanation and out of frustration of poor play or attitude or negotiating stance that cost the Celtics.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on May 14, 2009, 01:25:28 PM
And of course if a Celtics fan wants to say that "KG stinks", that's okay too because usually the comment will come out with a detailed explanation and out of frustration of poor play or attitude or negotiating stance that cost the Celtics.

Exactly.  When a Celtics fan calls out KG, s/he's probably frustrated, or trying to engage in fruitful discussion.  When a Lakers fan calls out KG, he's probably trying to start some trouble.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 14, 2009, 01:26:24 PM
And of course if a Celtics fan wants to say that "KG stinks", that's okay too because usually the comment will come out with a detailed explanation and out of frustration of poor play or attitude or negotiating stance that cost the Celtics.

I'd take a stinky KG right now  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on May 14, 2009, 01:34:29 PM
And of course if a Celtics fan wants to say that "KG stinks", that's okay too because usually the comment will come out with a detailed explanation and out of frustration of poor play or attitude or negotiating stance that cost the Celtics.

I'd take a stinky KG right now  ;)
Yeah, I wouldn't care how bad he smelled as long as he could ball!! ;D
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: CelticsWhat35 on May 14, 2009, 01:53:20 PM
I always liken Celtics criticism to that of your younger brother.  You can put him down all you want when he's making you angry, but as soon as an outsider does it, you will fight tooth and nail to defend him.  8)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ACF on May 14, 2009, 01:55:04 PM
I always liken Celtics criticism to that of your younger brother.  You can put him down all you want when he's making you angry, but as soon as an outsider does it, you will fight tooth and nail to defend him.  8)

Good analogy, TP.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticmaestro on May 14, 2009, 02:33:04 PM
How did the thread title change and why?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 14, 2009, 02:36:43 PM
How did the thread title change and why?

There was a sidebar discussion from another thread that was moved to its appropriate home (here)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticmaestro on May 14, 2009, 02:41:41 PM
So that's why he wanted to cancel his account. Good, and good riddance.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on May 14, 2009, 03:19:09 PM
I wonder if we can promote a new rule that forbide acces to clowns and pickles?

 :P
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 14, 2009, 03:26:26 PM
I wonder if we can promote a new rule that forbide acces to clowns and pickles?

 :P

You've got to leave me something
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on May 14, 2009, 03:27:34 PM
I wonder if we can promote a new rule that forbide acces to clowns and pickles?

 :P

You've got to leave me something

I say we ban angry pickles and allow sweet pickles.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 14, 2009, 03:29:14 PM
I wonder if we can promote a new rule that forbide acces to clowns and pickles?

 :P

You've got to leave me something

I say we ban angry pickles and allow sweet pickles.

they all start out sweet IP, why not just cut to the chase and keep the angry pickle?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on May 14, 2009, 03:30:14 PM
I wonder if we can promote a new rule that forbide acces to clowns and pickles?

 :P

You've got to leave me something

I guess I didnt make my point clear

I wonder if we can promote a new rule that forbide acces to clowns and pickles?

 ;D

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on May 14, 2009, 03:43:25 PM
I wonder if we can promote a new rule that forbide acces to clowns and pickles?

 :P

You've got to leave me something

I guess I didnt make my point clear

I wonder if we can promote a new rule that forbide acces to clowns and pickles?

 ;D



You'd miss me too much Edgar   ;D

(http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd259/jlsnette/BirthdayPickle.jpg)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 01:59:11 PM
Hey, why was a thread about the NBA age limit move to the current events?! That's nonsensical. I was writing a (very) long post about the issue with some thoughts I have about the NBA and the developmental basketball system worldwide that I lost because of that. Awful decision that cost me about 45 minutes of my time.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 02:04:45 PM
Hey, why was a thread about the NBA age limit move to the current events?! That's nonsensical. I was writing a (very) long post about the issue with some thoughts I have about the NBA and the developmental basketball system worldwide that I lost because of that. Awful decision that cost me about 45 minutes of my time.

The decision is under discussion currently.  The conversation was veering off-course, due to certain posters deciding to make it into a political discussion.  If posters don't want to see threads end up in the Current Events forum, they should stay on track and avoid discussion of politics in the basketball forums.

I'm sorry you lost your post.  I wasn't the one who moved the thread, but I support the decision, due to where the thread was going. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 02:10:40 PM
Hey, why was a thread about the NBA age limit move to the current events?! That's nonsensical. I was writing a (very) long post about the issue with some thoughts I have about the NBA and the developmental basketball system worldwide that I lost because of that. Awful decision that cost me about 45 minutes of my time.

The decision is under discussion currently.  The conversation was veering off-course, due to certain posters deciding to make it into a political discussion.  If posters don't want to see threads end up in the Current Events forum, they should stay on track and avoid discussion of politics in the basketball forums.

I'm sorry you lost your post.  I wasn't the one who moved the thread, but I support the decision, due to where the thread was going. 

Geez, my post was merely an easy joke; but in cases like this, just make an off-topic warning or, if needed, delete those posts. The idea that a basketball discussion goes to the current events board because of a couple of posts have some political references is absolutely nuts.

p.s. - I've read IP answer to me. I was making a joke; but I stand by me statements anyway (and if you really want to, I can easily prove that - be cautious with what you ask though).
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 02:24:23 PM

p.s. - I've read IP answer to me. I was making a joke; but I stand by me statements anyway (and if you really want to, I can easily prove that - be cautious with what you ask though).

Regarding whether there's a liberal bias on our staff, it's true that most of the people restricted from the Current Events forum (which is less than a half-dozen people) are conservative.  However, I think that's more coincidental than anything else.  I don't think anybody, for instance, would accuse me of a liberal bias, and I've agreed with each of the restrictions put on members.

However, if you feel that we've been unduly harsh on conservatives, or unfairly lenient towards liberals, it's actually a discussion I welcome. 

(As for your own restriction, as has been noted, the staff is willing to give almost anybody a second shot at the forum, depending upon the severity of their offense).  As I recall, you didn't want to have your access rights restored, but the staff is willing to revisit that decision if you'd like.)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: johnnyrondo on June 06, 2009, 02:34:16 PM
Having lost many long posts before, I now almost always "ctrl c" before pressing post. That way if I get logged out or something, I can just log in and then paste my post. Just a suggestion to others that get frustrated with lost posts.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 02:36:15 PM

p.s. - I've read IP answer to me. I was making a joke; but I stand by me statements anyway (and if you really want to, I can easily prove that - be cautious with what you ask though).

Regarding whether there's a liberal bias on our staff, it's true that most of the people restricted from the Current Events forum (which is less than a half-dozen people) are conservative.  However, I think that's more coincidental than anything else.  I don't think anybody, for instance, would accuse me of a liberal bias, and I've agreed with each of the restrictions put on members.

However, if you feel that we've been unduly harsh on conservatives, or unfairly lenient towards liberals, it's actually a discussion I welcome. 

(As for your own restriction, as has been noted, the staff is willing to give almost anybody a second shot at the forum, depending upon the severity of their offense).  As I recall, you didn't want to have your access rights restored, but the staff is willing to revisit that decision if you'd like.)

I never thought of a liberal bias. i just thought the posting rules were very broad, subjective, and inconsistently applied.

I got told to tune down hyperbole a few days ago for writing humor. I don't think if one of the mods here had written the same thing anybody would have said anything.

Mods have also been known recently to say that threads could be locked because a thread is close to being disrespectful. I have always been a close is good for only handgrenades kind of guy so if a mod says it's being close to disrespectful then it isn't disrespectful. In the mean time another longtime poster had already posted a post saying thanks for everyone being so respectful that about 5 people had agreed with.

You were the one who hit the nail on the head on that one saying that it was a thread subject nearly impossible for some people to not find somee legitmate offense to, similar to some other expressly forbidden topics like abortion. Yet it was a mod who first reponded to that whole thread.

In the mean time you put up a post asking people what they should do about it. Then took it down after one post. So first you were interested in our opinions then not so interested.

So in terms of rules it is easy for one to often feel as though they are walking on egg shells, except some egg shells you can walk on and some you can't.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 02:38:45 PM

p.s. - I've read IP answer to me. I was making a joke; but I stand by me statements anyway (and if you really want to, I can easily prove that - be cautious with what you ask though).

Regarding whether there's a liberal bias on our staff, it's true that most of the people restricted from the Current Events forum (which is less than a half-dozen people) are conservative.  However, I think that's more coincidental than anything else.  I don't think anybody, for instance, would accuse me of a liberal bias, and I've agreed with each of the restrictions put on members.

However, if you feel that we've been unduly harsh on conservatives, or unfairly lenient towards liberals, it's actually a discussion I welcome. 

(As for your own restriction, as has been noted, the staff is willing to give almost anybody a second shot at the forum, depending upon the severity of their offense).  As I recall, you didn't want to have your access rights restored, but the staff is willing to revisit that decision if you'd like.)

Oh no, it's not about my access rights; I just wanted to make the joke.

And of course there's a double-standard. I mean, just an example, I can point examples of liberals making offensive personal remarks, like calling individuals "dumb" and "clown", which is an explicit violation of the rules, without even being warned; while if someone writes something like "Hello socialism, goodbye freedom" or "These ideas are laughable" (being a conservative) that poster is banned. These are just examples, there are even worse and more evident cases.

I wasn't even aware this bias was disputed; I thought it was just assumed by everybody.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on June 06, 2009, 02:46:28 PM

p.s. - I've read IP answer to me. I was making a joke; but I stand by me statements anyway (and if you really want to, I can easily prove that - be cautious with what you ask though).

Regarding whether there's a liberal bias on our staff, it's true that most of the people restricted from the Current Events forum (which is less than a half-dozen people) are conservative.  However, I think that's more coincidental than anything else.  I don't think anybody, for instance, would accuse me of a liberal bias, and I've agreed with each of the restrictions put on members.

However, if you feel that we've been unduly harsh on conservatives, or unfairly lenient towards liberals, it's actually a discussion I welcome. 

(As for your own restriction, as has been noted, the staff is willing to give almost anybody a second shot at the forum, depending upon the severity of their offense).  As I recall, you didn't want to have your access rights restored, but the staff is willing to revisit that decision if you'd like.)

Oh no, it's not about my access rights; I just wanted to make the joke.

And of course there's a double-standard. I mean, just an example, I can point examples of liberals making offensive personal remarks, like calling individuals "dumb" and "clown", which is an explicit violation of the rules, without even being warned; while if someone writes something like "Hello socialism, goodbye freedom" or "These ideas are laughable" (being a conservative) that poster is banned. These are just examples, there are even worse and more evident cases.

I wasn't even aware this bias was disputed; I thought it was just assumed by everybody.

Everytime we ban someone from the current events forum, or the entire forum for that matter, there is a discussion. We all have our say. We come to an agreement through discussion, and we make a choice. I do not know how much better we could do it. If you have a problem with something I said, something a mod said, in any thread, just hit the report abuse button. We'll look at it, and we'll give it fair consideration. I do not know what else we could offer.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 02:47:19 PM
I never thought of a liberal bias. i just thought the posting rules were very broad, subjective, and inconsistently applied.

I got told to tune down hyperbole a few days ago for writing humor. I don't think if one of the mods here had written the same thing anybody would have said anything.

As I recall, you admitted rule-breaking behavior, and posted something about the "People's Republic of Cambridge".  I'm not going to apologize for enforcing our rules (one of which is "Do not use disparaging nicknames for public figures or entities".) 

Quote
Mods have also been known recently to say that threads could be locked because a thread is close to being disrespectful. I have always been a close is good for only handgrenades kind of guy so if a mod says it's being close to disrespectful then it isn't disrespectful. In the mean time another longtime poster had already posted a post saying thanks for everyone being so respectful that about 5 people had agreed with.

I'm not sure what instance you're referring to, but the role of moderators is to keep threads on track and to prevent arguments from breaking out.  If things are getting chippy, a mod will usually step in.

Quote
You were the one who hit the nail on the head on that one saying that it was a thread subject nearly impossible for some people to not find somee legitmate offense to, similar to some other expressly forbidden topics like abortion. Yet it was a mod who first reponded to that whole thread.

In the mean time you put up a post asking people what they should do about it. Then took it down after one post. So first you were interested in our opinions then not so interested.

The gay marriage thread was largely respectful, with a handful of inflammatory remarks or comments where people seemed to be posting to push people's buttons.  Despite the extreme viewpoints offered at times, we allowed people to express their views, and did not edit due to content.  Also, of course, our moderators are also posters here, and a lot of times have thoughts they'd like to share and discuss.

As for the thread I posted that you're referring to, that thread was addressed to the other mods; it was temporarily posted in the main forums by mistake. 

Quote
So in terms of rules it is easy for one to often feel as though they are walking on egg shells, except some egg shells you can walk on and some you can't.

Fair enough.  If you've got suggestions on how things could be better, this is the thread to post them in.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 02:48:45 PM
Oh no, it's not about my access rights; I just wanted to make the joke.

And of course there's a double-standard. I mean, just an example, I can point examples of liberals making offensive personal remarks, like calling individuals "dumb" and "clown", which is an explicit violation of the rules, without even being warned; while if someone writes something like "Hello socialism, goodbye freedom" or "These ideas are laughable" (being a conservative) that poster is banned. These are just examples, there are even worse and more evident cases.

I wasn't even aware this bias was disputed; I thought it was just assumed by everybody.

If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)  I assure you, if moderators miss comments like that, it has nothing to do with a political bias.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 02:55:36 PM
I moved discussion here, since this is the official place to discuss the rules and their application.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 02:59:10 PM
I never thought of a liberal bias. i just thought the posting rules were very broad, subjective, and inconsistently applied.

I got told to tune down hyperbole a few days ago for writing humor. I don't think if one of the mods here had written the same thing anybody would have said anything.

As I recall, you admitted rule-breaking behavior, and posted something about the "People's Republic of Cambridge".  I'm not going to apologize for enforcing our rules (one of which is "Do not use disparaging nicknames for public figures or entities".) 

Quote
Mods have also been known recently to say that threads could be locked because a thread is close to being disrespectful. I have always been a close is good for only handgrenades kind of guy so if a mod says it's being close to disrespectful then it isn't disrespectful. In the mean time another longtime poster had already posted a post saying thanks for everyone being so respectful that about 5 people had agreed with.

I'm not sure what instance you're referring to, but the role of moderators is to keep threads on track and to prevent arguments from breaking out.  If things are getting chippy, a mod will usually step in.

Quote
You were the one who hit the nail on the head on that one saying that it was a thread subject nearly impossible for some people to not find somee legitmate offense to, similar to some other expressly forbidden topics like abortion. Yet it was a mod who first reponded to that whole thread.

In the mean time you put up a post asking people what they should do about it. Then took it down after one post. So first you were interested in our opinions then not so interested.

The gay marriage thread was largely respectful, with a handful of inflammatory remarks or comments where people seemed to be posting to push people's buttons.  Despite the extreme viewpoints offered at times, we allowed people to express their views, and did not edit due to content.  Also, of course, our moderators are also posters here, and a lot of times have thoughts they'd like to share and discuss.

As for the thread I posted that you're referring to, that thread was addressed to the other mods; it was temporarily posted in the main forums by mistake. 

Quote
So in terms of rules it is easy for one to often feel as though they are walking on egg shells, except some egg shells you can walk on and some you can't.

Fair enough.  If you've got suggestions on how things could be better, this is the thread to post them in.

Ok so I admit rule breaking when I do it and others don't. I admit that is true.

Ok. I suggest going to the rules section and deleting any rule intended to protect people from themselves or others as we are all big boys and girls here.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 03:01:14 PM
I suggest going to the rules section and deleting any rule intended to protect people from themselves or others as we are all big boys and girls here.

That's one suggestion that we're probably not going to implement.  Over time, it's become clear that allowing members to sort out disputes amongst themselves with no mod intervention is not best for the community.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 03:03:09 PM
I suggest going to the rules section and deleting any rule intended to protect people from themselves or others as we are all big boys and girls here.

That's one suggestion that we're probably not going to implement.  Over time, it's become clear that allowing members to sort out disputes amongst themselves with no mod intervention is not best for the community.

What makes this community unique in this regard?  Also maybe the report to moderator button should go away or we could at least change the title of the button to "tattle to a mod".
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on June 06, 2009, 03:07:27 PM
Espn has forums that are pretty unregulated I think. This site is unique, and I think that's a good thing
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 03:07:37 PM
I suggest going to the rules section and deleting any rule intended to protect people from themselves or others as we are all big boys and girls here.

That's one suggestion that we're probably not going to implement.  Over time, it's become clear that allowing members to sort out disputes amongst themselves with no mod intervention is not best for the community.

What makes this community unique in this regard?  Also maybe the report to moderator button should go away or we could at least change the title of the button to "tattle to a mod".

Some forums are monitored by moderators; some (such as the ESPN forums) aren't.  In our opinion, we like the community we have here.

You may see reporting rule-breaking behavior as "tattling"; others see it as preserving a friendly environment.  Each poster can make their own choice whether to make a report to the staff.  However, resorting to frontier justice / self help is not permitted.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 03:16:29 PM
Espn has forums that are pretty unregulated I think. This site is unique, and I think that's a good thing

Yes. I agree it is more moderated than any site I've been to
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 03:18:10 PM
I suggest going to the rules section and deleting any rule intended to protect people from themselves or others as we are all big boys and girls here.

That's one suggestion that we're probably not going to implement.  Over time, it's become clear that allowing members to sort out disputes amongst themselves with no mod intervention is not best for the community.

What makes this community unique in this regard?  Also maybe the report to moderator button should go away or we could at least change the title of the button to "tattle to a mod".

Some forums are monitored by moderators; some (such as the ESPN forums) aren't.  In our opinion, we like the community we have here.

You may see reporting rule-breaking behavior as "tattling"; others see it as preserving a friendly environment.  Each poster can make their own choice whether to make a report to the staff.  However, resorting to frontier justice / self help is not permitted.

Just cause posters harrass each other in private messages instead of on the boards doesn't make it a friendly environment.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 03:20:49 PM

Just cause posters harrass each other in private messages instead of on the boards doesn't make it a friendly environment.

I'm pretty sure that private messages may be reported, as well.  Also, of course, our rules apply to our PMs:

Quote
Unless otherwise noted, all of the following [rules] apply to every aspect of this site, including but not limited to the forums, commentary on the front page, private messages, and the Celticsblog / Celtics Stuff Live chat rooms
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 03:24:43 PM
I'll just post this here cause, well, here we are, even though technically maybe it goes on a questions thread or something, but I don't know how the report to mod button works. Is this to say every single mod gets it, then x amount of subjective decisions get made as to why the report was made? Is there some sort of explanation box. I may have done this once about a year ago but I don't see how it works. It would seem that if you report a post then a mod has to decide why it was reported and may be wrong and then maybe the issue doesn't get addressed
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on June 06, 2009, 03:28:35 PM
I suggest going to the rules section and deleting any rule intended to protect people from themselves or others as we are all big boys and girls here.

That's one suggestion that we're probably not going to implement.  Over time, it's become clear that allowing members to sort out disputes amongst themselves with no mod intervention is not best for the community.

What makes this community unique in this regard?  Also maybe the report to moderator button should go away or we could at least change the title of the button to "tattle to a mod".

Some forums are monitored by moderators; some (such as the ESPN forums) aren't.  In our opinion, we like the community we have here.

You may see reporting rule-breaking behavior as "tattling"; others see it as preserving a friendly environment.  Each poster can make their own choice whether to make a report to the staff.  However, resorting to frontier justice / self help is not permitted.

Just cause posters harrass each other in private messages instead of on the boards doesn't make it a friendly environment.
If someone is harassing you on PM then something like that should be reported because as much as you may want to handle that harassment yourself, if that person is doing it to you they are probably doing it to others.

I don't know about anyone else, but being just a long time poster, I would prefer not to have people who want to privately harass me because of my viewpoint being a part of this community. I have had heated discussions with many a person on this site, including mods, but at the end of the day, it's still just conversation and an exchange of ideas. They and I both realize that and can still co-mingle and discuss other items, sometimes while we are simultaneously discuss that heated issue.

I have had many a strong convo with BBall, cordobes, winsomme, Roy, Bahku, Steve and others falling on the opposite side of an opinion. But I respect their opinions all and would never even consider not talking with them on other subjects or contemplating sending harassing PMs.

I think that is just low. Discuss it constructively or forget about it. It's just a forum topic.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 03:30:09 PM
I'll just post this here cause, well, here we are, even though technically maybe it goes on a questions thread or something, but I don't know how the report to mod button works. Is this to say every single mod gets it, then x amount of subjective decisions get made as to why the report was made? Is there some sort of explanation box. I may have done this once about a year ago but I don't see how it works. It would seem that if you report a post then a mod has to decide why it was reported and may be wrong and then maybe the issue doesn't get addressed

Once a post is reported, all the moderators / administrators receive an email.  The staff then decides how to act from there.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on June 06, 2009, 03:35:47 PM
I'll just post this here cause, well, here we are, even though technically maybe it goes on a questions thread or something, but I don't know how the report to mod button works. Is this to say every single mod gets it, then x amount of subjective decisions get made as to why the report was made? Is there some sort of explanation box. I may have done this once about a year ago but I don't see how it works. It would seem that if you report a post then a mod has to decide why it was reported and may be wrong and then maybe the issue doesn't get addressed

Once a post is reported, all the moderators / administrators receive an email.  The staff then decides how to act from there.

And there is a section in the report where you can comment on what it is you are reporting (which we all see).
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 03:36:43 PM
I suggest going to the rules section and deleting any rule intended to protect people from themselves or others as we are all big boys and girls here.

That's one suggestion that we're probably not going to implement.  Over time, it's become clear that allowing members to sort out disputes amongst themselves with no mod intervention is not best for the community.

What makes this community unique in this regard?  Also maybe the report to moderator button should go away or we could at least change the title of the button to "tattle to a mod".

Some forums are monitored by moderators; some (such as the ESPN forums) aren't.  In our opinion, we like the community we have here.

You may see reporting rule-breaking behavior as "tattling"; others see it as preserving a friendly environment.  Each poster can make their own choice whether to make a report to the staff.  However, resorting to frontier justice / self help is not permitted.

Just cause posters harrass each other in private messages instead of on the boards doesn't make it a friendly environment.
If someone is harassing you on PM then something like that should be reported because as much as you may want to handle that harassment yourself, if that person is doing it to you they are probably doing it to others.

I don't know about anyone else, but being just a long time poster, I would prefer not to have people who want to privately harass me because of my viewpoint being a part of this community. I have had heated discussions with many a person on this site, including mods, but at the end of the day, it's still just conversation and an exchange of ideas. They and I both realize that and can still co-mingle and discuss other items, sometimes while we are simultaneously discuss that heated issue.

I have had many a strong convo with BBall, cordobes, winsomme, Roy, Bahku, Steve and others falling on the opposite side of an opinion. But I respect their opinions all and would never even consider not talking with them on other subjects or contemplating sending harassing PMs.

I think that is just low. Discuss it constructively or forget about it. It's just a forum topic.

That's a good point about harrassing others, but I assumed those others are over 18 and don't care about what an anonymous poster sends to them.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 03:38:05 PM
Also, while on the subject if a mod locks or deletes a thread then it becomes harder to see what you supposedly did.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 03:41:48 PM
Also, while on the subject if a mod locks or deletes a thread then it becomes harder to see what you supposedly did.

Before a poster is disciplined, he is informed of the reason.  That generally includes quotes from the post that gave rise to the warning / suspension / ban.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 03:55:52 PM

p.s. - I've read IP answer to me. I was making a joke; but I stand by me statements anyway (and if you really want to, I can easily prove that - be cautious with what you ask though).

Regarding whether there's a liberal bias on our staff, it's true that most of the people restricted from the Current Events forum (which is less than a half-dozen people) are conservative.  However, I think that's more coincidental than anything else.  I don't think anybody, for instance, would accuse me of a liberal bias, and I've agreed with each of the restrictions put on members.

However, if you feel that we've been unduly harsh on conservatives, or unfairly lenient towards liberals, it's actually a discussion I welcome. 

(As for your own restriction, as has been noted, the staff is willing to give almost anybody a second shot at the forum, depending upon the severity of their offense).  As I recall, you didn't want to have your access rights restored, but the staff is willing to revisit that decision if you'd like.)

Oh no, it's not about my access rights; I just wanted to make the joke.

And of course there's a double-standard. I mean, just an example, I can point examples of liberals making offensive personal remarks, like calling individuals "dumb" and "clown", which is an explicit violation of the rules, without even being warned; while if someone writes something like "Hello socialism, goodbye freedom" or "These ideas are laughable" (being a conservative) that poster is banned. These are just examples, there are even worse and more evident cases.

I wasn't even aware this bias was disputed; I thought it was just assumed by everybody.

Everytime we ban someone from the current events forum, or the entire forum for that matter, there is a discussion. We all have our say. We come to an agreement through discussion, and we make a choice. I do not know how much better we could do it. If you have a problem with something I said, something a mod said, in any thread, just hit the report abuse button. We'll look at it, and we'll give it fair consideration. I do not know what else we could offer.


Oh, I didn't question the formal procedures, rather I'm accusing you (the mods overall) of being biased (the fact that you can't understand you're biased doesn't make you less biased, just unable to understand your own bias).

I can't hit the report abuse button because the forum isn't available to me; besides I was banned precisely for accusing a mod of being inconsistent via PM.

Anyway, if you want a prove of your own bias, just check the "Major News Outlets....Biased?" topic, for example (although there are better ones). You justify banning the poor guy who wrote "Hello socialism, goodbye freedom" equating what he said to someone saying, and I quote ad verbatim your example, "Fox news spews biased partisan propaganda for the radical right". According to you, writing something like that would be wrong,  unacceptable, a self serving cheap shot and lead to an immediate banishment. 

However, when someone said "Rush Limbaugh and all of the right wing talk show crazies.  I want Hannity and all of the hate mongers and veiled racists at Fox News.

And lastly, you'll also have to throw in the purveyors of right wing drivel on what purports to be Boston sports radio, starting with Gerry Callahan and his boss, Glenn Ordway, who reminds me of Jabba the Hut: the same beady eyes, the same jowls etc. etc."
, it suddenly stopped being unacceptable and it passed without mention.

I can give plenty of more examples if you wish so. Once again, I'm not question your good faith; it seems to me that it's just the well-known inability individuals and groups have to perceive their own bias.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on June 06, 2009, 03:56:41 PM
Also, while on the subject if a mod locks or deletes a thread then it becomes harder to see what you supposedly did.

Unless I'm mistaken here, I believe a locked thread is still visible to all, it just can't be added to.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 04:03:56 PM
Oh no, it's not about my access rights; I just wanted to make the joke.

And of course there's a double-standard. I mean, just an example, I can point examples of liberals making offensive personal remarks, like calling individuals "dumb" and "clown", which is an explicit violation of the rules, without even being warned; while if someone writes something like "Hello socialism, goodbye freedom" or "These ideas are laughable" (being a conservative) that poster is banned. These are just examples, there are even worse and more evident cases.

I wasn't even aware this bias was disputed; I thought it was just assumed by everybody.

If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)  I assure you, if moderators miss comments like that, it has nothing to do with a political bias.

I can't use that button and I honestly don't know where that post is. If you guarantee me the individual who used those terms would be banned in spite of being a liberal  :o, I'd be tempted to look for it (I'm a sucker for bizarre happenings). 

Anyway, I can easily link to a post where conservatives were called "stupid, greedy and dishonest". It's difficult for any unbiased observer to understand how's acceptable to accuse someone of being "stupid" but it's not acceptable saying that a said idea is "laughable". In my view, the first case, being an ad hominem attack is a clear violation of the rules while the second one is, at least, very debatable. However, the way they were handled was exactly the opposite.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on June 06, 2009, 04:19:55 PM
Anyway, I can easily link to a post where conservatives were called "stupid, greedy and dishonest". It's difficult for any unbiased observer to understand how's acceptable to accuse someone of being "stupid" but it's not acceptable saying that a said idea is "laughable". In my view, the first case, being an ad hominem attack is a clear violation of the rules while the second one is, at least, very debatable. However, the way they were handled was exactly the opposite.

Please link to that post. I can't imagine we'd let a post that says "Conservatives are stupid greedy and dishonest" exist without edit or reprimand. I'd be interested in seeing that.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 04:36:29 PM
Anyway, I can easily link to a post where conservatives were called "stupid, greedy and dishonest". It's difficult for any unbiased observer to understand how's acceptable to accuse someone of being "stupid" but it's not acceptable saying that a said idea is "laughable". In my view, the first case, being an ad hominem attack is a clear violation of the rules while the second one is, at least, very debatable. However, the way they were handled was exactly the opposite.

Please link to that post. I can't imagine we'd let a post that says "Conservatives are stupid greedy and dishonest" exist without edit or reprimand. I'd be interested in seeing that.

http://www.google.pt/search?q=stupid+greedy+dishonest+celticsblog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:pt-PT:official&client=firefox-a

Do you want me to link to the topic where your double-standard is exposed (the one about right wing crazies, veiled racists, hate mongers, beady eyes, etc.)?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on June 06, 2009, 04:42:03 PM
Anyway, I can easily link to a post where conservatives were called "stupid, greedy and dishonest". It's difficult for any unbiased observer to understand how's acceptable to accuse someone of being "stupid" but it's not acceptable saying that a said idea is "laughable". In my view, the first case, being an ad hominem attack is a clear violation of the rules while the second one is, at least, very debatable. However, the way they were handled was exactly the opposite.

Please link to that post. I can't imagine we'd let a post that says "Conservatives are stupid greedy and dishonest" exist without edit or reprimand. I'd be interested in seeing that.

http://www.google.pt/search?q=stupid+greedy+dishonest+celticsblog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:pt-PT:official&client=firefox-a

Do you want me to link to the topic where your double-standard is exposed (the one about right wing crazies, veiled racists, hate mongers, beady eyes, etc.)?

how do we get that link in English?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on June 06, 2009, 04:44:33 PM
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/31/53498212_6d5d00f6f4.jpg?v=0)

I got it. He's right, it happened. See above.

It should have been addressed. I can't offer much more than an apology, and an encouragement to report this stuff if/when you see it, so it can be addressed.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 04:49:17 PM
Oh, I can even dig a topic where the exact same sentence, the exact same expression, when used by a conservative resulted in a warning/ban and when used by a liberal passed, as per usual, without mention.

There are plenty of examples of bias. To the point that a few months ago, I used this board, and many of these examples, to illustrate a text I wrote in another site about liberal/socialist bias in alleged unbiased internet outlets.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on June 06, 2009, 04:59:11 PM
Oh, I can even dig a topic where the exact same sentence, the exact same expression, when used by a conservative resulted on a ban and when used by a liberal passed, as per usual, without mention.

There are plenty of examples of bias. To the point that a few months ago, I used this board, and many of these examples, to illustrate a post I wrote in another site about liberal bias in alleged unbiased internet outlets.

Cordobes,  It's any interesting notion, I'll give you that.  I don't spend a hell of a lot of time in  the political forums, so I can't say as whether I'm personally subconsciously moderating differently towards one side or the other, but I'm open to being more self aware about it.

What I wonder about your hypothesis is whether you've tested the other side of it as thoroughly as you clearly have on this side.  And I'm not just saying that to be a pain in the butt. I'd be interested.

I think we do a pretty thorough job keeping on top of stuff, but you found an instance of something that went unchecked.  Have you spent as much time searching for "misses" on the other side of the fence?




 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 05:08:16 PM
Here's the thing, though:  the staff doesn't read every post.  Unless something is reported, there's a good chance we'll miss it.  There's no bias if the staff isn't given a chance to edit the post.

EDIT:  Here's the post I'm seeing:  "We allowed stupid, greedy dishonest people to run the country for the last 8 years."  Was there another one?

That's a far cry from calling all conservatives stupid and greedy.  Now, whether the Bush administration fell into that category is a matter of debate, and I'm not sure how the staff would have responded if the comment was reported.  I haven't examined the thread, for instance, to see how the post was supported, what the context was, etc.  It's not necessarily against the rules to call a politician stupid, or greedy, or dishonest; rather, it's about the manner and context in which such arguments are made.

If the post had been reported, the issue would have been examined.  It wasn't reported, and it was overlooked.  To suggest that it belies some anti-conservative bias is silly.

Speaking as a conservative, I can say that many of the people who ran the country over the past 8 years were indeed greedy and dishonest.  I tend not to think that most people at the highest levels are stupid, but I guess it's a matter of debate.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on June 06, 2009, 05:09:42 PM
Oh, I can even dig a topic where the exact same sentence, the exact same expression, when used by a conservative resulted in a warning/ban and when used by a liberal passed, as per usual, without mention.

There are plenty of examples of bias. To the point that a few months ago, I used this board, and many of these examples, to illustrate a text I wrote in another site about liberal/socialist bias in alleged unbiased internet outlets.

Cordobes, I don't doubt this has happened, but I will say it has never happened purposely.  As moderators, we miss things.  

But I will also point out that if there was a warning or ban involved, it most likely was not only because of the sentence you saw.  It was most likely due to a number of violations that led to action by the staff.  

And I also want to point out that just because things are not publically addressed does not mean warnings (or worse) have not taken place.  In fact, the majority of the moderating is done privately.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on June 06, 2009, 05:22:22 PM
BTW, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think there really is a liberal bias by the staff, when the most ever-present member of the staff happens to be one of the more conservative posters on the entire site.  We all go out of our way to make sure our personal bias does not affect our moderating, and if it ever does, we have a very diverse staff to call each other out on it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 05:44:20 PM
It should have been addressed. I can't offer much more than an apology, and an encouragement to report this stuff if/when you see it, so it can be addressed.

I wouldn't advise anyone to do this. That's what I did, by pointing out to a moderator a post that, in my opinion, was being overlooked and the consequence was that I was banned for suggesting the moderators were being biased.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 05:45:09 PM
BTW, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think there really is a liberal bias by the staff, when the most ever-present member of the staff happens to be one of the more conservative posters on the entire site.  We all go out of our way to make sure our personal bias does not affect our moderating, and if it ever does, we have a very diverse staff to call each other out on it.

I don't dispute you believe that; the examples I've provided prove you just aren't successful.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on June 06, 2009, 05:47:22 PM
BTW, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think there really is a liberal bias by the staff, when the most ever-present member of the staff happens to be one of the more conservative posters on the entire site.  We all go out of our way to make sure our personal bias does not affect our moderating, and if it ever does, we have a very diverse staff to call each other out on it.

I don't dispute you believe that; the examples I've provided prove you just aren't successful.

Oh, I don't think they prove anything other than that we miss things.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 05:48:17 PM
Here's the thing, though:  the staff doesn't read every post.  Unless something is reported, there's a good chance we'll miss it.  There's no bias if the staff isn't given a chance to edit the post.

Well, there are posts that were quoted and replied to by members of the staff.

Here's the post I'm seeing:  "We allowed stupid, greedy dishonest people to run the country for the last 8 years."  Was there another one?

That's a far cry from calling all conservatives stupid and greedy.  Now, whether the Bush administration fell into that category is a matter of debate, and I'm not sure how the staff would have responded if the comment was reported.  I haven't examined the thread, for instance, to see how the post was supported, what the context was, etc.  It's not necessarily against the rules to call a politician stupid, or greedy, or dishonest; rather, it's about the manner and context in which such arguments are made.

If the post had been reported, the issue would have been examined.  It wasn't reported, and it was overlooked.  To suggest that it belies some anti-conservative bias is silly.

Speaking as a conservative, I can say that many of the people who ran the country over the past 8 years were indeed greedy and dishonest.  I tend not to think that most people at the highest levels are stupid, but I guess it's a matter of debate.

But I never said he was calling all conservatives greedy and dishonest. However, it's an explicit violation of the rules, as far as they were understood in other cases.

For example, if that's not a violation, explain to me why saying that "X spews biased partisan propaganda for the left" is.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on June 06, 2009, 05:49:05 PM
It should have been addressed. I can't offer much more than an apology, and an encouragement to report this stuff if/when you see it, so it can be addressed.

I wouldn't advise anyone to do this. That's what I did, by pointing out to a moderator a post that, in my opinion, was being overlooked and the consequence was that I was banned for suggesting the moderators were being biased.

We can discuss the details in private, because we have a policy about discussing these things in the public forum, but I will say that this is 100% incorrect.  
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 05:49:47 PM
Quote
If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)

For example, if a poster calls an evangelical leader "dumb" would that warrant a ban/warning? What if, instead of an evangelical leader, a poster calls a democratic politician dumb?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 05:50:58 PM
It should have been addressed. I can't offer much more than an apology, and an encouragement to report this stuff if/when you see it, so it can be addressed.

I wouldn't advise anyone to do this. That's what I did, by pointing out to a moderator a post that, in my opinion, was being overlooked and the consequence was that I was banned for suggesting the moderators were being biased.

We can discuss the details in private, because we have a policy about discussing these things in the public forum, but I will say that this is 100% incorrect.  

I've learned my lesson about discussing things in private with the mods of the political forum.  ;D

I stand by what I said; I never lie. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 05:51:38 PM

For example, if that's not a violation, explain to me why saying that "X spews biased partisan propaganda for the left" is.

I didn't say it wasn't a violation.  I said it depended on the context, much like is discussed here (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=23576.msg378009#msg378009).

Quote
If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)

For example, if a poster calls an evangelical leader "dumb" would that warrant a ban/warning? What if, instead of an evangelical leader, a poster calls a democratic politician dumb?

It depends upon the context, and how well the allegations in the post are backed up.  Generally, calling a political leader "dumb" is frowned upon, but again, it depends.  Also, of course, saying something was a "dumb decision" or something similar will be less of a problem, although we would of course once again ask people to back up their opinions.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 05:55:27 PM

For example, if that's not a violation, explain to me why saying that "X spews biased partisan propaganda for the left" is.

I didn't say it wasn't a violation.  I said it depended on the context, much like is discussed here (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=23576.msg378009#msg378009).



I can't access to that page. But saying that "X spews biased partisan propaganda for the left" is a violation or not?

Anyway, the example I gave in this post is clear (linK : http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=4046.msg501300#msg501300 )

The simple fact that a huge majority (or all?) of the people banned share the same political inclination should ring some bells. Unless people do believe that conservatives have a tendency to be more uncivil or to break rules more than liberals, they should consider there may be a case of unperceived bias.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 05:58:11 PM

For example, if that's not a violation, explain to me why saying that "X spews biased partisan propaganda for the left" is.

I didn't say it wasn't a violation.  I said it depended on the context, much like is discussed here (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=23576.msg378009#msg378009).

Quote
If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)

For example, if a poster calls an evangelical leader "dumb" would that warrant a ban/warning? What if, instead of an evangelical leader, a poster calls a democratic politician dumb?

It depends upon the context, and how well the allegations in the post are backed up.  Generally, calling a political leader "dumb" is frowned upon, but again, it depends.  Also, of course, saying something was a "dumb decision" or something similar will be less of a problem, although we would of course once again ask people to back up their opinions.



Doesn't that put you in direct contradiction with your stance that writing "the idea X is laughable" was always unacceptable in any case, no matter how well backed up the assertion was?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on June 06, 2009, 05:59:27 PM
Quote
If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)

For example, if a poster calls an evangelical leader "dumb" would that warrant a ban/warning? What if, instead of an evangelical leader, a poster calls a democratic politician dumb?

In both cases, it depends on context.  If they say that someone is dumb because they are an evangelical leader, or because they are a democrat, then yes, that would likely warrant a warning.  However, we allow posters to state their opinion on public figures, as long as they back them up with some sort of argument.  

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SSFan V on June 06, 2009, 06:00:55 PM
(http://www.morrisonhotelgallery.com/images/medium/Whistling%20Jack%20Smith390.jpg)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 06:02:03 PM
Of course, you are both right about the context. What you possibly fail to understand is that the context are the political leanings of the writer, as it has been proved in this thread.

For example, calling the journalists of a tv station veiled racists. Is this acceptable or depends on the context? (The "Mods can't see everything excuse wouldn't work on this one"  ;D)

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 06:02:46 PM

Doesn't that put you in direct contradiction with your stance that writing "the idea X is laughable" was always unacceptable in any case, no matter how well backed up the assertion was?

I'm not sure what post you're referring to, but if you called another member's idea laughable, that seems to be a personal attack on that member.

EDIT:  I just looked up the thread.  There, a poster called another poster's ideas "laughable".  As I reminded him, "You can make a point without ridiculing others." 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on June 06, 2009, 06:04:38 PM
Of course, you are both right about the context. What you possibly fail to understand is that the context are the political leanings of the writer, as it has been proved in this thread.

For example, calling the journalists of a tv station veiled racists. Is this acceptable or depends on the context? (The "Mods can't see everything excuse wouldn't work on this one"  ;D)



Context. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SSFan V on June 06, 2009, 06:05:58 PM
BTW, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think there really is a liberal bias by the staff, when the most ever-present member of the staff happens to be one of the more conservative posters on the entire site. 

I agree with this --- I think for the most part the moderators and the big cheese himself are quite conservative.  This coming from a left leaning poster who has an issue with that level of conservatism.....

which means for the mods, this is a classic case of "you're [dang]ed if you do, [dang]ed if you don't"
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 06:07:18 PM

Doesn't that put you in direct contradiction with your stance that writing "the idea X is laughable" was always unacceptable in any case, no matter how well backed up the assertion was?

I'm not sure what post you're referring to, but if you called another member's idea laughable, that seems to be a personal attack on that member.

EDIT:  I just looked up the thread.  There, a poster called another poster's ideas "laughable".  As I reminded him, "You can make a point without ridiculing others." 

Are you sure about that? I don't think I was the one calling another poster's ideas laughable. If I recall correctly, it was someone else calling liberal ideas laughable. And didn't you said it was unacceptable in any case?

Anyway, what's your point? Calling others stupid or dumb isn't ridiculing?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 06:10:23 PM
Quote
If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)

For example, if a poster calls an evangelical leader "dumb" would that warrant a ban/warning? What if, instead of an evangelical leader, a poster calls a democratic politician dumb?

In both cases, it depends on context.

I don't get it:

one hour ago:
comments like that aren't ever appropriate

now:
it depends on context

So, they are never appropriate or they can be appropriate depending on the context?

 --------------

Anyway, let me ask this: what arguments were used to back up the opinion that some journalists were "veiled racists"? If none, what actions were taken?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Thruthelookingglass on June 06, 2009, 06:11:49 PM
I'm jumping in half-informed and half-cocked, but here goes. 

It's darned hard to moderate any blog, especially a political one.  People are going to get fired up, and they are going to push the limit to fire up the other side.  Seriously, how many comments are actually meant to persuade?  Darned few, though CBlog seems to have it a bit better than other blogs.

A junior high history teacher taught me a very important lesson that I've carried with me to this day.  Laws and rules are like a coastline and the grey areas are the shallow rocks that can wreck your little ship.  So if you don't want to run the risk of hitting the rocks, steer well clear and don't push your luck.  It's the same with discretion.  If you don't want someone to rule against you, stay in safer water and don't give them the opportunity.

Given what I've seen the mods here do a good job.  It's one of the reasons I love Celtics Blog.  On the other hand, Cordobes may be completely right (no pun intended).  I don't know.  However, in the end, it's the bloggers responsibility to make sure that a mod doesn't have to make a tough decision.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 06:13:14 PM
If I recall correctly, it was someone else calling liberal ideas laughable. And didn't you said it was unacceptable in any case?

Anyway, what's your point? Calling others stupid or dumb isn't ridiculing?

Here's the post, which, as I noted, involved one posting attacking another's ideas:

Quote
Winsomme said:
If we have a strong government that supports the middle class, makes quality education and healthcare available to all and INVESTS in the innovation and industries that will create the jobs this will not hamper the free market but enhance it.

It's laughable that anybody can look at how a government, which has essentially trashed the minority and poor family by eliminating men from their role as provider and replaced him with a welfare check, can do anything above.  It's more laughable that a government that has produced an "education" system, so bloated and broken, that it cannot be fixed without privatization, can do anything above.  It's laughable that anybody sees the so-called income gap as anybody's fault than the government.  The government,  who gave us the Great Society, which has rewarded laziness and penalized achievement with manipulative tax structures.  It's laughable, but very sad, that a majority of voters can look at a man who can read a teleprompter charmingly, but presided as a "community organizer" over a city filled with slumlords, racists, and criminals, (several of whom are his buddies), with an unprecedented crime rate,  could unite a country.  Govern from the center?  It's more laughable that anybody thinks that this man, without the checks and balances Clinton had, will govern from anywhere other than the most extreme left.  How anybody could come to that conclusion, if they got out of their trance, and looks at his voting record is a true testement to the slanted and busted education system in this country.
I think it is this form of expressing one's opinion that causes so much harm in these forums. There are better ways of expressing oneself without the veiled insults and why once again I think these forums are ultimately doomed.

Agreed.  Calling another's opinion "laughable" is exactly what we meant when we said "Do not engage in partisan attacks, unsupported generalizations, or mockery of opposing viewpoints".  You can make a point without ridiculing others.

Last warning.


I stand by that.  Calling another poster's opinion "laughable" is a direct violation of our site rules.  While I'm amused by your attempt to get people to focus on a red herring, there's an inherent difference between mocking another poster and discussing a politician's intellect, or the intelligence of his ideas.  The first is never appropriate; the second may be, but only in the appropriate context.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 06:14:56 PM
If I recall correctly, it was someone else calling liberal ideas laughable. And didn't you said it was unacceptable in any case?

Anyway, what's your point? Calling others stupid or dumb isn't ridiculing?

Here's the post, which, as I noted, involved one posting attacking another's ideas:

Quote
Winsomme said:
If we have a strong government that supports the middle class, makes quality education and healthcare available to all and INVESTS in the innovation and industries that will create the jobs this will not hamper the free market but enhance it.

It's laughable that anybody can look at how a government, which has essentially trashed the minority and poor family by eliminating men from their role as provider and replaced him with a welfare check, can do anything above.  It's more laughable that a government that has produced an "education" system, so bloated and broken, that it cannot be fixed without privatization, can do anything above.  It's laughable that anybody sees the so-called income gap as anybody's fault than the government.  The government,  who gave us the Great Society, which has rewarded laziness and penalized achievement with manipulative tax structures.  It's laughable, but very sad, that a majority of voters can look at a man who can read a teleprompter charmingly, but presided as a "community organizer" over a city filled with slumlords, racists, and criminals, (several of whom are his buddies), with an unprecedented crime rate,  could unite a country.  Govern from the center?  It's more laughable that anybody thinks that this man, without the checks and balances Clinton had, will govern from anywhere other than the most extreme left.  How anybody could come to that conclusion, if they got out of their trance, and looks at his voting record is a true testement to the slanted and busted education system in this country.
I think it is this form of expressing one's opinion that causes so much harm in these forums. There are better ways of expressing oneself without the veiled insults and why once again I think these forums are ultimately doomed.

Agreed.  Calling another's opinion "laughable" is exactly what we meant when we said "Do not engage in partisan attacks, unsupported generalizations, or mockery of opposing viewpoints".  You can make a point without ridiculing others.

Last warning.


I stand by that.  Calling another poster's opinion "laughable" is a direct violation of our site rules.  While I'm amused by your attempt to get people to focus on a red herring, there's an inherent difference between mocking another poster and discussing a politician's intellect, or the intelligence of his ideas.  The first is never appropriate; the second may be, but only in the appropriate context.

Once again, I didn't write that post. The fact that you don't correct your accusation is pretty telling.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 06:15:55 PM
Quote
If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)

For example, if a poster calls an evangelical leader "dumb" would that warrant a ban/warning? What if, instead of an evangelical leader, a poster calls a democratic politician dumb?

In both cases, it depends on context.

I don't get it:

one hour ago:
comments like that aren't ever appropriate

now:
it depends on context

So, they are never appropriate or they can be appropriate depending on the context?

 --------------

Anyway, let me ask this: what arguments were used to back up the opinion that some journalists were "veiled racists"? If none, what actions were taken?

It's pretty obvious you're being intentionally difficult here.  In the first instance, I was talking about behavior directed towards other posters.  In the second, we were referring to statements made about politicians, who don't post on this blog.

You know the difference, and as usual, you're intentionally making life difficult for the staff.  That's disappointment.  Regardless, it's become clear that you have no legitimate interest in discussing the actions and policies of the staff.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 06:16:36 PM
If I recall correctly, it was someone else calling liberal ideas laughable. And didn't you said it was unacceptable in any case?

Anyway, what's your point? Calling others stupid or dumb isn't ridiculing?

Here's the post, which, as I noted, involved one posting attacking another's ideas:

Quote
Winsomme said:
If we have a strong government that supports the middle class, makes quality education and healthcare available to all and INVESTS in the innovation and industries that will create the jobs this will not hamper the free market but enhance it.

It's laughable that anybody can look at how a government, which has essentially trashed the minority and poor family by eliminating men from their role as provider and replaced him with a welfare check, can do anything above.  It's more laughable that a government that has produced an "education" system, so bloated and broken, that it cannot be fixed without privatization, can do anything above.  It's laughable that anybody sees the so-called income gap as anybody's fault than the government.  The government,  who gave us the Great Society, which has rewarded laziness and penalized achievement with manipulative tax structures.  It's laughable, but very sad, that a majority of voters can look at a man who can read a teleprompter charmingly, but presided as a "community organizer" over a city filled with slumlords, racists, and criminals, (several of whom are his buddies), with an unprecedented crime rate,  could unite a country.  Govern from the center?  It's more laughable that anybody thinks that this man, without the checks and balances Clinton had, will govern from anywhere other than the most extreme left.  How anybody could come to that conclusion, if they got out of their trance, and looks at his voting record is a true testement to the slanted and busted education system in this country.
I think it is this form of expressing one's opinion that causes so much harm in these forums. There are better ways of expressing oneself without the veiled insults and why once again I think these forums are ultimately doomed.

Agreed.  Calling another's opinion "laughable" is exactly what we meant when we said "Do not engage in partisan attacks, unsupported generalizations, or mockery of opposing viewpoints".  You can make a point without ridiculing others.

Last warning.


I stand by that.  Calling another poster's opinion "laughable" is a direct violation of our site rules.  While I'm amused by your attempt to get people to focus on a red herring, there's an inherent difference between mocking another poster and discussing a politician's intellect, or the intelligence of his ideas.  The first is never appropriate; the second may be, but only in the appropriate context.

Once again, I didn't write that post. The fact that you don't correct your accusation is pretty telling.

What accusation are you referring to?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 06:16:52 PM
Quote
Agreed.  Calling another's opinion "laughable" is exactly what we meant when we said "Do not engage in partisan attacks, unsupported generalizations, or mockery of opposing viewpoints"

How do you classify the greedy, stupid and dishonest comments; or the ones accusing people of being veiled racists, crazies or hate mongers at this light?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 06:21:15 PM
Quote
If posters are calling others "dumb" and "clowns", I wish people would use the "report to a moderator" button; comments like that aren't ever appropriate (unless referring to Redz, I suppose.)

For example, if a poster calls an evangelical leader "dumb" would that warrant a ban/warning? What if, instead of an evangelical leader, a poster calls a democratic politician dumb?

In both cases, it depends on context.

I don't get it:

one hour ago:
comments like that aren't ever appropriate

now:
it depends on context

So, they are never appropriate or they can be appropriate depending on the context?

 --------------

Anyway, let me ask this: what arguments were used to back up the opinion that some journalists were "veiled racists"? If none, what actions were taken?

It's pretty obvious you're being intentionally difficult here.  In the first instance, I was talking about behavior directed towards other posters.  In the second, we were referring to statements made about politicians, who don't post on this blog.

You know the difference, and as usual, you're intentionally making life difficult for the staff.  That's disappointment.  Regardless, it's become clear that you have no legitimate interest in discussing the actions and policies of the staff.

I was dared to present evidence of the "stupid, greedy" or "dumb" stuff.

When I did, the standards immediately changed and now that's okay as long as you don't call that to other posters.

I resent the accusations of not having a legitimate interest in discussing the actions and policies of the staff and being intentionally difficult here. If you can't discuss without making that kind of personal considerations and ad hominem attacks, I'd strongly suggest that you should avoid discussions where your judgement as a moderator may be questioned.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cordobes on June 06, 2009, 06:22:40 PM

p.s. - I've read IP answer to me. I was making a joke; but I stand by me statements anyway (and if you really want to, I can easily prove that - be cautious with what you ask though).

Regarding whether there's a liberal bias on our staff, it's true that most of the people restricted from the Current Events forum (which is less than a half-dozen people) are conservative.  However, I think that's more coincidental than anything else.  I don't think anybody, for instance, would accuse me of a liberal bias, and I've agreed with each of the restrictions put on members.

However, if you feel that we've been unduly harsh on conservatives, or unfairly lenient towards liberals, it's actually a discussion I welcome. 

(As for your own restriction, as has been noted, the staff is willing to give almost anybody a second shot at the forum, depending upon the severity of their offense).  As I recall, you didn't want to have your access rights restored, but the staff is willing to revisit that decision if you'd like.)

Oh no, it's not about my access rights; I just wanted to make the joke.

And of course there's a double-standard. I mean, just an example, I can point examples of liberals making offensive personal remarks, like calling individuals "dumb" and "clown", which is an explicit violation of the rules, without even being warned; while if someone writes something like "Hello socialism, goodbye freedom" or "These ideas are laughable" (being a conservative) that poster is banned. These are just examples, there are even worse and more evident cases.

I wasn't even aware this bias was disputed; I thought it was just assumed by everybody.

Everytime we ban someone from the current events forum, or the entire forum for that matter, there is a discussion. We all have our say. We come to an agreement through discussion, and we make a choice. I do not know how much better we could do it. If you have a problem with something I said, something a mod said, in any thread, just hit the report abuse button. We'll look at it, and we'll give it fair consideration. I do not know what else we could offer.


Oh, I didn't question the formal procedures, rather I'm accusing you (the mods overall) of being biased (the fact that you can't understand you're biased doesn't make you less biased, just unable to understand your own bias).

I can't hit the report abuse button because the forum isn't available to me; besides I was banned precisely for accusing a mod of being inconsistent via PM.

Anyway, if you want a prove of your own bias, just check the "Major News Outlets....Biased?" topic, for example (although there are better ones). You justify banning the poor guy who wrote "Hello socialism, goodbye freedom" equating what he said to someone saying, and I quote ad verbatim your example, "Fox news spews biased partisan propaganda for the radical right". According to you, writing something like that would be wrong,  unacceptable, a self serving cheap shot and lead to an immediate banishment. 

However, when someone said "Rush Limbaugh and all of the right wing talk show crazies.  I want Hannity and all of the hate mongers and veiled racists at Fox News.

And lastly, you'll also have to throw in the purveyors of right wing drivel on what purports to be Boston sports radio, starting with Gerry Callahan and his boss, Glenn Ordway, who reminds me of Jabba the Hut: the same beady eyes, the same jowls etc. etc."
, it suddenly stopped being unacceptable and it passed without mention.

I can give plenty of more examples if you wish so. Once again, I'm not question your good faith; it seems to me that it's just the well-known inability individuals and groups have to perceive their own bias.

Bump.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 06:22:48 PM
As I said, you're being intentionally difficult, and are twisting the words and actions of the staff.  Indeed, you're lying about things that were said / done in the past, for the sole purpose of giving the staff a hard time / making us look bad.  There's no doubt in my mind that you know the distinction between criticizing another poster and criticizing a politician, and your continued effort to cast the staff as hypocrites is a shallow effort to challenge our authority.

You are to cease and desist with this line of debate.  If you want to have a legitimate discussion about the rules -- which would require you to stop posturing and behave honestly -- I invite you to do so via PM.  However, please take note that continued lies and misdirection directed towards the staff in this thread will result in discipline against your account.  Move on.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SSFan V on June 06, 2009, 06:23:00 PM
Cordobes,

Listen......

I have an issue with the way the Mods handled one of my posts -- it really irked me to no end and I signed off for more than a month.

Celticsblog is not run by me and I don't make the rules, if I want to participate in this community I know that I have to follow their rules....as gray as I may think they are.  I have elected to participate for I think that it's better than the alternative.

Step back and make the same choice I did.  Leave for awhile and evaluate what you want to do.  Do you want to partake under the structure as you know it or do you not want to?  It's simple. You didn't put the sweat equity into the site and neither did I.  You don't put the long hours into the site and neither do I.  

I chose to partake and not b*tch.  What's your choice?  


=====
edit:  the page of posts following this seem to have disappeared....odd.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on June 06, 2009, 08:14:13 PM
If I may, I would like to comment on the rules within the Current Events forum. I think, in order to understand why the rules exist you really need to have been at Celticsblog back when political forums were always allowed and what transpired. It was not pretty. Often the debate got very heated on both sides and broke down into name calling and dashing of one's beliefs and ideals. Nasty is not a good enough word for some of the stuff that went down.

So, Jeff made a decision that I thought at the time was the wrong decision and banned the entire forum. Come to find out after PMing some of the mods, they were spending nearly all their time and effort moderating the political forum only and it was taking up too much time and leading to too much bad blood.

After a while it was clear to see that Celticsblog became a much better place to be around. But Jeff changed his mind. I have no idea why, maybe sites hits were down and he needed more hits to generate ad revenue. Maybe he figured it would keep the diehards around for the slow times. Maybe he just had a change of heart. I don't know. I don't care. But he changed his mind.

But Jeff and the mods learned and wrote up an explicit set of rules to be followed. In their defense, I am sure the mods knew who some of the people who sparked controversy were and who the people who couldn't articulate their opinions without being belligerent, insulting and just plain unreasonable. So my guess is a lot of those guys got quick hooks though I know a lot also stopped frequenting this site.

The reason people got banned had nothing to do with ideology but the manner in which they attempted to articulate their ideas. Yes, there were some very right leaning guys that were banned. But those guys were given short leases I am sure because of what they used to do in the older forums. Some old dogs just can't be taught new tricks.

I will even give an example: iowa plowboy. iowa was as far right leaning as they came and had no problem telling anyone who disagreed with his very conservative views that they were plum idiots. But iowa and I became tight through PMs and that was just the way he expressed himself. He wasn't trying to be insulting, he just came off that way in forums. He is actually a helluva nice guy with a great American family from the midwest.

Others, and I'll give another example, MikeDfromNP, though I can't remember if he partook of the new forums, was a officer in the armed forces and had a very right leaning view as well. But Mike, unlike iowa, wasn't exactly a nice guy. He tried to be insulting and condescending and didn't care who knew it. Boy that guy could debate though.

So as much as those two people had a conservative, right wing, Republican ideology, it wasn't that ideology that got them or would have got them banned. It was their tone and form of communication.

I will admit, at times I call politicians and writers names. I probably shouldn't because it will inflame people and as I have been scolded on PM before, I know better. You see, cordobes, that is something that you have no knowledge of. You do not know how many times a PM is sent out to reprimand someone for saying something.

I have gotten couple of PMs about being a not so nice guy in the past and for being obtuse. The mods were right, I was. But they did it in private and no one ever knew about it. I have been called part of the CB elitist clique here by one or two posters and they probably think I can say whatever I want whenever I want. But I can't and have learned what to say and not say from the PMs I have received because I have been told to what it more than once.

But no one here knows that. I know for a fact that a few other left leaning guys have gotten PMs about discussing certain subjects a certain way. So it is not a right/left thing. It is about the way in which you say things not the things that you say that will get you thrown out of the Current Events forum.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 08:25:15 PM
To clear up a couple things:

1.  Jeff decided to reverse himself and allow political discussions because myself and the majority of the rest of the staff asked him to.  As a pre-condition to that, we all collectively decided to institute strict rules, and to confine political discussion to one forum.  Revenue was never part of the discussion.

2. A grand total of three posters have had their access to the political forums restricted.  In each case, it had nothing to do with ideology. 

The staff doesn't moderate based upon viewpoint, period.  nick is absolutely correct that we communicate with members of all political persuasions.  I'm sure there are several liberal-leaning members of the blog who would readily voice their disagreements with some of the staff's decisions in their regard.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 09:02:24 PM
Also, while on the subject if a mod locks or deletes a thread then it becomes harder to see what you supposedly did.

Unless I'm mistaken here, I believe a locked thread is still visible to all, it just can't be added to.

maybe what I meant was a deleted thread. Or something. I could have sworn something like this happened
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 09:08:11 PM
Here's the thing, though:  the staff doesn't read every post.  Unless something is reported, there's a good chance we'll miss it.  There's no bias if the staff isn't given a chance to edit the post.

EDIT:  Here's the post I'm seeing:  "We allowed stupid, greedy dishonest people to run the country for the last 8 years."  Was there another one?

That's a far cry from calling all conservatives stupid and greedy.  Now, whether the Bush administration fell into that category is a matter of debate, and I'm not sure how the staff would have responded if the comment was reported.  I haven't examined the thread, for instance, to see how the post was supported, what the context was, etc.  It's not necessarily against the rules to call a politician stupid, or greedy, or dishonest; rather, it's about the manner and context in which such arguments are made.

If the post had been reported, the issue would have been examined.  It wasn't reported, and it was overlooked.  To suggest that it belies some anti-conservative bias is silly.

Speaking as a conservative, I can say that many of the people who ran the country over the past 8 years were indeed greedy and dishonest.  I tend not to think that most people at the highest levels are stupid, but I guess it's a matter of debate.

Well speaking as a conservative I can say that many of the people who ran the country for the last 100 days were indeed greedy and dishonest.

Hey wait. As I look over the rules....Do not engage in partisan attacks, unsupported generalizations...all claims must be supported by facts and/or an argument..discipline, including suspension or banning from Celticsblog on a site-wide basis, will be at the discretion of the staff....to disable your access to the forum, contact Roy Hobbs, who will remove your access privileges.

Or maybe that's just in the Current Events forum and we aren't there right now
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 09:11:10 PM
BTW, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think there really is a liberal bias by the staff, when the most ever-present member of the staff happens to be one of the more conservative posters on the entire site.  We all go out of our way to make sure our personal bias does not affect our moderating, and if it ever does, we have a very diverse staff to call each other out on it.

I don't dispute you believe that; the examples I've provided prove you just aren't successful.

Oh, I don't think they prove anything other than that we miss things.

Roy was saying something to the effect that they see things more easily when people report things. Maybe liberals report more than conservatives. That would make sense to me.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 09:18:00 PM
It should have been addressed. I can't offer much more than an apology, and an encouragement to report this stuff if/when you see it, so it can be addressed.

I wouldn't advise anyone to do this. That's what I did, by pointing out to a moderator a post that, in my opinion, was being overlooked and the consequence was that I was banned for suggesting the moderators were being biased.

We can discuss the details in private, because we have a policy about discussing these things in the public forum, but I will say that this is 100% incorrect.  

I think there's something I don't understand in this post and I'll look for the rule. I'm not sure what you mean by "these things" and it seems a mixed message when combined with Roy saying he'd welcome a discussion in this thread
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on June 06, 2009, 09:19:57 PM
It should have been addressed. I can't offer much more than an apology, and an encouragement to report this stuff if/when you see it, so it can be addressed.

I wouldn't advise anyone to do this. That's what I did, by pointing out to a moderator a post that, in my opinion, was being overlooked and the consequence was that I was banned for suggesting the moderators were being biased.

We can discuss the details in private, because we have a policy about discussing these things in the public forum, but I will say that this is 100% incorrect.  

I think there's something I don't understand in this post and I'll look for the rule. I'm not sure what you mean by "these things" and it seems a mixed message when combined with Roy saying he'd welcome a discussion in this thread

By "these things", I am referring to specific disciplinary actions taken by the staff, concerning individual posters.  We do not discuss them in the public forum.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 09:20:28 PM
As I said, you're being intentionally difficult, and are twisting the words and actions of the staff.  Indeed, you're lying about things that were said / done in the past, for the sole purpose of giving the staff a hard time / making us look bad.  There's no doubt in my mind that you know the distinction between criticizing another poster and criticizing a politician, and your continued effort to cast the staff as hypocrites is a shallow effort to challenge our authority.

You are to cease and desist with this line of debate.  If you want to have a legitimate discussion about the rules -- which would require you to stop posturing and behave honestly -- I invite you to do so via PM.  However, please take note that continued lies and misdirection directed towards the staff in this thread will result in discipline against your account.  Move on.


Why are you concerned about "looking bad"? I think the only thing that "looks bad" is this post.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 09:21:48 PM
Cordobes,

Listen......

I have an issue with the way the Mods handled one of my posts -- it really irked me to no end and I signed off for more than a month.

Celticsblog is not run by me and I don't make the rules, if I want to participate in this community I know that I have to follow their rules....as gray as I may think they are.  I have elected to participate for I think that it's better than the alternative.

Step back and make the same choice I did.  Leave for awhile and evaluate what you want to do.  Do you want to partake under the structure as you know it or do you not want to?  It's simple. You didn't put the sweat equity into the site and neither did I.  You don't put the long hours into the site and neither do I.  

I chose to partake and not b*tch.  What's your choice?  


=====
edit:  the page of posts following this seem to have disappeared....odd.

I don't think the issue in a sense was following or respecting the rules, but that mods follow their own.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 06, 2009, 09:23:24 PM
It should have been addressed. I can't offer much more than an apology, and an encouragement to report this stuff if/when you see it, so it can be addressed.

I wouldn't advise anyone to do this. That's what I did, by pointing out to a moderator a post that, in my opinion, was being overlooked and the consequence was that I was banned for suggesting the moderators were being biased.

We can discuss the details in private, because we have a policy about discussing these things in the public forum, but I will say that this is 100% incorrect.  

I think there's something I don't understand in this post and I'll look for the rule. I'm not sure what you mean by "these things" and it seems a mixed message when combined with Roy saying he'd welcome a discussion in this thread

By "these things", I am referring to specific disciplinary actions taken by the staff, concerning individual posters.  We do not discuss them in the public forum.

Oh Ok. Thanks. I would have thought the purpose was to protect the privacy of the guy getting spoken to, so that if he asks publicly then you can tell him publicly, but maybe that's not the reason
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on June 06, 2009, 09:34:38 PM
moderating this board is a hard, thankless, time consuming job

much like referees, it is subjective and the ones that get warned or punished will probably be upset, even if they know they are wrong

Still, I think the staff does a heck of a lot better job than NBA refs, though I ask everyone to remember that mods are allowed to make mistakes.  To lessen the mistakes, they do a great job of checks and balances as well - we always try to discuss the more difficult issues amongst ourselves before taking action.

I'm very proud of what the staff here does and they have my full support.  They are responsible for creating the relatively peaceful, friendly environment (there will always be exceptions) that we all enjoy here.

please support the mods by working with them (cooperating respectfully, using the report button, etc.) as opposed to against them (for example by engaging in flame wars) as much as possible - thanks
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on June 06, 2009, 09:38:15 PM
i will make this str8 to the point....

1. the blog has rules, if you cant follow them or dont like them, maybe this isnt the place for you.

2. be respectful of others.

3.  LIGHTEN UP!!!! its only a message board.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on June 06, 2009, 09:54:10 PM
Really my first experience as a moderator with an all on, full blown, assault on the way we (moderators) do things.  It sorta sucks that people are disgruntled with the way we do things.  I feel like we all put in a pretty honest effort at keeping things square back here. 

Mods have feelings to you know    :'( :'( :'( :'(

Seriously though, I'm not crying in my pillow over anything that happens in this forum, but the peacefulness of this place is a genuine concern for me, and I know for [dang] sure my fellow moderators. For a pretty large community, this is a great place, that we all value, but when the values that make this place are attacked, they need to be upheld.

Not always an easy thing to do.  But that's the deal.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on June 06, 2009, 09:57:31 PM
Really my first experience as a moderator with an all on, full blown, assault on the way we (moderators) do things.  It sorta sucks that people are disgruntled with the way we do things.  I feel like we all put in a pretty honest effort at keeping things square back here. 

Mods have feelings to you know    :'( :'( :'( :'(

Seriously though, I'm not crying in my pillow over anything that happens in this forum, but the peacefulness of this place is a genuine concern for me, and I know for [dang] sure my fellow moderators. For a pretty large community, this is a great place, that we all value, but when the values that make this place are attacked, they need to be upheld.

Not always an easy thing to do.  But that's the deal.
Score me as one who is thankful for you guys. WTG mods. Your job is truly under appreciated and thankless. It's sorta like being a dad, I guess.

TP's 2 U all.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SSFan V on June 06, 2009, 10:44:55 PM
Cordobes,

Listen......

I have an issue with the way the Mods handled one of my posts -- it really irked me to no end and I signed off for more than a month.

Celticsblog is not run by me and I don't make the rules, if I want to participate in this community I know that I have to follow their rules....as gray as I may think they are.  I have elected to participate for I think that it's better than the alternative.

Step back and make the same choice I did.  Leave for awhile and evaluate what you want to do.  Do you want to partake under the structure as you know it or do you not want to?  It's simple. You didn't put the sweat equity into the site and neither did I.  You don't put the long hours into the site and neither do I.  

I chose to partake and not b*tch.  What's your choice?  


=====
edit:  the page of posts following this seem to have disappeared....odd.

I don't think the issue in a sense was following or respecting the rules, but that mods follow their own.

EJA, I sincerely don't think the mods follow their own rules, but I do think that the gray area fluctuates immensely.  I also think there's been times that it's fluctuated in my favor and times that it hasn't.  So be it.

Jeff owns (perhaps with others) the playground.  The mods run the playground and they are in charge of the equipment.  They give us a list of rules -- whether or not we want to play on the playground is our choice.  Even if we think the rules fluctuate, its our choice to stay and play or go elsewhere.  The uncool thing to do is to stay and fight....there's enough other playgrounds that we can go to instead of doing that.

Right, wrong or indifferent that's the way it is and I've elected to play.....

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on June 06, 2009, 10:47:25 PM
Cordobes,

Listen......

I have an issue with the way the Mods handled one of my posts -- it really irked me to no end and I signed off for more than a month.

Celticsblog is not run by me and I don't make the rules, if I want to participate in this community I know that I have to follow their rules....as gray as I may think they are.  I have elected to participate for I think that it's better than the alternative.

Step back and make the same choice I did.  Leave for awhile and evaluate what you want to do.  Do you want to partake under the structure as you know it or do you not want to?  It's simple. You didn't put the sweat equity into the site and neither did I.  You don't put the long hours into the site and neither do I.  

I chose to partake and not b*tch.  What's your choice?  


=====
edit:  the page of posts following this seem to have disappeared....odd.

I don't think the issue in a sense was following or respecting the rules, but that mods follow their own.

EJA, I sincerely don't think the mods follow their own rules, but I do think that the gray area fluctuates immensely.  I also think there's been times that it's fluctuated in my favor and times that it hasn't.  So be it.

Jeff owns (perhaps with others) the playground.  The mods run the playground and they are in charge of the equipment.  They give us a list of rules -- whether or not we want to play on the playground is our choice.  Even if we think the rules fluctuate, its our choice to stay and play or go elsewhere.  The uncool thing to do is to stay and fight....there's enough other playgrounds that we can go to instead of doing that.

Right, wrong or indifferent that's the way it is and I've elected to play.....


Well....as long as this playground has monkeybars. I gotta have me my monkeybars when I'm at the playground.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SSFan V on June 06, 2009, 10:54:50 PM
Cordobes,

Listen......

I have an issue with the way the Mods handled one of my posts -- it really irked me to no end and I signed off for more than a month.

Celticsblog is not run by me and I don't make the rules, if I want to participate in this community I know that I have to follow their rules....as gray as I may think they are.  I have elected to participate for I think that it's better than the alternative.

Step back and make the same choice I did.  Leave for awhile and evaluate what you want to do.  Do you want to partake under the structure as you know it or do you not want to?  It's simple. You didn't put the sweat equity into the site and neither did I.  You don't put the long hours into the site and neither do I.  

I chose to partake and not b*tch.  What's your choice?  


=====
edit:  the page of posts following this seem to have disappeared....odd.

I don't think the issue in a sense was following or respecting the rules, but that mods follow their own.

EJA, I sincerely don't think the mods follow their own rules, but I do think that the gray area fluctuates immensely.  I also think there's been times that it's fluctuated in my favor and times that it hasn't.  So be it.

Jeff owns (perhaps with others) the playground.  The mods run the playground and they are in charge of the equipment.  They give us a list of rules -- whether or not we want to play on the playground is our choice.  Even if we think the rules fluctuate, its our choice to stay and play or go elsewhere.  The uncool thing to do is to stay and fight....there's enough other playgrounds that we can go to instead of doing that.

Right, wrong or indifferent that's the way it is and I've elected to play.....


Well....as long as this playground has monkeybars. I gotta have me my monkeybars when I'm at the playground.

 ;) TP

(of course, I ain't doing myself any favors regarding the TP pageant....oh well)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on June 06, 2009, 10:59:22 PM
Cordobes,

Listen......

I have an issue with the way the Mods handled one of my posts -- it really irked me to no end and I signed off for more than a month.

Celticsblog is not run by me and I don't make the rules, if I want to participate in this community I know that I have to follow their rules....as gray as I may think they are.  I have elected to participate for I think that it's better than the alternative.

Step back and make the same choice I did.  Leave for awhile and evaluate what you want to do.  Do you want to partake under the structure as you know it or do you not want to?  It's simple. You didn't put the sweat equity into the site and neither did I.  You don't put the long hours into the site and neither do I.  

I chose to partake and not b*tch.  What's your choice?  


=====
edit:  the page of posts following this seem to have disappeared....odd.

I don't think the issue in a sense was following or respecting the rules, but that mods follow their own.

EJA, I sincerely don't think the mods follow their own rules, but I do think that the gray area fluctuates immensely.  I also think there's been times that it's fluctuated in my favor and times that it hasn't.  So be it.

Jeff owns (perhaps with others) the playground.  The mods run the playground and they are in charge of the equipment.  They give us a list of rules -- whether or not we want to play on the playground is our choice.  Even if we think the rules fluctuate, its our choice to stay and play or go elsewhere.  The uncool thing to do is to stay and fight....there's enough other playgrounds that we can go to instead of doing that.

Right, wrong or indifferent that's the way it is and I've elected to play.....


Well....as long as this playground has monkeybars. I gotta have me my monkeybars when I'm at the playground.

Monkey bars are highly overrated Nick.  All I ever needed was a ball and a bunch of kids running after me in a game of "kill the guy with the ball".  I was unstoppable at kill the guy with the ball.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on June 06, 2009, 11:04:44 PM
Cordobes,

Listen......

I have an issue with the way the Mods handled one of my posts -- it really irked me to no end and I signed off for more than a month.

Celticsblog is not run by me and I don't make the rules, if I want to participate in this community I know that I have to follow their rules....as gray as I may think they are.  I have elected to participate for I think that it's better than the alternative.

Step back and make the same choice I did.  Leave for awhile and evaluate what you want to do.  Do you want to partake under the structure as you know it or do you not want to?  It's simple. You didn't put the sweat equity into the site and neither did I.  You don't put the long hours into the site and neither do I.  

I chose to partake and not b*tch.  What's your choice?  


=====
edit:  the page of posts following this seem to have disappeared....odd.

I don't think the issue in a sense was following or respecting the rules, but that mods follow their own.

EJA, I sincerely don't think the mods follow their own rules, but I do think that the gray area fluctuates immensely.  I also think there's been times that it's fluctuated in my favor and times that it hasn't.  So be it.

Jeff owns (perhaps with others) the playground.  The mods run the playground and they are in charge of the equipment.  They give us a list of rules -- whether or not we want to play on the playground is our choice.  Even if we think the rules fluctuate, its our choice to stay and play or go elsewhere.  The uncool thing to do is to stay and fight....there's enough other playgrounds that we can go to instead of doing that.

Right, wrong or indifferent that's the way it is and I've elected to play.....


Well....as long as this playground has monkeybars. I gotta have me my monkeybars when I'm at the playground.

Monkey bars are highly overrated Nick.  All I ever needed was a ball and a bunch of kids running after me in a game of "kill the guy with the ball".  I was unstoppable at kill the guy with the ball.


I always liked the see-saw.  Only took out one other kid with that.  (that's what you get for playing with the little brother of a player on the other softball team)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 06, 2009, 11:16:31 PM
I thought moderators were hall monitors.  This playground stuff has me all confused.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticmaestro on June 07, 2009, 10:17:23 AM
I seem to have missed a lot of what's been going on here, but:

i will make this str8 to the point....

1. the blog has rules, if you cant follow them or dont like them, maybe this isnt the place for you.

2. be respectful of others.

3.  LIGHTEN UP!!!! its only a message board.

What he said.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 16, 2009, 11:18:09 AM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 16, 2009, 11:21:59 AM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ACF on June 16, 2009, 11:23:56 AM
How about

http://baller-in-chief.com/ ?

I like it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chief on June 16, 2009, 11:33:01 AM
How about

http://baller-in-chief.com/ ?

I like it.

I find this offensive.  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 16, 2009, 11:36:38 AM
How about

http://baller-in-chief.com/ ?

I like it.

I find this offensive.  ;)

Oh that's hillarious!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on June 16, 2009, 11:37:03 AM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I have never seen the abbreviation PUSA used for the President of the United States. POTUS I have seen before. I still think it was a shot at calling President Obama a name by those who are anti-Obama(or as that OP put it, BHO, who he is CLEARLY against)especially considering that after that the OP went on to discuss that the president would be doing nothing and that seems to be a common attacking point of Obama's detractors.

I just don't see why posters have to go there, if indeed he was. Why can't we just discuss the issues without the digs. Hey, if you are against Obama's stance on soemthing say so but there's no reason for the veiled shots at the leader of the other political party.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 16, 2009, 11:38:58 AM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.

true. Spirit of the rules issues have their place. Also President Rose Bush was a stupid example. He has nothing to do with roses. Except the Rose Garden.

Are we allowed to make disparaging comments about people nobody likes, like Bernie Madoff, Stalin, and Barry Bonds?  Maybe Bonds isn't universally disliked enough. If someone did this I'd just expect a non-call from the mods. Jeff's example of mods as refs is making more sense to me now
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ACF on June 16, 2009, 11:47:29 AM
How about

http://baller-in-chief.com/ ?

I like it.

I find this offensive.  ;)

LOL
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on June 16, 2009, 11:50:33 AM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I have never seen the abbreviation PUSA used for the President of the United States. POTUS I have seen before. I still think it was a shot at calling President Obama a name by those who are anti-Obama(or as that OP put it, BHO, who he is CLEARLY against)especially considering that after that the OP went on to discuss that the president would be doing nothing and that seems to be a common attacking point of Obama's detractors.

I just don't see why posters have to go there, if indeed he was. Why can't we just discuss the issues with the digs. Hey, if you are against Obama's stance on soemthing say so but there's no reason for the veiled shots at the leader of the other political party.

I've seen POTUS before but never until this moment did I know what it meant. I thought it was a vaguely religious sounding term, with a strong hint of authority and just a glimmer of austentacious ceremony. Potus. Potus Jean Paul the Second. Sounds about right.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on June 16, 2009, 12:24:45 PM
I have never seen the abbreviation PUSA used for the President of the United States.

Link:  http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/President+of+the+United+States+of+America

Regardless of whether it was meant as an insult, it's a validly recognized acronym. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 16, 2009, 12:42:08 PM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.

Oh wait. Now I remember what I was thinking. I could see someone getting upset if one group gets to use a respectful nickname for their guy like "the Decider" or something for Bush, and the other group can't use their nickname. Hence if you are suggesting no nicknames, then I could see that
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: crownsy on June 16, 2009, 01:07:43 PM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.

true. Spirit of the rules issues have their place. Also President Rose Bush was a stupid example. He has nothing to do with roses. Except the Rose Garden.

Are we allowed to make disparaging comments about people nobody likes, like Bernie Madoff, Stalin, and Barry Bonds?  Maybe Bonds isn't universally disliked enough. If someone did this I'd just expect a non-call from the mods. Jeff's example of mods as refs is making more sense to me now

But why must we make disparaging comments? Why can't we just debate the issues based on our views, which is what 99% of the posts in the current events forum do, from both sides of the isle?

I have never once seen any action takin in the curent events forum for debunking a stance made by a political figure or poster using a fact based argument. Thats diffrent than posts like this:

Quote
It is very easy to win a discussion with liberals. Just keep pointing to the facts and eventually they will walk away. The only way they can argue is with blanket statements and twisted stats.

are not productive, and directly disparage a group for no reason with no facts. It's the same with qoutes like from the left leaning posters:

Quote
The world thought he did, but he didnt.  I dont doubt that he hoodwinked everyone, because he did.  Their is never a single reason for going to war, but the WMD's that he supposedly had was a large justifying reason that was advanced.

Those are both blanket statements that have no factual basis and do nothing but attempt to stir up the other side. Those are clearly not allowed, and both were dealt with (names removed because it's not important).

But well argued posts that debunk people/ polocies like this:

Quote
What it suggests to me is one more administration that is going to put corruption, patronage, and partisanship ahead of the American people.  Obama has a real opportunity here -- he's got more "political capital" than any president since Reagan, at the very least -- and now he's set about a course of destroying that good will by appointing corrupt cronies to positions of power.  Yes, results matter, but so does transparency, integrity, and the rule of law.

Interestingly, people weren't using the "results matter" logic when they were criticizing Bush for taking away civil rights in the name of protecting against terrorism.  I've been encouraged to see the broad disappointment in this thread; if more of the American people showed the integrity of left-leaning folks like SSF4.0, nick, Chris, and others, Obama would be forced to do something about this.  Unfortunately, though, most Americans couldn't care less, and that's why we're going to have one more administration of shameful government.

That gets the poster's point across and his concerns about the current political climate without resulting to namecalling, but rather relying on actually addressing the issues.

It's a fine line, polotics do get heated, and i think the mods do a good job walking it.
 




Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on June 16, 2009, 01:15:38 PM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.

Oh wait. Now I remember what I was thinking. I could see someone getting upset if one group gets to use a respectful nickname for their guy like "the Decider" or something for Bush, and the other group can't use their nickname. Hence if you are suggesting no nicknames, then I could see that

Well, they shouldn't get upset at that.  The goal is to keep things civil here.  I have never heard of someone getting upset or offended by using a respectful nickname for someone, however, it can incite flame-wars, if people start throwing out disrespectful nicknames.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 16, 2009, 01:23:21 PM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.

Oh wait. Now I remember what I was thinking. I could see someone getting upset if one group gets to use a respectful nickname for their guy like "the Decider" or something for Bush, and the other group can't use their nickname. Hence if you are suggesting no nicknames, then I could see that

Well, they shouldn't get upset at that.  The goal is to keep things civil here.  I have never heard of someone getting upset or offended by using a respectful nickname for someone, however, it can incite flame-wars, if people start throwing out disrespectful nicknames.



I didn't think of it that way. Plus to me if you are uncivil towards a politician that doesn't mean you're being disrespectful to others, but I could see how others wouldn't agree. I get annoyed when people attack what I like, but I always felt like if I could do it back then it was fair.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Thruthelookingglass on June 16, 2009, 01:26:31 PM
I've been following this discussion for a while now and Crownsy's excerpts and explanations are clarifying and helpful. 

It boils down to showing a little respect to your readers.  Calling someone names is not persuasive.  We can offer opinions on motives and still be respectful. All it takes is a little self control.  We can offer opinions on policies with the understanding that reasonable people can disagree.  Making up derogatory terms for political opponents/icons like "Obamatons" or Jack-booted GOP thugs" is similarly not persuasive. 

And if a post is not truly intended for information or persuasion, I pretty much expect it will not be within the spirit of the rules governing conduct on this blog.  Crownsy nails it:  it isn't so darned hard to identify a problem post.

Last, splitting hairs isn't likely to win anyone the "most wise" award.  Don't like the acronym BHO?  Would you rather just BO?  If I was the PUSA (or POTUS) I definitely would prefer BHO instead of being associated with "body odor."  These are all legitimate acronyms even if one of them doesn't float someone's ideological boat. 

Thanks Crownsy, good post.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 16, 2009, 01:27:55 PM
But crownsy using blanket statements and disparaging remarks are two different things.

I'd think if you're a politician or something disparaging remarks come with the territory. It's very hard to respect some of them.

I remember when Dole and Clinton were running against each other and Lettermen was like "Here for a public service announcement are the dancing singing albinos" and they sang "Dole is a cranky old man!" and then he band leader was like "Well in the interest of equal time don't we have to do a Clinton one now" and then they came out and sang "Clinton is a big fat slob".  The disparaged people were albinos.

Disparaging comments have a long and glorius tradition in American politics, so I just assumed we'd have it but I can see why I'd be wrong.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on June 16, 2009, 01:30:37 PM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.

Oh wait. Now I remember what I was thinking. I could see someone getting upset if one group gets to use a respectful nickname for their guy like "the Decider" or something for Bush, and the other group can't use their nickname. Hence if you are suggesting no nicknames, then I could see that

Well, they shouldn't get upset at that.  The goal is to keep things civil here.  I have never heard of someone getting upset or offended by using a respectful nickname for someone, however, it can incite flame-wars, if people start throwing out disrespectful nicknames.



I didn't think of it that way. Plus to me if you are uncivil towards a politician that doesn't mean you're being disrespectful to others, but I could see how others wouldn't agree. I get annoyed when people attack what I like, but I always felt like if I could do it back then it was fair.

Well, there is a lot of grey area there.  The problem is that many of the disrespectful nicknames thrown around at politicians in the past have not been directed just at that particular politician, but have been degrading in some way to the entire party they represent.  And sometimes its just innapropriate in general.

As far as being able to attack back when someone annoys you, while that may (or may not) work in real life, it just leads to anarchy on forums like that.  The anonymity that the internet provides often empowers people to cross lines they would never cross in real life, and this ussually leads to flame wars that destroy intelligent discussions, and ruins the time of those people who really want to discuss the issues.  

There is absolutely nothing worse than participating in a very interesting thread, and then having one or two posters take it over, and turn it into a personal battle of insults.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: crownsy on June 16, 2009, 01:31:33 PM
But crownsy using blanket statements and disparaging remarks are two different things.

I'd think if you're a politician or something disparaging remarks come with the territory. It's very hard to respect some of them.


I remember when Dole and Clinton were running against each other and Lettermen was like "Here for a public service announcement are the dancing singing albinos" and they sang "Dole is a cranky old man!" and then he band leader was like "Well in the interest of equal time don't we have to do a Clinton one now" and then they came out and sang "Clinton is a big fat slob".  The disparaged people were albinos.

Disparaging comments have a long and glorius tradition in American politics, so I just assumed we'd have it but I can see why I'd be wrong.

See, i get what your saying, but i don't agree with the bolded statement. I don't believe you need to insult people to get your point across.

I agree that the current events forum is ultra touchy on the "sarcasm as humor" posts, but that's because, if you look back through those threads that get locked, the sarcastic comments that would be fun in a sports thread suddenly become very personal and volatile in a political forum.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 16, 2009, 01:43:04 PM
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.

Oh wait. Now I remember what I was thinking. I could see someone getting upset if one group gets to use a respectful nickname for their guy like "the Decider" or something for Bush, and the other group can't use their nickname. Hence if you are suggesting no nicknames, then I could see that

Well, they shouldn't get upset at that.  The goal is to keep things civil here.  I have never heard of someone getting upset or offended by using a respectful nickname for someone, however, it can incite flame-wars, if people start throwing out disrespectful nicknames.



I didn't think of it that way. Plus to me if you are uncivil towards a politician that doesn't mean you're being disrespectful to others, but I could see how others wouldn't agree. I get annoyed when people attack what I like, but I always felt like if I could do it back then it was fair.

Well, there is a lot of grey area there.  The problem is that many of the disrespectful nicknames thrown around at politicians in the past have not been directed just at that particular politician, but have been degrading in some way to the entire party they represent.  And sometimes its just innapropriate in general.

As far as being able to attack back when someone annoys you, while that may (or may not) work in real life, it just leads to anarchy on forums like that.  The anonymity that the internet provides often empowers people to cross lines they would never cross in real life, and this ussually leads to flame wars that destroy intelligent discussions, and ruins the time of those people who really want to discuss the issues.  

There is absolutely nothing worse than participating in a very interesting thread, and then having one or two posters take it over, and turn it into a personal battle of insults.

I always just filtered those things out in my mind and focused on good posters, but it definitely takes a lot of space and that stuff doesn't happen as much in newspapers, and it's partly what ruins talk radio.
Plus I guess it's still fair when both groups can respect their guy and don't get to disrespect the other.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on June 16, 2009, 03:14:52 PM


Last, splitting hairs isn't likely to win anyone the "most wise" award.  Don't like the acronym BHO?  Would you rather just BO?  If I was the PUSA (or POTUS) I definitely would prefer BHO instead of being associated with "body odor."  These are all legitimate acronyms even if one of them doesn't float someone's ideological boat. 

Thanks Crownsy, good post.


The reason I brought up my concerns were because of how the acronyms were used in the original post of the Iran thread. At the time I had no idea what BHO, PUSA, Rham E and some other language used in the post were.

The reason I thought the acronyms might have been a bit insulting is first, the way they were used:

Quote
Second: what should PUSA be doing? Currently he appears to be voting president. And while Rham E said "never let a good crisis go to waste" - that appears to be the current plan in place at the white house. What should we be doing?

Quote
As loyal opposition (me) or supporters of BHO (everyone else ) I think we (those who are American) have an obligation to push for BHO to do the right thing, and part of that is figuring out what the right thing is.


The poster is an admitted opponent of the president and nowhere in the post did he refer to the president as President Obama or Mr. Obama or even Obama or Barrack. He only uses acronyms. "what should PUSA be doing? Currently he appears to be voting president." "As loyal opposition (me) or supporters of BHO (everyone else )." And lets face it, neither use is exactly flattering and BHO is used to emphasize the H as in Hussein which opponents of the president love doing to passively aggresively portray the president as Muslim.

If you think I'm not being wise in mentioning it or that I'm just splitting hairs, fine. But I still contend that it was the intent to show disrespect to the president and not just to save time writing the words "President" or "President Obama" or "Obama". Especially given the fact that the poster had no problem spelling out the words "Dinner Jacket" in order to disparage the president of Iran.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: angryguy77 on June 16, 2009, 04:18:14 PM
My question to the mods about this is: Why do we have to respect the president, whe he disrespects our nation on his latest apology tour?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on June 16, 2009, 04:39:03 PM
My question to the mods about this is: Why do we have to respect the president, whe he disrespects our nation on his latest apology tour?

For the same reason we ask you to be respectful of everyone (except Kobe).  Feel free to disagree on his policies and state your dismay, but that can be done without directly calling him a poopyhead or whatever.  If you state your case well, your opinion of the man should be pretty clear.

edit - ok...kobe too
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on June 16, 2009, 04:44:36 PM
My question to the mods about this is: Why do we have to respect the president, whe he disrespects our nation on his latest apology tour?

For the same reason we ask you to be respectful of everyone (except Kobe).  Feel free to disagree on his policies and state your dismay, but that can be done without directly calling him a poopyhead or whatever.  If you state your case well, your opinion of the man should be pretty clear.

edit - ok...kobe too

I think it's kind of funny that Kobe is actually specifically mentioned in the rules, and I think somewhere it was stated you can't call anyone a clown, except you, though I think Roy called a player a clown the other day. I don't remember which player. But the player really was a clown in the sense that Roy used it. Possibly Artest
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on June 16, 2009, 04:53:17 PM
My question to the mods about this is: Why do we have to respect the president, whe he disrespects our nation on his latest apology tour?

For the same reason we ask you to be respectful of everyone (except Kobe).  Feel free to disagree on his policies and state your dismay, but that can be done without directly calling him a poopyhead or whatever.  If you state your case well, your opinion of the man should be pretty clear.

edit - ok...kobe too

I think it's kind of funny that Kobe is actually specifically mentioned in the rules, and I think somewhere it was stated you can't call anyone a clown, except you, though I think Roy called a player a clown the other day. I don't remember which player. But the player really was a clown in the sense that Roy used it. Possibly Artest

There is some reference being referred to by a nickname involving his legal history.

And yeh, feel free to call me a clown legally.   :D
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on July 05, 2009, 04:55:47 PM
I'd like to propose if you want to criticize mods do it here and if you do it in threads meant to honor recently murdered highly respected people then you get an auto suspension of something like a month.

That was embarrassing. I can't believe a thread for Steve McNair had to be locked. It was like the mods had to split the thread to allow people to criticize them for enforcing posted rules
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Rondoholic on July 05, 2009, 04:58:17 PM
I'd like to propose if you want to criticize mods do it here and if you do it in threads meant to honor recently murdered highly respected people then you get an auto suspension of something like a month.

That was embarrassing. I can't believe a thread for Steve McNair had to be locked. It was like the mods had to split the thread to allow people to criticize them for enforcing posted rules

Agreed.  That was so ridiculous.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SSFan V on July 23, 2009, 08:08:28 AM
indirectly I have some thoughts on the subject at my blog about Proverbs and Pslams

http://doughnutholes.wordpress.com/

Why can we randomly and intelligently talk about the topic of religion but we can't randomly and intelligently talk about topics such as the passing of an adult movie star? 

I find this very hypocritical.  Both can be considered divisive and both can be considered inflammatory.  Both can be considered quite private and both when put out into the public can cause strong feelings one way or another.  Yet, only one of the two has been the cause of hatred and wars that have ruined the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

I think the subject of religion should be a non topic on Celticsblog or if you are going to allow one controversial subject you allow all.

thank you.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on July 23, 2009, 08:22:06 AM
we went back and forth on that for a long time (religion/politics) and decided to let it be discussed

I however, want to run a PG, family friendly site, so adult film discussion is not what we're looking for here

my choice, blame me if you like
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on July 23, 2009, 08:24:13 AM
indirectly I have some thoughts on the subject at my blog about Proverbs and Pslams

http://doughnutholes.wordpress.com/

Why can we randomly and intelligently talk about the topic of religion but we can't randomly and intelligently talk about topics such as the passing of an adult movie star? 

I find this very hypocritical.  Both can be considered divisive and both can be considered inflammatory.  Both can be considered quite private and both when put out into the public can cause strong feelings one way or another.  Yet, only one of the two has been the cause of hatred and wars that have ruined the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

I think the subject of religion should be a non topic on Celticsblog or if you are going to allow one controversial subject you allow all.

thank you.

This blog has certain standards.  One of them is that we don't discuss p0rn.  I don't even understand the complaint you have; if we can discuss religion, we should be able to discuss p0rnography?  How so?  This blog is meant to be family friendly.  What that means in practical effect is that we don't allow swearing, we don't allow a lot of sexual innuendo or objectification of women, and we ask people to be respectful of one another.

This is Jeff's blog.  He's a man of faith, and he has every right to link to it.  He's far from heavy-handed about his spirituality, and I don't think this is an area where he deserves any criticism at all.

Regardless, though, Jeff's allowed to have any rules he wants around here.  It's up to individual posters to decide whether they can live with those rules, or whether they'd be best served on RealGM or another Celtics forum.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SSFan V on July 23, 2009, 08:36:51 AM
indirectly I have some thoughts on the subject at my blog about Proverbs and Pslams

http://doughnutholes.wordpress.com/

Why can we randomly and intelligently talk about the topic of religion but we can't randomly and intelligently talk about topics such as the passing of an adult movie star? 

I find this very hypocritical.  Both can be considered divisive and both can be considered inflammatory.  Both can be considered quite private and both when put out into the public can cause strong feelings one way or another.  Yet, only one of the two has been the cause of hatred and wars that have ruined the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

I think the subject of religion should be a non topic on Celticsblog or if you are going to allow one controversial subject you allow all.

thank you.

This blog has certain standards.  One of them is that we don't discuss p0rn.  I don't even understand the complaint you have; if we can discuss religion, we should be able to discuss p0rnography?  How so?  This blog is meant to be family friendly.  What that means in practical effect is that we don't allow swearing, we don't allow a lot of sexual innuendo or objectification of women, and we ask people to be respectful of one another.

This is Jeff's blog.  He's a man of faith, and he has every right to link to it.  He's far from heavy-handed about his spirituality, and I don't think this is an area where he deserves any criticism at all.

Regardless, though, Jeff's allowed to have any rules he wants around here.  It's up to individual posters to decide whether they can live with those rules, or whether they'd be best served on RealGM or another Celtics forum.

Roy I agree 100% and I have said so -- but I still find it hypocritical. 

As for my complaint -- it's not important because it does neither of us any good to rehash it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SSFan V on July 23, 2009, 08:52:20 AM
we went back and forth on that for a long time (religion/politics) and decided to let it be discussed

I however, want to run a PG, family friendly site, so adult film discussion is not what we're looking for here

my choice, blame me if you like

Jeff,

When necessary, I have been highly complimentary and I have been critical -- the key thing with either is not to take either too personally...thus I am not a big fan of assigning blame.

A few months ago my nose was bent out of shape because the mods determined that a post of mine was "not family friendly", and for a lack of a better term that really got me steamed, because I am pretty sure there's no one on this site more family friendly than I.  (equally - sure, but more, not a chance  :))

As I responded to Roy, it does none of us any good to rehash that event.  So I will stick with my belief that I find allowing one issue - an issue you agree with - to be discussed and not allowing other issues (and my issue was not p0rn, it was current events) not to be discussed, hypocritical at best.  I will also continue to believe that this is your playground and if we want to play here, we have to play by your rules...even if we roll our eyes while doing so.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on July 23, 2009, 08:59:50 AM
then feel free to roll your eyes and call me hypocritical if you like
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SSFan V on July 23, 2009, 09:00:43 AM
then feel free to roll your eyes and call me hypocritical if you like

TP
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: thebirdman on July 24, 2009, 12:24:22 PM
We don't allow discussion of the attractiveness / sex appeal of public figures, so this might be a tough thread to have.

May I ask why?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on July 24, 2009, 12:31:16 PM
I moved your question here thebirdman.

(a perusal of some of the discussion below will probably answer your question better than I can)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticmaestro on August 13, 2009, 03:41:39 PM
Umm.

Have you ever driven drunk?
Do you do drugs?

Thin line.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Hoyo de Monterrey on August 13, 2009, 04:31:43 PM
Umm.

Have you ever driven drunk?
Do you do drugs?

Thin line.

Don't normally hop in on rules threads and such, but this to me is a very valid point.

Tough call though.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 13, 2009, 04:33:21 PM
Umm.

Have you ever driven drunk?
Do you do drugs?

Thin line.

Don't normally hop in on rules threads and such, but this to me is a very valid point.

Tough call though.

The big distinction is that drunk driving isn't specifically prohibited by our rules, but discussion of personal drug use and discussion related to legalization is.  It's a long-standing thing.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on August 13, 2009, 04:35:12 PM
Umm.

Have you ever driven drunk?
Do you do drugs?

Thin line.

Don't normally hop in on rules threads and such, but this to me is a very valid point.

Tough call though.

The big distinction is that drunk driving isn't specifically prohibited by our rules, but discussion of personal drug use and discussion related to legalization is.  It's a long-standing thing.

i hear u hobbsy, but looking at the big picture, driving drunk and using illicit drugs are both illegal.  to me, they are in the same category. 

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on August 13, 2009, 05:14:00 PM
Umm.

Have you ever driven drunk?
Do you do drugs?

Thin line.

Don't normally hop in on rules threads and such, but this to me is a very valid point.

Tough call though.

The big distinction is that drunk driving isn't specifically prohibited by our rules, but discussion of personal drug use and discussion related to legalization is.  It's a long-standing thing.

i hear u hobbsy, but looking at the big picture, driving drunk and using illicit drugs are both illegal.  to me, they are in the same category. 



Seeing this now, I think it's a fair point, and points more to the notion that we should not have allowed the drunk driving thread, than it does that we should allow a drug use thread.

In retrospect I think it's valid that the DD shouldn't have been allowed. 

At least that's how I'll look at it, and will in the future for similar topics.


Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on August 13, 2009, 05:16:29 PM
Umm.

Have you ever driven drunk?
Do you do drugs?

Thin line.

Don't normally hop in on rules threads and such, but this to me is a very valid point.

Tough call though.

The big distinction is that drunk driving isn't specifically prohibited by our rules, but discussion of personal drug use and discussion related to legalization is.  It's a long-standing thing.

i hear u hobbsy, but looking at the big picture, driving drunk and using illicit drugs are both illegal.  to me, they are in the same category. 



Seeing this now, I think it's a fair point, and points more to the notion that we should not have allowed the drunk driving thread, than it does that we should allow a drug use thread.

In retrospect I think it's valid that the DD shouldn't have been allowed. 

At least that's how I'll look at it, and will in the future for similar topics.




i hear u redz and agree.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 13, 2009, 05:41:22 PM
Umm.

Have you ever driven drunk?
Do you do drugs?

Thin line.

Don't normally hop in on rules threads and such, but this to me is a very valid point.

Tough call though.

The big distinction is that drunk driving isn't specifically prohibited by our rules, but discussion of personal drug use and discussion related to legalization is.  It's a long-standing thing.

i hear u hobbsy, but looking at the big picture, driving drunk and using illicit drugs are both illegal.  to me, they are in the same category. 



Yeah, like I said, the only major difference is that one is specifically disallowed.  We've had a lot more problems with people talking about how drugs are cool and taking threads off-topic, than we have about alcohol use.

That being said, I basically agree with what Redz said, in that sharing personal stories of drunk driving is similar to sharing stories about drug use.  There's a difference, but not a huge one.

Obviously, though, the argument that "you allowed one, so you have to allow the other" is not a persuasive one.  Discussions of drug use are specifically prohibited by our rules, and we have to enforce them as written.  The ban on discussion of drug use / legalization of drugs is a long-standing rule, and one we've enforced clearly in the past.

Another thing:  I know people get offended whenever there threads are locked.  However, we can't play favorites, we can't keep threads up because we think they're interesting, and we can't decline to lock a thread because somebody has put a lot of work into them.  If a topic is prohibited by the rules, we're not going to allow it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on August 13, 2009, 05:42:56 PM
Umm.

Have you ever driven drunk?
Do you do drugs?

Thin line.

Don't normally hop in on rules threads and such, but this to me is a very valid point.

Tough call though.

The big distinction is that drunk driving isn't specifically prohibited by our rules, but discussion of personal drug use and discussion related to legalization is.  It's a long-standing thing.

i hear u hobbsy, but looking at the big picture, driving drunk and using illicit drugs are both illegal.  to me, they are in the same category. 



Yeah, like I said, the only major difference is that one is specifically disallowed.  We've had a lot more problems with people talking about how drugs are cool and taking threads off-topic, than we have about alcohol use.

That being said, I basically agree with what Redz said, in that sharing personal stories of drunk driving is similar to sharing stories about drug use.  There's a difference, but not a huge one.

Obviously, though, the argument that "you allowed one, so you have to allow the other" is not a persuasive one.  Discussions of drug use are specifically prohibited by our rules, and we have to enforce them as written.  The ban on discussion of drug use / legalization of drugs is a long-standing rule, and one we've enforced clearly in the past.

Another thing:  I know people get offended whenever there threads are locked.  However, we can't play favorites, we can't keep threads up because we think they're interesting, and we can't decline to lock a thread because somebody has put a lot of work into them.  If a topic is prohibited by the rules, we're not going to allow it.

its all good hobbsy
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticmaestro on August 13, 2009, 05:44:39 PM
Umm.

Have you ever driven drunk?
Do you do drugs?

Thin line.

Don't normally hop in on rules threads and such, but this to me is a very valid point.

Tough call though.

The big distinction is that drunk driving isn't specifically prohibited by our rules, but discussion of personal drug use and discussion related to legalization is.  It's a long-standing thing.

i hear u hobbsy, but looking at the big picture, driving drunk and using illicit drugs are both illegal.  to me, they are in the same category. 



Yeah, like I said, the only major difference is that one is specifically disallowed.  We've had a lot more problems with people talking about how drugs are cool and taking threads off-topic, than we have about alcohol use.

That being said, I basically agree with what Redz said, in that sharing personal stories of drunk driving is similar to sharing stories about drug use.  There's a difference, but not a huge one.

Obviously, though, the argument that "you allowed one, so you have to allow the other" is not a persuasive one.  Discussions of drug use are specifically prohibited by our rules, and we have to enforce them as written.  The ban on discussion of drug use / legalization of drugs is a long-standing rule, and one we've enforced clearly in the past.

Another thing:  I know people get offended whenever there threads are locked.  However, we can't play favorites, we can't keep threads up because we think they're interesting, and we can't decline to lock a thread because somebody has put a lot of work into them.  If a topic is prohibited by the rules, we're not going to allow it.

But I thought I was your favorite? :( :'(
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: johnnyrondo on August 17, 2009, 08:13:31 PM
This is a serious question. But what do you do when a mod is breaking the above rules? Doesn't that leave the lowly poster defenseless?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 17, 2009, 08:17:32 PM
This is a serious question. But what do you do when a mod is breaking the above rules? Doesn't that leave the lowly poster defenseless?


Report him to the other mods.  From our rules:

Quote from: Celticsblog Rules
Interactions with Celticsblog Staff:
  • Respect and obey moderators and administrators at all times.
  • If a member of the staff asks you to do something that you find objectionable, the proper course of action is to comply, and then write either that staff member or another member of the staff a private message indicating your disagreement, and the basis thereof.
  • Celticsblog rules, and the application thereof, can be discussed in the dedicated thread (http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=4046.0) stickied at the top of the Comments / Suggestions forum.  All such commentary should be confined to that thread; it is inappropriate to start a new thread for purposes of “calling out” the staff, either by name or collectively.
  • Do not delete or edit out warnings / staff edits that have been made to your post without staff permission.
  • No matter what you may believe to the contrary, it is highly unlikely that anything done on this blog is violating your First Amendment rights.  The full text of the First Amendment can be found here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti).  Nothing in such Amendment applies to the restriction of speech by non-government entities or actors, including the staff of this blog.
  • Please use the “alert a moderator” button to alert the staff to any inappropriate content or discussion.  If you have a question related to the blog or the blog rules, or have a general comment about a thread, it is more appropriate to reach out to a member of the staff via private message rather than via the "alert a moderator" function.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 17, 2009, 08:18:11 PM
This is a serious question. But what do you do when a mod is breaking the above rules? Doesn't that leave the lowly poster defenseless?


No


You report the mod

and staff will weight it in quorum.

This is not a one man moderated thing

and believe me, more times than the ones u think
we will do the right thing


Edgar ( as a mod )

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: johnnyrondo on August 17, 2009, 08:20:02 PM
Ok well I did that. I think there might be an order to how much power some mods have though. I know obviously it goes jeff, roy, but then I have no idea who comes next.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: johnnyrondo on August 17, 2009, 08:20:42 PM
This is a serious question. But what do you do when a mod is breaking the above rules? Doesn't that leave the lowly poster defenseless?


No


You report the mod

and staff will weight it in quorum.

This is not a one man moderated thing

and believe me, more times than the ones u think
we will do the right thing


Edgar ( as a mod )



Thank you edgar.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 17, 2009, 08:21:51 PM
Ok well I did that. I think there might be an order to how much power some mods have though. I know obviously it goes jeff, roy, but then I have no idea who comes next.

to be honest is

Edgar then Jeff then the rest... :P


 :-X

p.s. In my mind of course.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 17, 2009, 08:24:00 PM
Ok well I did that. I think there might be an order to how much power some mods have though. I know obviously it goes jeff, roy, but then I have no idea who comes next.

There's not really an "order", but staff positions are as follows:

Jeff Clark -- The head honcho
Green 17 -- Managing Editor (front page)
Roy Hobbs -- Forums Manager
wdleehi -- Assistant Forums Manager
Edgar -- Moderator / Spanish Forums Moderator
Chris -- Moderator
IndeedProceed -- Moderator
Donoghus -- Moderator
Redz -- Moderator
Steve Weinman - Author/Moderator

There also are a number of chat mods, who don't get as involved in the forums.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on August 17, 2009, 08:38:54 PM
Can I make a suggestion that some of this be moved to a rules and suggestions thread. Just a thought


Oh and remember voting isn't closed so vote:

(http://cdn-www.dailypuppy.com/media/dogs/anonymous/Macey_boxer_01.jpg_w450.jpg)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on August 17, 2009, 08:39:47 PM
Ok well I did that. I think there might be an order to how much power some mods have though. I know obviously it goes jeff, roy, but then I have no idea who comes next.

There's not really an "order", but staff positions are as follows:

Jeff Clark -- The head honcho
Green 17 -- Managing Editor (front page)
Roy Hobbs -- Forums Manager
wdleehi -- Assistant Forums Manager
Edgar -- Moderator / Spanish Forums Moderator
Chris -- Moderator
IndeedProceed -- Moderator
Donoghus -- Moderator
Redz -- Moderator

There also are a number of chat mods, who don't get as involved in the forums.



Yeah! Seventh seed!

Did we fire Steve W? I knew he was skimming Tommy Points from day one.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 17, 2009, 09:02:15 PM
Ok well I did that. I think there might be an order to how much power some mods have though. I know obviously it goes jeff, roy, but then I have no idea who comes next.

There's not really an "order", but staff positions are as follows:

Jeff Clark -- The head honcho
Green 17 -- Managing Editor (front page)
Roy Hobbs -- Forums Manager
wdleehi -- Assistant Forums Manager
Edgar -- Moderator / Spanish Forums Moderator
Chris -- Moderator
IndeedProceed -- Moderator
Donoghus -- Moderator
Redz -- Moderator

There also are a number of chat mods, who don't get as involved in the forums.



Yeah! Seventh seed!

Did we fire Steve W? I knew he was skimming Tommy Points from day one.

Doh!  I forgot the Daily Babbler!

Also, to show that memory goes with old age...  who did we hire first, Dons or Redz?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on August 17, 2009, 09:06:27 PM
Ok well I did that. I think there might be an order to how much power some mods have though. I know obviously it goes jeff, roy, but then I have no idea who comes next.

There's not really an "order", but staff positions are as follows:

Jeff Clark -- The head honcho
Green 17 -- Managing Editor (front page)
Roy Hobbs -- Forums Manager
wdleehi -- Assistant Forums Manager
Edgar -- Moderator / Spanish Forums Moderator
Chris -- Moderator
IndeedProceed -- Moderator
Donoghus -- Moderator
Redz -- Moderator

There also are a number of chat mods, who don't get as involved in the forums.



Yeah! Seventh seed!

Did we fire Steve W? I knew he was skimming Tommy Points from day one.

Doh!  I forgot the Daily Babbler!

Also, to show that memory goes with old age...  who did we hire first, Dons or Redz?


Dons.  I remember talking with him about giving the scary clown power.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 17, 2009, 09:08:41 PM
Ok well I did that. I think there might be an order to how much power some mods have though. I know obviously it goes jeff, roy, but then I have no idea who comes next.

There's not really an "order", but staff positions are as follows:

Jeff Clark -- The head honcho
Green 17 -- Managing Editor (front page)
Roy Hobbs -- Forums Manager
wdleehi -- Assistant Forums Manager
Edgar -- Moderator / Spanish Forums Moderator
Chris -- Moderator
IndeedProceed -- Moderator
Donoghus -- Moderator
Redz -- Moderator

There also are a number of chat mods, who don't get as involved in the forums.



Yeah! Seventh seed!

Did we fire Steve W? I knew he was skimming Tommy Points from day one.

Doh!  I forgot the Daily Babbler!

Also, to show that memory goes with old age...  who did we hire first, Dons or Redz?


Dons.  I remember talking with him about giving the scary clown power.

That's what I thought.

Also, of course, the longest serving moderator on the board is Chris.   
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on August 17, 2009, 09:18:18 PM
Ok well I did that. I think there might be an order to how much power some mods have though. I know obviously it goes jeff, roy, but then I have no idea who comes next.

There's not really an "order", but staff positions are as follows:

Jeff Clark -- The head honcho
Green 17 -- Managing Editor (front page)
Roy Hobbs -- Forums Manager
wdleehi -- Assistant Forums Manager
Edgar -- Moderator / Spanish Forums Moderator
Chris -- Moderator
IndeedProceed -- Moderator
Donoghus -- Moderator
Redz -- Moderator

There also are a number of chat mods, who don't get as involved in the forums.



Yeah! Seventh seed!

Did we fire Steve W? I knew he was skimming Tommy Points from day one.

Doh!  I forgot the Daily Babbler!

Also, to show that memory goes with old age...  who did we hire first, Dons or Redz?


Dons.  I remember talking with him about giving the scary clown power.

That's what I thought.

Also, of course, the longest serving moderator on the board is Chris.   

The 9th seed out of the Cape Cod bracket would totally take you all down in a Royal Rumble!  ;D

(http://www.ugo.com/sports/undertakers-wrestlemania-matches/images/entries/king-kong-bundy.jpg)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 01:13:20 AM
Roy, whatever happened in the last thread about What does it take to become a pro athlete, was the same thing that happened in my See What Happens when the Cavs play Competition thread of earlier this year.  I came on the blog and pointed out all these stats and facts about the Magic and the Cavs that basically showed the Magic were on the same level as the Cavs.   I got laughed at, and insulted. 95% of the posts talked negatively about me and what I posted about.   Then, you came on the thread and accused me of breaking the rules first and insulting people when I do not believe that to be the case.  After the Magic won, it seemed people were getting madder and madder at me, because they didn't want to admit that I knew what I was talking about.  I wasn't looking for an I told you so thread, I just wanted to see people's reaction after the Magic won the series. I believe that everything I write is positive and is posted to have fun and enjoyment and to give out facts and opinions.   

The same thing just happened in this thread.  Posters came on and said they were laughing at me, yet I was the first person accused of breaking the rules when I said that "you people believe the media".  I just think that sometimes you are taking what I am saying and spinning it into something it is not.   And also, why are you not coming to my defense first if I am the one who is being insulted first. 

It is also the same thing that happens on this blog to Tony Allen.  Anyone can go on and insult this guy and you get praised by other bloggers.  You, yourself even made a reference once to Tony Allen's mother which seems to be a much worse insult than anything I ever said.  Yet insulting Tony Allen also seems to be OK.

I'm not trying to continue any of my previous discussions in thread form, I am just trying to have my voice be heard where I feel that I was wrongfully accused of doing something wrong.   And if I post on another totally different thread in the future and it gets "locked", I will just take it as what I was saying was 100% correct and people were not treating me properly.  That is how I take this What does it take to be a pro athlete thread.    I was talking about how if you can't play on the court, nobody will really see how good you are, and if the thread gets locked nobody can read what I am talking about.   That is the same thing.

Again, if I go on a thread like the ORL-CAVS thread, or being a pro athlete thread with logical statements that combine fact and opinion, I should not be laughed at and told that what I am talking about is so wacky and "out there" that anyone can come on and insult me and my ideas.  There should be something in the rules about that, because if anyone is breaking the rules it is the posters who come on and tell me that what I am saying is laughable and they then use that to insult me with no facts or logical statements to back it up.

And one last thing I got the Orlando series right 4 games to 2, and who knows maybe one day I could have a chance at the NBA, but after reading what many posters have posted there is less of a chance that I will even try because as you can see I am not getting a fair chance. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 24, 2009, 01:28:33 AM
A few things, star:

1) First and foremost, just because a thread is locked does not mean the staff was condemning the original poster of that thread.  As I explained, the thread was locked because it was going nowhere, was becoming repetitive, and was starting to trend toward personal insults.  No particular poster was singled out in the decision to lock the thread.

2) Regarding the Cleveland / Orlando thread, that thread was locked (several months ago) because it's general tone was of an "I told you so" nature.  Such posts are not permitted by the rules.

3) Thank you for posting this in here.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 01:39:32 AM
Ok I understand what you are talking about.   

When those 2 threads were closed I thought that it was an insult to me because nobody believed what I was talking about.  So now I understand it wasn't only because of what I wrote, it was what other posters were doing as well.   

Because when that ORL-CLE thread got closed I thought it was because people couldn't handle the fact that the Cavs lost.
And when this thread got closed I thought it was because people think I have no chance to be a great basketball player.

Although closing the thread may look to other posters that I was the one in the wrong.  Not that I am trying to persuade other posters to believe certain things, but I do believe that overall people are negative to people who have new or different ideas from the mainstream.

I do feel that if I went up to Doc, or Kevin, or Paul, or Rajon that they wouldn't treat me like those posters did, and would actually encourage me to play.  That is why I am a Celtics fan, and do believe that I may try for an organized team eventually, because I know that if I went up to Danny or Doc they would respect me and want me to succeed. And if I really wasn't a good basketball player they would let me see that on the court, instead of how these other posters are criticizing my game and my ideas without even seeing me play.  That is why I think the Celtics are the right team and the right guys for basketball and for sports.  I just wish some of the Celticsbloggers would show that same class as the men who wear the green themselves.   
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on August 24, 2009, 01:43:53 AM
I just wish some of the Celticsbloggers would show that same class as the men who wear the green themselves.   

this, my friend is the kind of thing that is wrong to do

Now youre calling some CBs classless or impliying that?

I will leave this here, but please think this and dont do that.

People and world isnt against you.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 02:03:27 AM
If posters are "laughing" at me, and insulting me and my ideas what exactly am I supposed to think?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on August 24, 2009, 02:05:34 AM
Ok I understand what you are talking about.   

When those 2 threads were closed I thought that it was an insult to me because nobody believed what I was talking about.  So now I understand it wasn't only because of what I wrote, it was what other posters were doing as well.   

Because when that ORL-CLE thread got closed I thought it was because people couldn't handle the fact that the Cavs lost.
And when this thread got closed I thought it was because people think I have no chance to be a great basketball player.

Although closing the thread may look to other posters that I was the one in the wrong.  Not that I am trying to persuade other posters to believe certain things, but I do believe that overall people are negative to people who have new or different ideas from the mainstream.

I do feel that if I went up to Doc, or Kevin, or Paul, or Rajon that they wouldn't treat me like those posters did, and would actually encourage me to play.  That is why I am a Celtics fan, and do believe that I may try for an organized team eventually, because I know that if I went up to Danny or Doc they would respect me and want me to succeed. And if I really wasn't a good basketball player they would let me see that on the court, instead of how these other posters are criticizing my game and my ideas without even seeing me play.  That is why I think the Celtics are the right team and the right guys for basketball and for sports.  I just wish some of the Celticsbloggers would show that same class as the men who wear the green themselves.   

sure we encourage you to play. play in a rec league or something, play pickup with your friends.

But do you understand just out impossible it would be for a guy who never played highschool ball even, to make it to the d-league? To even get paid a pittance to play basketball? I mean that's the type of stuff they make movies about, its so impossible.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 02:07:14 AM
Who said I'm calling some CBs classless or implying that? That is not what I wrote.
I said I wish they would show the same class as the players.  Again, you are taking what I write and spinning it into what it isn't.  
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 02:12:08 AM
"But do you understand just out impossible it would be for a guy who never played highschool ball even, to make it to the d-league? To even get paid a pittance to play basketball? I mean that's the type of stuff they make movies about, its so impossible"

So what.  Do you want me to tell you all the "impossible" things I've already done in my life?    What did Kevin Garnett say "anything is possible".  That is what KG said.  And I'm supposed to just believe what all these other people say about me, a person they know nothing about? That is exactly what I am talking about.  Kevin Garnett wouldn't tell me that.   
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 24, 2009, 02:14:09 AM
Okay, let's not re-debate the original thread, please. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on August 24, 2009, 02:17:36 AM
ok. agree to disagree.

But remember, kevin garnett said "anything is possible" after he, a former MVP, current defensive player of the year, probable first ballot hall of famer won that NBA title. That's how tough it is in the NBA. Even a MVP needs a supporting cast to win a title, and college players of the year sometimes don't even make the final roster cut, or sit the bench as cheerleaders.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 02:25:54 AM
Roy, can you see that it is not me redebating the original thread.  It is other posters continually responding to my original statements and discrediting them and criticizing them.  I'm not responding to anyone's original thoughts or statements.   I am reading the stuff that other people are writing about what I originally said, and it seems as if they are the ones not abiding by the rules.   
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on August 24, 2009, 02:27:44 AM
Roy, can you see that it is not me redebating the original thread.  It is other posters continually responding to my original statements and discrediting them and criticizing them.  I'm not responding to anyone's original thoughts or statements.   I am reading the stuff that other people are writing about what I originally said, and it seems as if they are the ones not abiding by the rules.   

If you think that what I or Edgar wrote are violations of the rules, then you don't understand the rules.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 24, 2009, 02:30:08 AM
Roy, can you see that it is not me redebating the original thread.  It is other posters continually responding to my original statements and discrediting them and criticizing them.  I'm not responding to anyone's original thoughts or statements.   I am reading the stuff that other people are writing about what I originally said, and it seems as if they are the ones not abiding by the rules.   

I understand what you're saying, in that you're responding to other people's posts in here.  That being said, I think it's best for all of us to drop the subject, as such debates aren't really the point of this thread (that goes for everyone, of course, not just you.)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 02:37:49 AM
Well its Indeed & Edgar who are the ones redebating the original issue, which Roy said not to do, and it is not what I was doing either.   I was done posting until someone wrote I am implying that CB bloggers are classless and it is not what I wrote.   I said I wish they would show the same class as the players.  To me that means the players are really classy, it does not mean the bloggers are classless.   You take it as the bloggers being classless because again, you spin what I wrote to make it seem like something negative when it is nothing of the sort. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Rondo_is_better on August 24, 2009, 03:02:49 AM
Who said I'm calling some CBs classless or implying that? That is not what I wrote.
I said I wish they would show the same class as the players.  Again, you are taking what I write and spinning it into what it isn't.  

Oh my god. You're obviously doing that.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 03:13:21 AM
"I just wish some of the Celticsbloggers would show that same class as the men who wear the green themselves"

That is the comment, take it how you want to.    Don't tell me what I'm trying to say.  If you can't live up to the expectations that the Celtics players live up to, that is your choice.  If you want to take it negatively go ahead.  That is not what I wrote.  Nobody can spin my words. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 03:20:31 AM
Who said I'm calling some CBs classless or implying that? That is not what I wrote.
I said I wish they would show the same class as the players.  Again, you are taking what I write and spinning it into what it isn't.  

Oh my god. You're obviously doing that.

Oh really? I'm supposed to be the one who doesn't have talent to play basketball like the pros.  Yet when I say that bloggers aren't showing the same class as the Celtics, that is taken as an insult to them.  And they are the ones insulting me telling me that I can't play like the pros.    Now don't you see the contradiction.  Its ok to insult me, yet when I make a statement that says the bloggers aren't showing the same class as the Celtics, its supposed to be an insult to them.   I don't think so.   Just another example of spinning a positive statement into a negative statement.   
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 03:21:16 AM
Try and spin this one.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Rondo_is_better on August 24, 2009, 03:21:35 AM
"I just wish some of the Celticsbloggers would show that same class as the men who wear the green themselves"

That is the comment, take it how you want to.    Don't tell me what I'm trying to say.  If you can't live up to the expectations that the Celtics players live up to, that is your choice.  If you want to take it negatively go ahead.  That is not what I wrote.  Nobody can spin my words. 

When literally *everyone* takes what you say in a negative fashion, its not spinning--you're the one who's spinning it, and for these reasons:

1. To make us look like the bad guys

2. To Stay out of trouble after making a remark that is against the rules

3. And because you have a distinct and inherent need to disagree with anything anyone says unless it supports your point.

Please stop being a contrarian, and please stop getting into these "me vs. the world" fights. They are so tiresome.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 24, 2009, 03:37:48 AM
You're saying I'm "obviously doing that".  I'm not "obviously doing that".  I don't agree with your 3 points.  I'm not trying to make anyone look like the bad guys.  Its not everyone. Its some people who respond.  If you don't respond nothing happens. If you don't want to tell me I am as good as the pros, don't tell me that when I say the Celtics players are more "classy" than others, that that automatically implies that the "others" are looked at in a negative fashion.  If so, then why would you insist that I am not as "classy" as the pros. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: freshinthehouse on August 24, 2009, 05:23:05 AM
Deleted.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on August 24, 2009, 04:34:48 PM
Deleted.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 27, 2009, 01:33:47 AM
Deleted.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: star18 on August 27, 2009, 02:11:42 AM
[Deleted.]
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on August 27, 2009, 06:33:57 AM
Last warning:  This thread is for discussion of the rules, and staff actions / policy.  It is not the place to re-argue past threads.  Everybody, please stop with the current argument related to the "what it takes to be a professional athlete" thread.

I note that this is my second public warning in this regard.  There won't be a third one.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticmaestro on November 28, 2009, 12:09:51 PM
Quote
Quote
[quote from: celticmaestro on Today at 17:00:22]
Why remove my post and not Chris's?

A public explanation would be nice as to why a mod can call a poster an "elitist jerk" and get away with it.

Am I not entitled to my opinion? Like I said, I feel as though most of the mods are elitist jerks? What of it? Lead by example, mods. If I can't say it and get away with it why can you?

If you want to move this post and start a new thread, by all means do that. But removing it only serves to prove my point. You're all as dodgy as the Bush administration. Not something to be proud of.
A staff member did try to split this topic but with the recent changes to the forum, another error was discovered.  The split info was lost. 

As for the staff hiding things, since when.  We have whole threads with posters making comments on what we do, and we never hide it.  (and if we wanted to hide things, the first thing hidden would have been that post)


The staff never does public explanation of any issue dealing with a member and any rules infraction. 


But please, continue trying to make this site a war between "staff" and the "rest".  It really makes this site so much better when you try and create different groups. 

So far we have the "Mods" and "Us"

the "Negative posters" and the "Positive posters"


Did I forget any? 

Oh yea, blast from the past

"Doc haters" vs "Doc appologists"


Meanwhile this post is doing nothing for us.  There for I am going to lock it.


If you want to talk about Rondo, feel free to start a new thread.


If you want to talk about the staff, feel free to continue in the tread already in place to do that.
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=4046.0

I understand you deal with these things privately. But a public admission of "we were wrong" would go a long way to clear up these "groups" you speak of. But clearly you get off on these "groups", as you pretty much just admitted. And that, is a sorry state of affairs and makes me question you as a responsible mod. It's your job to moderate, not dictate. You should be modest, not arrogant.

Nothing wrong with swallowing pride, and bending rules for a good cause (I mean, you guys bend the rules when it suits you anyway), but you all refuse to do that.

So many good posters have spoken out against the way this site is run and others have left or been banned. To me, your behavior doesn't make sense and there's no consistency.

I'm sure this will be ignored or removed or replied to in a condescending way. But then you would come across as being "elitist jerks" (it's great being able to quote mods - because surely you wouldn't have the audacity to discipline me for quoting one of your own).
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on November 28, 2009, 12:21:17 PM
Regardless of who you are, and how you feel, calling another member a "elitist jerk" is wrong.

I believe there was some sort of warning left in the thread.






Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticmaestro on November 28, 2009, 12:29:34 PM
Regardless of who you are, and how you feel, calling another member a "elitist jerk" is wrong.

I believe there was some sort of warning left in the thread.








This is why I say "some" mods and not "all" mods. You help bridge the gap, Redz.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on November 28, 2009, 12:32:42 PM
Quote
Quote
[quote from: celticmaestro on Today at 17:00:22]
Why remove my post and not Chris's?

A public explanation would be nice as to why a mod can call a poster an "elitist jerk" and get away with it.

Am I not entitled to my opinion? Like I said, I feel as though most of the mods are elitist jerks? What of it? Lead by example, mods. If I can't say it and get away with it why can you?

If you want to move this post and start a new thread, by all means do that. But removing it only serves to prove my point. You're all as dodgy as the Bush administration. Not something to be proud of.
A staff member did try to split this topic but with the recent changes to the forum, another error was discovered.  The split info was lost. 

As for the staff hiding things, since when.  We have whole threads with posters making comments on what we do, and we never hide it.  (and if we wanted to hide things, the first thing hidden would have been that post)


The staff never does public explanation of any issue dealing with a member and any rules infraction. 


But please, continue trying to make this site a war between "staff" and the "rest".  It really makes this site so much better when you try and create different groups. 

So far we have the "Mods" and "Us"

the "Negative posters" and the "Positive posters"


Did I forget any? 

Oh yea, blast from the past

"Doc haters" vs "Doc appologists"


Meanwhile this post is doing nothing for us.  There for I am going to lock it.


If you want to talk about Rondo, feel free to start a new thread.


If you want to talk about the staff, feel free to continue in the tread already in place to do that.
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=4046.0

I understand you deal with these things privately. But a public admission of "we were wrong" would go a long way to clear up these "groups" you speak of. But clearly you get off on these "groups", as you pretty much just admitted. And that, is a sorry state of affairs and makes me question you as a responsible mod. It's your job to moderate, not dictate. You should be modest, not arrogant.

Nothing wrong with swallowing pride, and bending rules for a good cause (I mean, you guys bend the rules when it suits you anyway), but you all refuse to do that.

So many good posters have spoken out against the way this site is run and others have left or been banned. To me, your behavior doesn't make sense and there's no consistency.

I'm sure this will be ignored or removed or replied to in a condescending way. But then you would come across as being "elitist jerks" (it's great being able to quote mods - because surely you wouldn't have the audacity to discipline me for quoting one of your own).

Once again, we do not discuss with the whole blog any member and rules.  

And now you are trying to bait the staff.

Look at me.  I am breaking a rule multiple times to prove that the staff is against us.  Please suspend me or ban me so I can prove my point.  

Look through your own posts.  Ever since you quit the blog and then came back, the majority of your posts have been to complain about the staff or members that have a different point of view.  

If you are so unhappy with this site, why do you come here?  Just to complain?  

You are upset with the staff.  We get it.  You don't like us.  We get it.


We get it, but we are not changing.  We will continue to work the way we have.  We are happy with the majority of the conversations taking place on this site (which has nothing to do whether or not we agree with what is being said)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on November 28, 2009, 12:33:09 PM
Quote
Quote
[quote from: celticmaestro on Today at 17:00:22]
Why remove my post and not Chris's?

A public explanation would be nice as to why a mod can call a poster an "elitist jerk" and get away with it.

Am I not entitled to my opinion? Like I said, I feel as though most of the mods are elitist jerks? What of it? Lead by example, mods. If I can't say it and get away with it why can you?

If you want to move this post and start a new thread, by all means do that. But removing it only serves to prove my point. You're all as dodgy as the Bush administration. Not something to be proud of.
A staff member did try to split this topic but with the recent changes to the forum, another error was discovered.  The split info was lost. 

As for the staff hiding things, since when.  We have whole threads with posters making comments on what we do, and we never hide it.  (and if we wanted to hide things, the first thing hidden would have been that post)


The staff never does public explanation of any issue dealing with a member and any rules infraction. 


But please, continue trying to make this site a war between "staff" and the "rest".  It really makes this site so much better when you try and create different groups. 

So far we have the "Mods" and "Us"

the "Negative posters" and the "Positive posters"


Did I forget any? 

Oh yea, blast from the past

"Doc haters" vs "Doc appologists"


Meanwhile this post is doing nothing for us.  There for I am going to lock it.


If you want to talk about Rondo, feel free to start a new thread.


If you want to talk about the staff, feel free to continue in the tread already in place to do that.
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=4046.0

I understand you deal with these things privately. But a public admission of "we were wrong" would go a long way to clear up these "groups" you speak of. But clearly you get off on these "groups", as you pretty much just admitted. And that, is a sorry state of affairs and makes me question you as a responsible mod. It's your job to moderate, not dictate. You should be modest, not arrogant.

Nothing wrong with swallowing pride, and bending rules for a good cause (I mean, you guys bend the rules when it suits you anyway), but you all refuse to do that.

So many good posters have spoken out against the way this site is run and others have left or been banned. To me, your behavior doesn't make sense and there's no consistency.

I'm sure this will be ignored or removed or replied to in a condescending way. But then you would come across as being "elitist jerks" (it's great being able to quote mods - because surely you wouldn't have the audacity to discipline me for quoting one of your own).

It's the stuff in red that makes it difficult to have a conversation at this point.  Since your return to this site you clearly have a preset agenda, and a set of expectations on how you will be received.  That's fine, but what good is expressing it repeatedly doing. By stating your negative expectations you're pretty much guaranteeing you'll get the results you expect.

Take a look at your posts of late and tell me exactly how many don't carry some level of a pointed jab towards the site, its staff,  or its membership.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that what Chris said was wrong, but if you and DL can take an honest look at the amount of posts you've made about how this place sucks now, and how things used to be better, and how certain members are the only reason I still come around this place etc...then you might see how your comments could lead to the perception Chris had.

Doesn't excuse it though.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on November 28, 2009, 12:36:42 PM
Regardless of who you are, and how you feel, calling another member a "elitist jerk" is wrong.

I believe there was some sort of warning left in the thread.



I do too because I left it.

I understand you deal with these things privately. But a public admission of "we were wrong" would go a long way to clear up these "groups" you speak of.

Wrong about what? What are you talking about?

Quote
But clearly you get off on these "groups", as you pretty much just admitted. And that, is a sorry state of affairs and makes me question you as a responsible mod. It's your job to moderate, not dictate. You should be modest, not arrogant.

You throw words around like arrogant, dictate..but what are you? Are you a guy who has spent literally thousands of hours working to make these forums better? Then, you want fair and equal discourse, yet you lob salvos across our bow. We don't get paid, we don't get reimbursed, we do this crap because we love this site and this community, and all you're giving back to us is a giant freaking crap sandwich. Honestly I'm sick of it. You're the one who needs a look in the mirror.

Quote
Nothing wrong with swallowing pride, and bending rules for a good cause (I mean, you guys bend the rules when it suits you anyway), but you all refuse to do that.

So many good posters have spoken out against the way this site is run and others have left or been banned. To me, your behavior doesn't make sense and there's no consistency.

I'm sure this will be ignored or removed or replied to in a condescending way. But then you would come across as being "elitist jerks" (it's great being able to quote mods - because surely you wouldn't have the audacity to discipline me for quoting one of your own).

Why don't you go to another site than? You left for months and you know what? The site still ran. It didn't burn and it didn't crumble. People came together. We talked, amicably even. We got along. These are the rules. This is how things are done.

We've listened to you, we've tried to talk to you, and to be completely honest I can think of a few times we've given you quite a bit of leeway because frankly, we LIKE you. But if you hate us so much, I invite you to not let the door hit your arse on the way out.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticmaestro on November 28, 2009, 12:48:52 PM
So now I'm the big bad wolf?

As people, I don't dislike you. As mods, some of you are sloppy. It's my opinion. I think a slight change would be welcomed by all.

There's so much anger which just sprays in every direction from a lot of posters. Me included. I've made complaints about the mods because I think it's something that should be addressed. It's not an agenda and it's not a vendetta.

At the end of the day, I've addressed it privately and publicly and this is probably the best (in terms of most direct) response I've gotten. I appreciate that. Communication is everything. Granted, you "will continue to work the way you have", so, people will continue to fly in the face of this "democracy of hypocrisy".

And yes, I took a hiatus and the site didn't crash and burn. Of course not, why would it? But if I do decide to leave, I'll make sure I leave through a sliding door to prevent any impact on my probably bear behind.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Fafnir on November 28, 2009, 01:01:02 PM
It's my opinion. I think a slight change would be welcomed by all.
You're always very non-specific, about what changes you want. Or even what you feel is wrong. I honestly do not understand what your overall dissatisfaction with this site is.

What would you even have us do? Ban posters who are down the Celtics? Shut down threads quicker? Moderate more aggressively? Or just let more things go? I really don't get it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: EJPLAYA on November 28, 2009, 01:01:14 PM
Do we really not see the need by the mods to post gentle reminders when things are getting out of control in the thread and direct more specific, and even harsh if needed, PRIVATE messages? Some of the mods do a fantastic job of doing that and reprimand in a way that doesn't make people feel like they aren't wanted here. Others have a clear personal vendetta against certain posters and it is very clear in the difference of leash they are given and the comments back at them. If the mods in general can't see that or don't believe it then they are fooling themselves.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: celticmaestro on November 28, 2009, 01:08:12 PM
It's my opinion. I think a slight change would be welcomed by all.
You're always very non-specific, about what changes you want. Or even what you feel is wrong. I honestly do not understand what your overall dissatisfaction with this site is.

What would you even have us do? Ban posters who are down the Celtics? Shut down threads quicker? Moderate more aggressively? Or just let more things go? I really don't get it.

Yes, ban posters who are down on the Celtics. That would be great and would help make this place perfect. Also, we should be able to swear when we want and call each other names and be derogatory about the French football team and discuss drugs and violence.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dpaps on November 28, 2009, 01:10:48 PM
I haven't posted on here in a really long time, maybe even years. But I check the blog religiously. Atleast 10-20 times a day I'd guess. I try to refrain from posting, but I figured I might as well throw my 2 cents in here too. Granted, I don't know the entire history between Star, Maestro and the mods, or whoever this problem seems to be between, but I read most of the threads and I do have an opinion on the matter.

I think some posters obviously have a problem with some of the ways the forums are run. Whether or not their concerns are valid or warranted is not up to me and I really don't have an opinion on that, but it seems as though at this point, some of the posts are not made with the intention of helping anything. My suggestion would be that if any posters have problems with the way the forums are run, take a break from posting, only post on topics where there won't be fights, or simply bite your tongue. There are plenty of times through out life when we have something to say, probably feel justified in the way we feel, but it is better for the situation if we don't say it. Life isn't always fair, but theres no reason to let a forum on this blog upset anyone to the point where it affects their overall morale. It's an online blog, it's privately owned (right?), and so the mods can run it however they want. It is a privilege, not a right, to post here. This is the best blog online, but its not perfect. I don't think the mods would argue it is, but I absolutely believe them that that think they're doing their best.

As for some of their concerns, I do feel some of them are valid. I have never had any problems with other posters or any mods on here, but from a 3rd party observer, there is undoubtedly an inner circle on this blog. There are the mods and the top posters, and then there is everyone else. This blog reminds me of a high school social hierarchy in a lot of ways. I think overall, the mods do a good job, but there certainly is at least some favoritism on the blog. It's human nature to favor people you like better or know better, and I think this does happen. I have no big problem with it. I just don't post all that often. It's not my blog, I don't think I should necessarily have any say in the way it is run. But I think its important to realize that neither side in this argument is entirely in the wrong. There certainly are some ways in which the mods could improve and there are certainly ways in which some posters have made disrespectful or inappropriate comments. Just remember, anyone on this blog is here because they bleed green. We all love the Celtics and that is what unites us here. Ideally, no one would post anything negative towards the site or mods in a public forum and ideally the mods would  be a little more democratic (I understand this is not a democracy, but the ideals can still exist) when it comes to dealing with certain posters.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ACF on November 28, 2009, 01:51:33 PM
Good post, dpaps. You put a lot of thought in it and that deserves a TP.

I have a question, though:
Who are the "top posters" you refer to?

I don't feel particularly liked here. I may have 4000+ posts but it doesn't make me feel better or worse than any other poster. I have been in contact with mods via frequent PM's and I am even friends with some on other social sites. They treat me as they would treat any other poster here, though. I know that for a fact.

I think that maestro has a valid point. Chris is probably not proud of his post, nor should he be. We all know that you mods put in countless hours of your own time in here and I am sure there is not one poster here (out of what, almost 7000?) that doesn't appreciate that. But fair should be fair. dark_lord is probably one of the nicest guys around here. To treat him like that is just too much. Hence maestro's outcry for a "sorry, I was wrong". We may make mistakes but we can make them small mistakes if we apologize. It's what I'll teach my son. I hope it's what you teach your kids as well.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: MattG12 on November 28, 2009, 01:57:11 PM
I haven't posted on here in a really long time, maybe even years. But I check the blog religiously. Atleast 10-20 times a day I'd guess. I try to refrain from posting, but I figured I might as well throw my 2 cents in here too. Granted, I don't know the entire history between Star, Maestro and the mods, or whoever this problem seems to be between, but I read most of the threads and I do have an opinion on the matter.

I think some posters obviously have a problem with some of the ways the forums are run. Whether or not their concerns are valid or warranted is not up to me and I really don't have an opinion on that, but it seems as though at this point, some of the posts are not made with the intention of helping anything. My suggestion would be that if any posters have problems with the way the forums are run, take a break from posting, only post on topics where there won't be fights, or simply bite your tongue. There are plenty of times through out life when we have something to say, probably feel justified in the way we feel, but it is better for the situation if we don't say it. Life isn't always fair, but theres no reason to let a forum on this blog upset anyone to the point where it affects their overall morale. It's an online blog, it's privately owned (right?), and so the mods can run it however they want. It is a privilege, not a right, to post here. This is the best blog online, but its not perfect. I don't think the mods would argue it is, but I absolutely believe them that that think they're doing their best.

As for some of their concerns, I do feel some of them are valid. I have never had any problems with other posters or any mods on here, but from a 3rd party observer, there is undoubtedly an inner circle on this blog. There are the mods and the top posters, and then there is everyone else. This blog reminds me of a high school social hierarchy in a lot of ways. I think overall, the mods do a good job, but there certainly is at least some favoritism on the blog. It's human nature to favor people you like better or know better, and I think this does happen. I have no big problem with it. I just don't post all that often. It's not my blog, I don't think I should necessarily have any say in the way it is run. But I think its important to realize that neither side in this argument is entirely in the wrong. There certainly are some ways in which the mods could improve and there are certainly ways in which some posters have made disrespectful or inappropriate comments. Just remember, anyone on this blog is here because they bleed green. We all love the Celtics and that is what unites us here. Ideally, no one would post anything negative towards the site or mods in a public forum and ideally the mods would  be a little more democratic (I understand this is not a democracy, but the ideals can still exist) when it comes to dealing with certain posters.

Excellent post dpaps... TP to you!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on November 28, 2009, 02:07:40 PM
To be very clear:  Chris' comment was inappropriate.  His post was edited, and he was publicly warned.  We don't generally publicly comment on disciplinary matters, but I will say that Chris has a long track record of serving this site in a very positive way. 

Chris has privately apologized to the staff, and suggested to us that he publicly apologize, as well.  At this point, we advised him it's better to just let this blow over, but be aware that he feels bad.

However, let me be clear: if a mod has a moment of weakness, it does not justify other rule-breaking behavior by our membership.

One last thing:  if certain posters hate this blog so much, I would strongly encourage them to find another place to post at.  Constructive criticism is always welcome; attacks on this site for no reason other than to bash it aren't.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: MattG12 on November 28, 2009, 02:10:46 PM
To quote the Notorious BIG... "Can't we just all get along?"
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ACF on November 28, 2009, 02:15:22 PM
"One last thing:  if certain posters hate this blog so much, I would strongly encourage them to find another place to post at.  Constructive criticism is always welcome; attacks on this site for no reason other than to bash it aren't."

I never said I hated CelticsBlog and I've never bashed it. I may feel that some stuff could be dealt with differently (which, by the way, was the reason for my little break earlier this year) but that's just my opinion. There's a reason I have more than 5 posts a day and it's not because I hate it. I know this is Jeff's site and his rules we play by.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on November 28, 2009, 02:23:28 PM
"One last thing:  if certain posters hate this blog so much, I would strongly encourage them to find another place to post at.  Constructive criticism is always welcome; attacks on this site for no reason other than to bash it aren't."

I never said I hated CelticsBlog and I've never bashed it. I may feel that some stuff could be dealt with differently (which, by the way, was the reason for my little break earlier this year) but that's just my opinion. There's a reason I have more than 5 posts a day and it's not because I hate it. I know this is Jeff's site and his rules we play by.

I didn't single out any posters.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ACF on November 28, 2009, 02:30:05 PM
"One last thing:  if certain posters hate this blog so much, I would strongly encourage them to find another place to post at.  Constructive criticism is always welcome; attacks on this site for no reason other than to bash it aren't."

I never said I hated CelticsBlog and I've never bashed it. I may feel that some stuff could be dealt with differently (which, by the way, was the reason for my little break earlier this year) but that's just my opinion. There's a reason I have more than 5 posts a day and it's not because I hate it. I know this is Jeff's site and his rules we play by.

I didn't single out any posters.


I know and I didn't say you did, Roy. I was only speaking for myself.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Celtics17 on November 28, 2009, 03:44:02 PM
I'll have to admit that I havent read much of what has been written in this thread. I would also like to say that I feel that there are far too many bloggers? who openly 'attack' comments from members. It is certainly understandable that we are all not going to agree, however, there are certain ways to say it and certain ways not too. So often, I read another poster saying someone is crazy, stupid, or whatever other disparaging adjective they choose to use in an unquestionable condescending way. All this does is create animosity among memebers. I mean, if you like the idea of adding A.I. to the squad and someone else doesnt simply say I disagree or you dont really even have to say that. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cdif911 on November 28, 2009, 04:15:14 PM
To quote the Notorious BIG... "Can't we just all get along?"

I have a comment, but I won't make it =)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: MattG12 on November 28, 2009, 09:54:35 PM
To quote the Notorious BIG... "Can't we just all get along?"

I have a comment, but I won't make it =)

Please do, I'm interested.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: cdif911 on November 28, 2009, 11:10:04 PM
To quote the Notorious BIG... "Can't we just all get along?"

I have a comment, but I won't make it =)

Please do, I'm interested.

just thinking the all getting along thing didn't go very well for Christopher Wallace...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: MattG12 on November 29, 2009, 12:20:15 AM
To quote the Notorious BIG... "Can't we just all get along?"

I have a comment, but I won't make it =)

Please do, I'm interested.

just thinking the all getting along thing didn't go very well for Christopher Wallace...

lol in this case it's the statement, not the man.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: greg683x on November 29, 2009, 12:26:51 AM
To quote the Notorious BIG... "Can't we just all get along?"

I have a comment, but I won't make it =)

Please do, I'm interested.

just thinking the all getting along thing didn't go very well for Christopher Wallace...

lol in this case it's the statement, not the man.

i always thought that was rodney kings trademark quote anyway.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ManUp on November 29, 2009, 01:53:03 PM
It's my opinion. I think a slight change would be welcomed by all.
You're always very non-specific, about what changes you want. Or even what you feel is wrong. I honestly do not understand what your overall dissatisfaction with this site is.

What would you even have us do? Ban posters who are down the Celtics? Shut down threads quicker? Moderate more aggressively? Or just let more things go? I really don't get it.

Yes, ban posters who are down on the Celtics. That would be great and would help make this place perfect. Also, we should be able to swear when we want and call each other names and be derogatory about the French football team and discuss drugs and violence.

Wow... Ban posters who are down on the Celtics? Sounds like you want to silence those who's opinions differ from yours. Surely you can see the problem with that... I hope.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on November 29, 2009, 02:09:51 PM
It's my opinion. I think a slight change would be welcomed by all.
You're always very non-specific, about what changes you want. Or even what you feel is wrong. I honestly do not understand what your overall dissatisfaction with this site is.

What would you even have us do? Ban posters who are down the Celtics? Shut down threads quicker? Moderate more aggressively? Or just let more things go? I really don't get it.

Yes, ban posters who are down on the Celtics. That would be great and would help make this place perfect. Also, we should be able to swear when we want and call each other names and be derogatory about the French football team and discuss drugs and violence.

Wow... Ban posters who are down on the Celtics? Sounds like you want to silence those who's opinions differ from yours. Surely you can see the problem with that... I hope.

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic at that point.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on January 15, 2010, 01:18:40 PM
I'm not always known as a rule guy but one rule I really like and appreciate here is the general threads must be labeled accurately rule.

You can't try to trick people with some thread that says PP was traded, and then people go there and see it's just a trade idea or something.

So I apologize for the time I labeled a thread something like "Most important poll ever" and it was about who your favorite Muppet is.

The reason I like it is I see this happening in the media all the frigin time.  (Sorry bakhu. Is that ok?)

I just clicked on the Arenas link and it says "Divorce could prove tough for Arenas"  so I read through the thing thinking "Whaaaatt? Is he getting divorced too?" But they just mean him being let go by the Wiz. I realize that's sort of a type of divorce, but still.

Good rule. Very good rule
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on March 18, 2010, 01:56:36 PM
I don't think Nick (or anyone for that matter) should be disciplined or anything, but the interpretation and enforcement of the rules on this blog continues to be inconsistent at best.

What rule was enforced inconsistently, or was interpreted differently than its plain language?

I'm not here to hijack the thread, nor is this the place for these concerns (as you know), but yes, interpretations inconsistent with the letter of the rule create inconsistent enforcement of the rule. 

The rule states, plainly, "Only one account per person is permitted."  Yet, under IP's interpretation of the rule, you can switch back and forth between multiple aliases provided you contact the staff.  Okay, fine, what was "Only one account per person" now becomes "only one active account per person."

But, the rule also states, "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names.  If you would like to post under a different name, please contact the staff in order to close your old account, at which point you will be permitted to open a new account under a different screen name."

To me, that means if you really really want a new name, you can get one but you have to quit using your old name and you can't go back, since "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names."  What it doesn't mean is that you can switch back and forth on a whim, provided you don't have more than one active account at any one time.

But what does one minor, trivial point about rule interpretation have to do with anything?  A lot.  Basically, by interpreting things differently than they're written, the C-Blog staff creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, where they have the option of following the lax interpretation of the rule (as they do in most cases), or following the letter of the law (which they do in a very small percentages of the cases), depending on how they feel.  What should be black and white rule enforcement now becomes grey and subjective fiat, something that feeds the perception of favoritism.

Personally, I'd rather the staff take a lax interpretation of the rules and I'm sure if we took a poll, most everybody would agree as well, since it makes for a more natural, less formal atmosphere, which most of us can appreciate.  The one problem with lax interpreation is when the staff reserves the right to
interpret by the letter of the law too, when they see fit.  That's where the inconsistency comes in, and that's where the perception of favoritism comes from--you can have one interpretion or the other, but you can't have both.  It's inherently unfair.


I respectfully disagree.  While a rule may have been broken here, it was addressed by the staff in the same way we address the vast majority of broken rules.  We address it with the poster, explain the situation, give them a warning if necessary, and if they are cooperative, and understand what they did wrong/agree that it won't happen again, we move on happily.

We are not here to punish people.  We are here to keep the site running smoothly, and trying to make it a place where everyone feels welcome.  That means being reasonable, and not overreacting when a poster owns up to their actions. 

While I agree with Chris that this is the ideal, it hinges on subjective determinations every step of the way, subjective determinations that are undoubtedly colored by the degree of good/bad relationship between mods and offending member.  Either you have a 'zero tolerance' policy (which ironically we do have, btw) that follows the letter of the law, or you have a lax interpretation policy which looks at banning and disciplinary measures as measures of last resort.  This middle ground just creates problems.

Just so we're clear: this isn't about getting anyone suspended or banned.  I'd rather nobody get banned or disciplined if possible, not only in this case but in every case.  This is simply an observation about how the perception of favoritism can be rooted out, once and for all.  And it's also a note to those who don't care about the perception of favoritism--it's precisely situations like these that ruin your credibility.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 18, 2010, 02:04:53 PM
I don't think Nick (or anyone for that matter) should be disciplined or anything, but the interpretation and enforcement of the rules on this blog continues to be inconsistent at best.

What rule was enforced inconsistently, or was interpreted differently than its plain language?

I'm not here to hijack the thread, nor is this the place for these concerns (as you know), but yes, interpretations inconsistent with the letter of the rule create inconsistent enforcement of the rule. 

The rule states, plainly, "Only one account per person is permitted."  Yet, under IP's interpretation of the rule, you can switch back and forth between multiple aliases provided you contact the staff.  Okay, fine, what was "Only one account per person" now becomes "only one active account per person."

But, the rule also states, "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names.  If you would like to post under a different name, please contact the staff in order to close your old account, at which point you will be permitted to open a new account under a different screen name."

To me, that means if you really really want a new name, you can get one but you have to quit using your old name and you can't go back, since "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names."  What it doesn't mean is that you can switch back and forth on a whim, provided you don't have more than one active account at any one time.

But what does one minor, trivial point about rule interpretation have to do with anything?  A lot.  Basically, by interpreting things differently than they're written, the C-Blog staff creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, where they have the option of following the lax interpretation of the rule (as they do in most cases), or following the letter of the law (which they do in a very small percentages of the cases), depending on how they feel.  What should be black and white rule enforcement now becomes grey and subjective fiat, something that feeds the perception of favoritism.

Personally, I'd rather the staff take a lax interpretation of the rules and I'm sure if we took a poll, most everybody would agree as well, since it makes for a more natural, less formal atmosphere, which most of us can appreciate.  The one problem with lax interpreation is when the staff reserves the right to
interpret by the letter of the law too, when they see fit.  That's where the inconsistency comes in, and that's where the perception of favoritism comes from--you can have one interpretion or the other, but you can't have both.  It's inherently unfair.


I respectfully disagree.  While a rule may have been broken here, it was addressed by the staff in the same way we address the vast majority of broken rules.  We address it with the poster, explain the situation, give them a warning if necessary, and if they are cooperative, and understand what they did wrong/agree that it won't happen again, we move on happily.

We are not here to punish people.  We are here to keep the site running smoothly, and trying to make it a place where everyone feels welcome.  That means being reasonable, and not overreacting when a poster owns up to their actions. 

While I agree with Chris that this is the ideal, it hinges on subjective determinations every step of the way, subjective determinations that are undoubtedly colored by the degree of good/bad relationship between mods and offending member.  Either you have a 'zero tolerance' policy (which ironically we do have, btw) that follows the letter of the law, or you have a lax interpretation policy which looks at banning and disciplinary measures as measures of last resort.  This middle ground just creates problems.

Just so we're clear: this isn't about getting anyone suspended or banned.  I'd rather nobody get banned or disciplined if possible, not only in this case but in every case.  This is simply an observation about how the perception of favoritism can be rooted out, once and for all.  And it's also a note to those who don't care about the perception of favoritism--it's precisely situations like these that ruin your credibility.

Eh...  We don't interpret our rules strictly, or laxly.  Rather, we interpret them reasonably and fairly.  Also, *of course* a member's track record will effect how they're treated by the staff; repeat offenders will be treated more harshly than people who slip up for the first time.  I don't know of any system of rules that doesn't involve some level of subjective enforcement, and I don't really see much room for criticism in how the staff has treated this issue.

If it makes you feel better, though, I'll amend our rules to say only one "active" member account is permitted.  That should have been fairly obvious from reading the text and context of the rules, but I'll amend it.  Further, I don't see anywhere that says that we have a strict "zero tolerance" policy for any violation of our rules, or a one-time, innocuous violation of the "two accounts" rule.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on March 18, 2010, 02:35:20 PM
Why would someone have 2 accounts? Maybe to have someone support/agree with your pov during discussions/debates here on the blog? Its really confusing...... :-\

Not at all.

Nick just wanted a fresh start. He only made two posts from his old account while using his old one.

THis is what we're doing now in this thread:

(http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/5264/molehill3hg9.jpg)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: barefacedmonk on March 18, 2010, 02:39:34 PM
Why would someone have 2 accounts? Maybe to have someone support/agree with your pov during discussions/debates here on the blog? Its really confusing...... :-\

Not at all.

Nick just wanted a fresh start. He only made two posts from his old account while using his old one.

THis is what we're doing now in this thread:

(http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/5264/molehill3hg9.jpg)

Its all good with me...as long as someone doesn't have to respond to the same person twice. :)




Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: dark_lord on March 18, 2010, 02:40:43 PM
I know certain members like to criticize the staff for just about everything, but these complaints seem ridiculous to me.  The staff enforced a rule, which precipitated this very thread, and yet certain members complain that the staff doesn't enforce its rules.  It's puzzling to me.

i know what ur saying roy.....but if its ok to add my two cents, i think it was a poor choice to create a thread drawing attention to it.  it leaves it up for scrutiny from posters who might not know whats been said/handled out of the public forums.  just my 2 cents, not trying to be problemtatic.


im no mod, but this thread should just be locked.  nothing good will come of it imo. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on March 18, 2010, 02:47:37 PM

Eh...  We don't interpret our rules strictly, or laxly.  Rather, we interpret them reasonably and fairly. 

And reasonable minds can differ, especially when two standards are available to one of those reasonable minds.


Also, *of course* a member's track record will effect how they're treated by the staff; repeat offenders will be treated more harshly than people who slip up for the first time. 

That's not what I had in mind.  I was thinking of the phenomenom where testy exchanges on the message board (not necessarily rule-breaking exchanges) tend to create a feeling of hostility which then tends to result in less-than-friendly 'interpretations' of the rules when and *if* rule-breaking behavior occurs down the line.

I don't know of any system of rules that doesn't involve some level of subjective enforcement, and I don't really see much room for criticism in how the staff has treated this issue.

Of course you don't, which I why I brought it up.  While you're right that most systems of rules have subjective enforcement, you forget that *most* systems of rules are continually looking for ways to root out or minimize that subjectiveness, or at least the perception of it.  Dismissing claims of intepretive bias by replying that bias is an inherent human trait doesn't exactly breed confidence that you're taking the concern seriously.  Like I said before, reserving the right to ban or discipline someone only as a measure of last resort would seem like a good step towards recognizing and possibility eliminating some of the subjectiveness, especially if it replaced the murky standard currently in place.  Appointing or supporting the election of an independent ombudsman who continually monitors and provides another voice for community interests (especially as they concern member/mod interaction) might be another good step in the right direction.

If it makes you feel better, though, I'll amend our rules to say only one "active" member account is permitted.  That should have been fairly obvious from reading the text and context of the rules, but I'll amend it.  Further, I don't see anywhere that says that we have a strict "zero tolerance" policy for any violation of our rules, or a one-time, innocuous violation of the "two accounts" rule.

Two things: it's not fairly obvious, as the rules in that section contradict themselves, a contradiction only furthered by the current 'interpretation' of those contradictions.  The addition of 'active' will perhaps serve to clear things up, as would the inclusion of the 'intention' of the rule as one of deterring member abuse (as explained by Redz).

Secondly, Celticsblog does indeed have a strict 'zero tolerance' policy in the violation of the rules in the off topics forum. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on March 18, 2010, 02:52:08 PM
golden rule: treat each other with respect

everyone does that, everyone is happy

all the rest is words
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 18, 2010, 02:55:23 PM

That's not what I had in mind.  I was thinking of the phenomenom where testy exchanges on the message board (not necessarily rule-breaking exchanges) tend to create a feeling of hostility which then tends to result in less-than-friendly 'interpretations' of the rules when and *if* rule-breaking behavior occurs down the line.

All discipline is discussed with the mod staff as a whole.  This prevents a "rogue mod" from carrying out a personal vendetta.

Quote
Appointing or supporting the election of an independent ombudsman who continually monitors and provides another voice for community interests (especially as they concern member/mod interaction) might be another good step in the right direction.

I don't see why this ombudsman's interpretation would hold more validity than the staff's as a whole.

Quote
Secondly, Celticsblog does indeed have a strict 'zero tolerance' policy in the violation of the rules in the off topics forum. 

How does that contradict what I said?  We don't have a site-wide / rules-wide "zero tolerance" policy, which is what you suggested.  Also, the "zero tolerance" is related to the Current Events forum, rather than the Off Topic forum.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on March 18, 2010, 02:57:11 PM
Merged posts where they belonged. Sorry for any confusion
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: barefacedmonk on March 18, 2010, 03:00:33 PM

im no mod, but this thread should just be locked.  nothing good will come of it imo. 

I agree 100%. He didn't have to tell us about the multiple accounts....yet he did. Let's just appreciate the honesty shown here and move on. This thread might leave some people with a bitter taste if it continues.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Fafnir on March 18, 2010, 03:05:28 PM
Simply put, we detected Nick's alter-ego relatively quickly and discussed it in detail. Without proof and as long as his "nicknagenta" account remained inactive we decided to let it play out. We have from time to time let other posters "start over" and if nick wanted to do the same that was fine with us.

Only once he posted again as Nick did it become a problem with the rules, which we addressed immediately.

Would you rather we banned Nick for what he did? Zero tolerance policies create more problems than they solve.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on March 18, 2010, 03:05:45 PM
And also, I've said it a million times, and so has probably every other mod...but to those who think banning is anything but a last resort regarding members, you're wrong.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but it's the truth. You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You shouldn't either, because this is all done in private. We don't discuss other members in public. The 10 or so of us (Chris, Dons, Steve, Fafnir, me, Roy, wd, Redz, edgar, sorry if I'm leaving anyone out) discuss every single banning that goes on, and doubly so with longtime members.

It doesn't need to be a strict majority, but a general consensus needs to be reached and if one or a few of us has concerns about a decision, we discuss it.

People get warned, then they get another chance, then they get warned, then they get another chance..and on and on...there are discussions that have lasted hundreds of posts on what to do about members.

Even after people are banned, they can reapply. If you are banned permanently from the site, it is because it was literally the last resort.

Except spammers and trolls. Screw those guys.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on March 18, 2010, 03:06:21 PM

While I agree with Chris that this is the ideal, it hinges on subjective determinations every step of the way, subjective determinations that are undoubtedly colored by the degree of good/bad relationship between mods and offending member.  Either you have a 'zero tolerance' policy (which ironically we do have, btw) that follows the letter of the law, or you have a lax interpretation policy which looks at banning and disciplinary measures as measures of last resort.  This middle ground just creates problems.


I think Roy addressed this pretty well, but I just wanted to make one point.  If we had a zero tolerance policy, there would be significantly fewer members on this site.  Not many people on here can honestly say they have never broken a rule.  We just do our best to work with every poster that does break a rule (including members of the staff) to correct their actions.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on March 18, 2010, 03:09:26 PM
golden rule: treat each other with respect

everyone does that, everyone is happy

all the rest is words

Well said as always Jeff. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BballTim on March 18, 2010, 03:32:04 PM
But, the rule also states, "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names.  If you would like to post under a different name, please contact the staff in order to close your old account, at which point you will be permitted to open a new account under a different screen name."

To me, that means if you really really want a new name, you can get one but you have to quit using your old name and you can't go back, since "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names."  What it doesn't mean is that you can switch back and forth on a whim, provided you don't have more than one active account at any one time.

  FWIW, I read it that way, then decided in my mind that it's just as likely that celticsblog doesn't *physically* allow you to change usernames, the same way it doesn't "allow" you to modify your comments on the articles on the front page because it doesn't provide any means to do so.

  FWIW I then decided that I wasn't interested enough to try and see.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on March 18, 2010, 03:43:13 PM

While I agree with Chris that this is the ideal, it hinges on subjective determinations every step of the way, subjective determinations that are undoubtedly colored by the degree of good/bad relationship between mods and offending member.  Either you have a 'zero tolerance' policy (which ironically we do have, btw) that follows the letter of the law, or you have a lax interpretation policy which looks at banning and disciplinary measures as measures of last resort.  This middle ground just creates problems.


I think Roy addressed this pretty well, but I just wanted to make one point.  If we had a zero tolerance policy, there would be significantly fewer members on this site.  Not many people on here can honestly say they have never broken a rule.  We just do our best to work with every poster that does break a rule (including members of the staff) to correct their actions.

Yeah, but you do have a strict zero tolerance policy in regards to the Current Events forum.

Quote
•Participation in the Current Events Forum is on a discretionary basis.  Posting privileges in the forum can be revoked at any time, for any reason.  There will be zero tolerance policy for rule-breaking in this forum.

Simply put, we detected Nick's alter-ego relatively quickly and discussed it in detail. Without proof and as long as his "nicknagenta" account remained inactive we decided to let it play out. We have from time to time let other posters "start over" and if nick wanted to do the same that was fine with us.

Only once he posted again as Nick did it become a problem with the rules, which we addressed immediately.

Would you rather we banned Nick for what he did? Zero tolerance policies create more problems than they solve.

No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.


That's not what I had in mind.  I was thinking of the phenomenom where testy exchanges on the message board (not necessarily rule-breaking exchanges) tend to create a feeling of hostility which then tends to result in less-than-friendly 'interpretations' of the rules when and *if* rule-breaking behavior occurs down the line.

All discipline is discussed with the mod staff as a whole.  This prevents a "rogue mod" from carrying out a personal vendetta.

I guess I'll have to trust you on that one...but in my personal experience the axe dropped rather quickly and it seemed to be motivated by a less-than-kind, rather strict interpretation of the rules, the animus of which I can only guess at...

Appointing or supporting the election of an independent ombudsman who continually monitors and provides another voice for community interests (especially as they concern member/mod interaction) might be another good step in the right direction.

I don't see why this ombudsman's interpretation would hold more validity than the staff's as a whole.

Do you know what an ombudsman does?  They mediate resolutions and provide the appearance of impartiality, provided they can remain seperated from the two parties involved.  An ombudsman could help this blog's favoritism perception, if that's something you're concerned about.

***

Listen, every mod out there does a ton of work on this site, and I don't mean to denegrate what you do.  You all should be praised for the service you provide to Celtic fans, much of which isn't even noticed by the majority of users on this site.  That said, I get the feeling that you neither care, nor take seriously the perception of favoritism on this site.  I respect the staff's opinion that they do a hell of a job metting out fair judgment, and even if that's true, you're still willfully ignoring your perception problem, something that will linger and fester until it's addressed.

If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd see I was addressing merely the perception of in-group, out-group favoritism and ways to improve that perception.  All the responses, which either misread, or misunderstood what I wrote (like the ones who thought I wanted Nick banned or a strict zero tolerance policy implemented), or mounted defenses of Celticblog's judgment process, missed my point completely.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on March 18, 2010, 03:48:03 PM

Yeah, but you do have a strict zero tolerance policy in regards to the Current Events forum.



Yes we do.  That was the compromise for bringing it back.  It was either no current events forum, or zero tolerance.  But that has nothing to do with the rest of the site.  This is a Celtics website, not a Current Events website.  If we had to ban everyone from the Current Events forum, because they couldn't follow the rules and be respectful, then I wouldn't bat an eye.  That forum is the bane of many of our existence, and has caused more trouble than its worth IMO.  However, we NEVER want to ban anyone from the main forums, and it is always a last resort. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Chris on March 18, 2010, 03:55:46 PM


Listen, every mod out there does a ton of work on this site, and I don't mean to denegrate what you do.  You all should be praised for the service you provide to Celtic fans, much of which isn't even noticed by the majority of users on this site.  That said, I get the feeling that you neither care, nor take seriously the perception of favoritism on this site.  I respect the staff's opinion that they do a hell of a job metting out fair judgment, and even if that's true, you're still willfully ignoring your perception problem, something that will linger and fester until it's addressed.

If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd see I was addressing merely the perception of in-group, out-group favoritism and ways to improve that perception.  All the responses, which either misread, or misunderstood what I wrote (like the ones who thought I wanted Nick banned or a strict zero tolerance policy implemented), or mounted defenses of Celticblog's judgment process, missed my point completely.

There is clearly nothing we can do about the perception, but if you read this thread (or one of the numerous similar ones), you will see that we absolutely care about the perception.  We are constantly trying to explain our actions, but unfortunately, it clearly does not mean anything.

I understand that you cannot see it from our perspective, and I have accepted it.  But I guarantee you that we care about, and do whatever we can to protect the way we are percieved. 

Well, I shouldn't say its impossible.  I think we could change the perception, if we were to give specifics about certain actions regarding discipline.  However, we cannot do that.  So if you choose to believe that we are biased, that is your choice.  I don't like it, but I have expended more energy trying to defend myself and other mods than I should have already.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on March 18, 2010, 03:56:05 PM
Listen, every mod out there does a ton of work on this site, and I don't mean to denegrate what you do.  You all should be praised for the service you provide to Celtic fans, much of which isn't even noticed by the majority of users on this site.  That said, I get the feeling that you neither care, nor take seriously the perception of favoritism on this site.  I respect the staff's opinion that they do a hell of a job metting out fair judgment, and even if that's true, you're still willfully ignoring your perception problem, something that will linger and fester until it's addressed.

If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd see I was addressing merely the perception of in-group, out-group favoritism and ways to improve that perception.  All the responses, which either misread, or misunderstood what I wrote (like the ones who thought I wanted Nick banned or a strict zero tolerance policy implemented), or mounted defenses of Celticblog's judgment process, missed my point completely.

Perception by whom? These kinds of blanket comments are frustrating to me, because you're never talking about you (the poster). If you in particular think the staff is biased, or plays favorites when dealing out punishment, then by all means I invite you to send me a detailed PM outlining your concerns. I can promise that I will address it as honestly as I am able within my role as moderator. I can also tell you that this offer is not exclusive to me. Every single moderator would do the same thing. We do care if we're seen as unfair, and we're more than willing to discuss it.

However, in most of these cases, people instead say things like 'the perception', or 'the feeling on the site', or the like, and when pressed they're unwilling to discuss what is bothering them as individuals. Maybe you guys just have a better ear to the proverbial street than I do, but I don't see it.

Saying 'I feel like you guys are not even handed' is not helpful unless we know why (which I know you're not saying, but I think you understand my point). So if you want to PM me and say "I think the way you guys handled Nick's situation is a prime example of the uneven moderating done on this site", I'd be more than happy to discuss it as much as I am able.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 18, 2010, 03:58:49 PM
This is pretty simple, either follow the rules as they are planted, or risk whatever consequences come your way. If for some reason the staff doesn't like you, tough luck. If for some reason, you're beloved by the staff, well you just might be in luck and face no consequences. That's pretty much how the world works. Do good by yourself, and learn to play the game and all will be well, else, accept the consequences, whatever they may be. Rule of life.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on March 18, 2010, 04:04:19 PM
Listen, every mod out there does a ton of work on this site, and I don't mean to denegrate what you do.  You all should be praised for the service you provide to Celtic fans, much of which isn't even noticed by the majority of users on this site.  That said, I get the feeling that you neither care, nor take seriously the perception of favoritism on this site.  I respect the staff's opinion that they do a hell of a job metting out fair judgment, and even if that's true, you're still willfully ignoring your perception problem, something that will linger and fester until it's addressed.

If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd see I was addressing merely the perception of in-group, out-group favoritism and ways to improve that perception.  All the responses, which either misread, or misunderstood what I wrote (like the ones who thought I wanted Nick banned or a strict zero tolerance policy implemented), or mounted defenses of Celticblog's judgment process, missed my point completely.

Perception by whom? These kinds of blanket comments are frustrating to me, because you're never talking about you (the poster). If you in particular think the staff is biased, or plays favorites when dealing out punishment, then by all means I invite you to send me a detailed PM outlining your concerns. I can promise that I will address it as honestly as I am able within my role as moderator. I can also tell you that this offer is not exclusive to me. Every single moderator would do the same thing. We do care if we're seen as unfair, and we're more than willing to discuss it.

However, in most of these cases, people instead say things like 'the perception', or 'the feeling on the site', or the like, and when pressed they're unwilling to discuss what is bothering them as individuals. Maybe you guys just have a better ear to the proverbial street than I do, but I don't see it.

Saying 'I feel like you guys are not even handed' is not helpful unless we know why (which I know you're not saying, but I think you understand my point). So if you want to PM me and say "I think the way you guys handled Nick's situation is a prime example of the uneven moderating done on this site", I'd be more than happy to discuss it as much as I am able.

If by "perception" he means we read the complaints and realize they exist, I'd say yes, we're aware they exist.  To say we don't care about that perception is a tougher one to answer.  I'd say that none of us are so thick skinned that we absolutely don't care when someone is bent out of shape about the way things are being handled by us. 

I'd also say that the only thing I can say with absolute certainty about perception is that everyone's is different.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on March 18, 2010, 04:33:36 PM
Not to hijack the thread, but:

How about those Old Dominion Monarchs!!!!

But seriously..no Community is perfect..this one does its best, I think.

No Mod is perfect. The Mods here do their best, I think.

Have I been upset about a few things here? Sure - but no more or less than with my own family members.

IMO, some of the Stress here probably came from the fact that Boston have been less than World Beaters for some points of the season..I visit "Silver Screen and Roll" (Lakers) Blog every now and then, and they have/had issues, too..no more or less than us.

And I wonder what's at the heart of it all?

I'm still new to blogging (Oct 09) and haven't met anyone here personally, but the Blog here is straight, I think.

Perfect? No. Cliques? Seems so sometimes, but cliques are everywhere and again I've only been a member since Oct09.

I'd even say that the Cliques "Perception" sometimes comes from the fact that folks' Basketball or Celtics knowledge may differ from others, or some folks' perception about a player may differ from others.

I'd think it's human nature for certain members (say those with 10,000 plus Posts - just an Example) to have some sort of natural affinity to others with same amount of posts. I'd call it familiarity.

Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on March 18, 2010, 05:01:51 PM

Yeah, but you do have a strict zero tolerance policy in regards to the Current Events forum.



Yes we do.  That was the compromise for bringing it back.  It was either no current events forum, or zero tolerance.  But that has nothing to do with the rest of the site.  This is a Celtics website, not a Current Events website.  If we had to ban everyone from the Current Events forum, because they couldn't follow the rules and be respectful, then I wouldn't bat an eye.  That forum is the bane of many of our existence, and has caused more trouble than its worth IMO.  However, we NEVER want to ban anyone from the main forums, and it is always a last resort. 

I appreciate the explanation, Chris.  It makes sense.


I understand that you cannot see it from our perspective, and I have accepted it.  But I guarantee you that we care about, and do whatever we can to protect the way we are percieved. 

Well, I shouldn't say its impossible.  I think we could change the perception, if we were to give specifics about certain actions regarding discipline.  However, we cannot do that.  So if you choose to believe that we are biased, that is your choice.  I don't like it, but I have expended more energy trying to defend myself and other mods than I should have already.

Ahem--this whole topic hasn't been about me and what I think, it's been about the perception of bias, and what to do with that perception.  I don't think you guys are biased on the whole (if I had to pick a side), though I definitely think you do seem biased because certain parts of your decision making process is necessarily hidden from me and the general public (as you noted above), as well those unavoidable personality clashes that come about in the forums (the ultimate consequence of which nobody really knows), as well as the fact that it's impossible to monitor EVERYTHING and therefore some things fall through the cracks if they aren't reported.  Short of complete transperancy and being everywhere at once, an ombudsman--as intermediary between member and mod--is the perfect work-around, IMO.  Plenty of places employ ombudsman for precisely that reason--to improve their perception. 


Perception by whom? These kinds of blanket comments are frustrating to me, because you're never talking about you (the poster). If you in particular think the staff is biased, or plays favorites when dealing out punishment, then by all means I invite you to send me a detailed PM outlining your concerns. I can promise that I will address it as honestly as I am able within my role as moderator. I can also tell you that this offer is not exclusive to me. Every single moderator would do the same thing. We do care if we're seen as unfair, and we're more than willing to discuss it.

However, in most of these cases, people instead say things like 'the perception', or 'the feeling on the site', or the like, and when pressed they're unwilling to discuss what is bothering them as individuals. Maybe you guys just have a better ear to the proverbial street than I do, but I don't see it.

Saying 'I feel like you guys are not even handed' is not helpful unless we know why (which I know you're not saying, but I think you understand my point). So if you want to PM me and say "I think the way you guys handled Nick's situation is a prime example of the uneven moderating done on this site", I'd be more than happy to discuss it as much as I am able.

I've been on a number of other C-related sites in my time (and I'm currently on 4 others other than this one), and I can assure you you do have a perception problem, mainly one that perceives an in-group, out-group bias and favoritism that leads to certain members getting an elevated status and cache that upsets other, more outspoken members.  And, as you know, almost every melodramatic 'I'm leaving and I'm never coming back' list of complaints includes the favoritism, in-group, out-group criticism.  It's out there and I'm definitely not the first one to raise the issue.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Fafnir on March 18, 2010, 05:33:37 PM
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Fafnir on March 18, 2010, 05:41:52 PM

Yeah, but you do have a strict zero tolerance policy in regards to the Current Events forum.



Yes we do.  That was the compromise for bringing it back.  It was either no current events forum, or zero tolerance.  But that has nothing to do with the rest of the site.  This is a Celtics website, not a Current Events website.  If we had to ban everyone from the Current Events forum, because they couldn't follow the rules and be respectful, then I wouldn't bat an eye.  That forum is the bane of many of our existence, and has caused more trouble than its worth IMO.  However, we NEVER want to ban anyone from the main forums, and it is always a last resort. 

I appreciate the explanation, Chris.  It makes sense.


I understand that you cannot see it from our perspective, and I have accepted it.  But I guarantee you that we care about, and do whatever we can to protect the way we are percieved. 

Well, I shouldn't say its impossible.  I think we could change the perception, if we were to give specifics about certain actions regarding discipline.  However, we cannot do that.  So if you choose to believe that we are biased, that is your choice.  I don't like it, but I have expended more energy trying to defend myself and other mods than I should have already.

Ahem--this whole topic hasn't been about me and what I think, it's been about the perception of bias, and what to do with that perception.  I don't think you guys are biased on the whole (if I had to pick a side), though I definitely think you do seem biased because certain parts of your decision making process is necessarily hidden from me and the general public (as you noted above), as well those unavoidable personality clashes that come about in the forums (the ultimate consequence of which nobody really knows), as well as the fact that it's impossible to monitor EVERYTHING and therefore some things fall through the cracks if they aren't reported.  Short of complete transperancy and being everywhere at once, an ombudsman--as intermediary between member and mod--is the perfect work-around, IMO.  Plenty of places employ ombudsman for precisely that reason--to improve their perception. 


Perception by whom? These kinds of blanket comments are frustrating to me, because you're never talking about you (the poster). If you in particular think the staff is biased, or plays favorites when dealing out punishment, then by all means I invite you to send me a detailed PM outlining your concerns. I can promise that I will address it as honestly as I am able within my role as moderator. I can also tell you that this offer is not exclusive to me. Every single moderator would do the same thing. We do care if we're seen as unfair, and we're more than willing to discuss it.

However, in most of these cases, people instead say things like 'the perception', or 'the feeling on the site', or the like, and when pressed they're unwilling to discuss what is bothering them as individuals. Maybe you guys just have a better ear to the proverbial street than I do, but I don't see it.

Saying 'I feel like you guys are not even handed' is not helpful unless we know why (which I know you're not saying, but I think you understand my point). So if you want to PM me and say "I think the way you guys handled Nick's situation is a prime example of the uneven moderating done on this site", I'd be more than happy to discuss it as much as I am able.

I've been on a number of other C-related sites in my time (and I'm currently on 4 others other than this one), and I can assure you you do have a perception problem, mainly one that perceives an in-group, out-group bias and favoritism that leads to certain members getting an elevated status and cache that upsets other, more outspoken members.  And, as you know, almost every melodramatic 'I'm leaving and I'm never coming back' list of complaints includes the favoritism, in-group, out-group criticism.  It's out there and I'm definitely not the first one to raise the issue.
So you don't have a problem with how things are run? Its other people's perceptions?

*shrug*

Then the other people should really PM us. Many posters have done so and usually we're pretty good about getting back quickly. (I still owe one person just such a PM though...  :-[)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 18, 2010, 06:14:05 PM
I don't think the majority of people have a negative perception of either the Celticsblog membership or staff. 

Among those that do, there are certain members who have an agenda, there are others who disagree philosophically with certain rules (i.e., no profanity, etc.), and there are others who find this site just isn't their cup of tea, for whatever reason.

I think the number of members we *could* make happy, but don't because of our application of the rules, is practically nil.  To that very small minority, I'd recommend PMing the staff.  I feel that we're all remarkably accessible, although certain members of the staff may take awhile in getting back to you due to having other stuff going on.

I've heard that Celticsblog has a reputation of being too strict, but I really haven't seen too many complaints about an "in crowd".  The ironic thing is that some of the folks people presumably perceive as being "staff favorites" have been disciplined in the past, whereas many of those who aren't necessarily seen as being in any sort of "group" are universally respected by the staff.

I think if you randomly took 20 different posters and asked them who the "in" and "out" groups were, you'd get wildly divergent answers.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on March 18, 2010, 07:02:58 PM
So you don't have a problem with how things are run? Its other people's perceptions?

*shrug*

Then the other people should really PM us. Many posters have done so and usually we're pretty good about getting back quickly. (I still owe one person just such a PM though...  :-[)

Ahem, the perception problem is a *reflection* of how things are run; so therefore, yes, while I don't think there's an active bias at play in the moderation of this site, I *do* agree with the perception of bias in the way decisions are meted out.  Some things just look bad, even if after you look at all sides it's not really that bad after all. Like I said before, some it's because you can't divulge disciplinary decisions, some of it's the way personal like/dislike plays into the interpretation of rule-breaking, and some of it's the fact that you can't moderate the entirety of the site, meaning certain things slide when they aren't reported by members...

So, yeah, while I don't think there's much bias in the moderation on this site, I do think you could do more to correct the perception of whether there is a bias. 

I don't think the majority of people have a negative perception of either the Celticsblog membership or staff. 

Nobody said anything about a majority of anything.  What I did say is that in my experience the most common complaint against C-blog (when complaints are made on other C-related sites) is the in-crowd, out-crown perception of favoritism. 

Among those that do, there are certain members who have an agenda, there are others who disagree philosophically with certain rules (i.e., no profanity, etc.), and there are others who find this site just isn't their cup of tea, for whatever reason.

I think the number of members we *could* make happy, but don't because of our application of the rules, is practically nil.  To that very small minority, I'd recommend PMing the staff.  I feel that we're all remarkably accessible, although certain members of the staff may take awhile in getting back to you due to having other stuff going on.

Meh--'practically nil' is hardly accurate, if you count the ones who've left in a huff over perceived inconsistency in the application of the rules.  IMO, Celticsblog has lost more good members than it's retained because of the application of the rules.  This isn't about agendas, or philosophical differences over certain rules, or cup-of-tea defections--this is about perceived unfairness.

I've heard that Celticsblog has a reputation of being too strict, but I really haven't seen too many complaints about an "in crowd".  The ironic thing is that some of the folks people presumably perceive as being "staff favorites" have been disciplined in the past, whereas many of those who aren't necessarily seen as being in any sort of "group" are universally respected by the staff.

I think if you randomly took 20 different posters and asked them who the "in" and "out" groups were, you'd get wildly divergent answers.

Yeah, the thing with perception is that it's often unreliable ;)  I don't doubt that things like "in-crowd" and "staff favorites" are subject to wildly varied interpretations depending on who you ask.  Regardless of the irony involved, though, there could done more to create the appearance of objectivity, even if those measures were only for appearance's sake and don't have any real effect on the running of the site.

Perception problems are special--first you have to somehow determine whether the perception exists, and then you have to make decisions that change that perception, decisions that might not actually result in any real change.  I'm hearing a lot of defensive-sounding justifications of the process around here, and while I understand the need to justify one's process, the actual process is beside the point.  What I'm talking about is a way to improve the perception of fairness and that involves taking a look and finding ways that improve perception...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on March 18, 2010, 07:24:35 PM
Meh--'practically nil' is hardly accurate, if you count the ones who've left in a huff over perceived inconsistency in the application of the rules.  IMO, Celticsblog has lost more good members than it's retained because of the application of the rules.  This isn't about agendas, or philosophical differences over certain rules, or cup-of-tea defections--this is about perceived unfairness.

#1) The opinion that we've lost more good members than we've retained is one you are certainly entitled to, but also one that think is a complete load. I've seen the members go and eventually come back, and I've seen members leave because they didn't like the how site was run and never come back. There are not many that i miss (although there are some.).

Our membership is the best on the internet. I will stand by that, 100%.

2) People that leave don't take the time to hash it out with us. They don't discuss it with us, and when they have a problem they don't speak honestly about it. So honestly, what are we supposed to do?

Im not sure what you're angling for here S&MP, but I'm not buying. Sure people have left because they disagree. Most that can, do come back. Maybe they come back in spite of the mod staff, but the people don't come here to read my posts, they come because of the community.

I do care if our members don't like the way we operate, because that's who we do it for...but I also could not care less if other sites water cooler talk thinks we suck.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 18, 2010, 07:29:34 PM
I wonder where this perception drama crap is coming from.

Also, there's no forum in the internet that doesn't have the one or two cry babies that go complaint for the sake of complaining about the forum on other sites. That's a guarantee.

People are just whiners by nature, and usually the two or three doing the whining are heard the loudest... but it doesn't make it any more truthful nor more representative of the majority.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 18, 2010, 07:40:11 PM
Meh--'practically nil' is hardly accurate, if you count the ones who've left in a huff over perceived inconsistency in the application of the rules.  IMO, Celticsblog has lost more good members than it's retained because of the application of the rules.  This isn't about agendas, or philosophical differences over certain rules, or cup-of-tea defections--this is about perceived unfairness.

#1) The opinion that we've lost more good members than we've retained is one you are certainly entitled to, but also one that think is a complete load. I've seen the members go and eventually come back, and I've seen members leave because they didn't like the how site was run and never come back. There are not many that i miss (although there are some.).

Our membership is the best on the internet. I will stand by that, 100%.

2) People that leave don't take the time to hash it out with us. They don't discuss it with us, and when they have a problem they don't speak honestly about it. So honestly, what are we supposed to do?

Im not sure what you're angling for here S&MP, but I'm not buying. Sure people have left because they disagree. Most that can, do come back. Maybe they come back in spite of the mod staff, but the people don't come here to read my posts, they come because of the community.

I do care if our members don't like the way we operate, because that's who we do it for...but I also could not care less if other sites water cooler talk thinks we suck.

Also, I'd be curious to know how many of those "good members" who "left" did so voluntarily.  Just because somebody now badmouths Celticsblog on another site doesn't mean -- and shouldn't imply -- that they left on their own terms.  Some of the people I've seen bash us elsewhere after a ban have subsequently begged to get back in, or have attempted to create separate user accounts and post under a different screen name.  I wouldn't call those folks the most objective of former members (i.e., they're in the "agenda" group I listed above), and I'm not at all worried about their perception.

As for having an ombudsman who is completely neutral, between membership and the staff:  1)  the staff is part of the membership -- these aren't two separate entities; and 2) it would be quite odd to find somebody who wanted to referee an imaginary problem on Celticsblog, but had no interest in the Celtics (if they did, such ombudsman would become part of the membership, and thus, couldn't be neutral). 

I suppose if Jeff wants to pay somebody they'd probably take the job, but again, I don't see a need to fix a problem that even our biggest critic in the last several pages of this thread says is largely a product of imaginary perception, rather than reality.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on March 18, 2010, 07:41:27 PM
Broad, general complaints are completely unhelpful.  It doesn't help the mod staff look at themselves and see if there is anything they might want to adjust.




Like any job; good, specific feedback helps make the worker better.


If Doc only ever told Rondo "be better" without giving him specifics based on what he sees, how would Rondo have improved to the point he has?


I know with my students, they learn more when I give them specific feedback instead of just a big red X.



The mod staff is not afraid of specific issues any poster might have or see.  We will discuss it with said poster and among ourself.  We may or may not adjust ourself based on what we think.




Now for the whole "in crowd", certain posters like to joke with each other.  They tend to talk a lot more in multiple threads.  It is not a case of being "favorites", it is a case of posting more.  And, without naming names, their have been more then one run in between so called "in crowd" members and staff.  But like anything else, the staff doesn't discuss it, and most members do not discuss it.  


You want to be in the "in crowd", get more involved in everything that goes on in the blog.  If you just want to talk Celtics and don't care about the "in crowd", keep on posting the way you are.  There are posters here that are going to respond.  I don't think there is any posters with a significant number of posts that have not had one of their post responded to.




So as others have already invited, PM a staff member with you specific concern or critique.  Or, if you feel so, PM a staff member what you think is done well.  
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: greg683x on March 18, 2010, 07:55:37 PM
we live in a world where there will always be a certain amount of people that will complain about something if theyre given the opportunity to do so, whether it be about a business, their school, their job, the government, etc.  Some of them are legit complaints and usually the majority of them are not.

What I dont understand is if you personally dont have a problem or a complaint, why make this so long and drawn out with the back and forth with the Mods here.  Im not trying to shoot you down or anything, but if you really truley dont have a problem with how this site is run, and this is really only about enlightening the Mods about what other people might think, then you've said your piece.

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on March 18, 2010, 09:00:09 PM
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on March 18, 2010, 09:08:51 PM
I think people are just bored.  Go watch some NCAA tourney action folks!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BASS_THUMPER on March 18, 2010, 09:29:56 PM
I think people are just bored.  Go watch some NCAA tourney action folks!


wacked out sports is on..

im good!!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BASS_THUMPER on March 18, 2010, 09:33:42 PM


You want to be in the "in crowd"



how do i join..?..

*sippin*
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on March 18, 2010, 09:36:35 PM


You want to be in the "in crowd"



how do i join..?..

*sippin*

Bass, you're "IN" so deep you're the core.  ;)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 18, 2010, 09:40:26 PM
(http://www.egis.com.pl/upload/Image/the_in_crowd.jpg)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on March 18, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
(http://www.egis.com.pl/upload/Image/the_in_crowd.jpg)

That's teh book of the month club book huh? Hopefully you get a free personal pan pizza out of it :)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BASS_THUMPER on March 18, 2010, 09:47:46 PM


You want to be in the "in crowd"



how do i join..?..

*sippin*

Bass, you're "IN" so deep you're the core.  ;)


awwww....

im the CORE!!!

yea!!
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BASS_THUMPER on March 18, 2010, 09:54:59 PM
(http://www.egis.com.pl/upload/Image/the_in_crowd.jpg)

That's teh book of the month club book huh? Hopefully you get a free personal pan pizza out of it :)


lol...

that tickled me~

u got blessings..kids

after skool special..lol..but wait

maybe that personal pan is any way u want it...

read a book and get a personal pan up to 3 toppings...

extra for stuff crust
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Rondo2287 on March 18, 2010, 10:07:49 PM
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.

Isnt the whole point of the "perception," of something is its how the general public views a topic.  I think there is something to be said that almost every, "Signing off for good thread," mentions the same things. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 18, 2010, 10:14:46 PM
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.

Isnt the whole point of the "perception," of something is its how the general public views a topic.  I think there is something to be said that almost every, "Signing off for good thread," mentions the same things. 

Well, the "general public" doesn't see things that way.  Every time there's a blind poll asking people to rate the site / staff, the ratings are extremely high.  It's only a disgruntled minority that has this negative "perception".
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Rondo2287 on March 18, 2010, 10:16:36 PM
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.

Isnt the whole point of the "perception," of something is its how the general public views a topic.  I think there is something to be said that almost every, "Signing off for good thread," mentions the same things. 

Well, the "general public" doesn't see things that way.  Every time there's a blind poll asking people to rate the site / staff, the ratings are extremely high.  It's only a disgruntled minority that has this negative "perception".

Yup i suppose thats true, and then because they are disgruntled they are more vocal.  Makes sense I suppose.  good point roy
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on March 18, 2010, 10:16:39 PM
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.

Isnt the whole point of the "perception," of something is its how the general public views a topic.  I think there is something to be said that almost every, "Signing off for good thread," mentions the same things. 

How does this represent the "general public" though?  Unless there is a largely silent majority of our membership who feels this way, it is the perception of a very few vocal people you are talking about.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: eja117 on March 18, 2010, 10:28:28 PM


I think the number of members we *could* make happy, but don't because of our application of the rules, is practically nil.  To that very small minority, I'd recommend PMing the staff.  I feel that we're all remarkably accessible, although certain members of the staff may take awhile in getting back to you due to having other stuff going on.

I've heard that Celticsblog has a reputation of being too strict, but I really haven't seen too many complaints about an "in crowd".  The ironic thing is that some of the folks people presumably perceive as being "staff favorites" have been disciplined in the past, whereas many of those who aren't necessarily seen as being in any sort of "group" are universally respected by the staff.

I think if you randomly took 20 different posters and asked them who the "in" and "out" groups were, you'd get wildly divergent answers.
It took about 90 seconds to realize the first paragraph is true.

It took about 4 minutes to realize the 2nd part is true.

The 3rd part is interesting, but I don't see how that would be practically done. Oh hey. 15 out of 20 random posters think so and so is in the "in crowd".  But 5 think he's out. I don't see how it would help either.

Why do people think about or care who is in or out?  You have to be one with yourself. Yes I realized that sounded something like Phil Jackson would say. Well I think I actually prefer that to how Red would say it. Or Doc for that matter. I think he'd say "Be yourself" or something. Kind of non-advice.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on March 18, 2010, 11:59:43 PM
To set the record straight the thread was set up in the spirit of honesty. Due to some slippage, word was already out that I was PLamb. I then broke the twp username rule as a joke and had to give up a name.

I could have just come back as nickagneta but word was already out that I was PLamb. Without this thread, the crap storm that would have happened would have been much worse. It would have appeared as a cover up that the mods were complicit in and the number of people complaining would have been much larger and vocal.

There has been nothing hidden here and I hope I wasn't treated any differently than anyone else would have been. I'm pretty sure I know for a fact that I am not because I know for a fact I wasn't the first person ever to leave a username for another and I also know for a fact that I am not the only person that was using a different username. If anyone else ever makes the mistake of using their old username, I am sure they will be forgiven as well, regardless of who they are.

I did this with no malice intended.
I did not do it to fool anyone.
I did not do it to increase my Tommy Points(and I find the implication suggested by someone in another thread distasteful).

I did not do it for any other reason than to start over without a title next to my name that some people mistakenly took as my being a staff member and hence treated me differently. And believe me that did happen.

In some way I think some of the stuff being thrown out here is a direct product of people's opinions of me and not necessarily the staff or the enforcement of the rules. I am an aggressive poster with very direct debating style that rubs people the wrong way. I also have some very strong opinions on some delicate subjects and stand tall and proud in my resolve to make myself heard on those subjects.

Don't like that or me? Great!!! 

PM me. Tell me. I'm a big boy, actually very big, I can take it. But leave the staff alone in this matter. They did nothing wrong.



Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on March 19, 2010, 11:24:15 AM
Broad, general complaints are completely unhelpful.  It doesn't help the mod staff look at themselves and see if there is anything they might want to adjust.

Like any job; good, specific feedback helps make the worker better.

If Doc only ever told Rondo "be better" without giving him specifics based on what he sees, how would Rondo have improved to the point he has?

I know with my students, they learn more when I give them specific feedback instead of just a big red X.

The mod staff is not afraid of specific issues any poster might have or see.  We will discuss it with said poster and among ourself.  We may or may not adjust ourself based on what we think.

I see your point, but the issue I'm bringing up doesn't lend itself to specifics.  It's a general concern about the perception of Celticsblog, "perception" being rather hard to break down into specifics, since it's created over time via hundreds/thousands/millions of seperate, idiosyncratic experiences.

Now for the whole "in crowd", certain posters like to joke with each other.  They tend to talk a lot more in multiple threads.  It is not a case of being "favorites", it is a case of posting more.  And, without naming names, their have been more then one run in between so called "in crowd" members and staff.  But like anything else, the staff doesn't discuss it, and most members do not discuss it. 


You want to be in the "in crowd", get more involved in everything that goes on in the blog.  If you just want to talk Celtics and don't care about the "in crowd", keep on posting the way you are.  There are posters here that are going to respond.  I don't think there is any posters with a significant number of posts that have not had one of their post responded to.


Meh--I don't want to be in the in-crowd, nor do I care about the distinction between in- or out-crowds.  I'm talking about the perception of Celticsblog and how to possibly improve it.

Personally, I'm here because I like the Celitcs, not because I want or need to be loved by other Celtic fans.  But thanks for dismissing my concerns by interpreting them as some kind of need to fit in. ::)

So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

To set the record straight the thread was set up in the spirit of honesty. Due to some slippage, word was already out that I was PLamb. I then broke the twp username rule as a joke and had to give up a name.

I could have just come back as nickagneta but word was already out that I was PLamb. Without this thread, the crap storm that would have happened would have been much worse. It would have appeared as a cover up that the mods were complicit in and the number of people complaining would have been much larger and vocal.

There has been nothing hidden here and I hope I wasn't treated any differently than anyone else would have been. I'm pretty sure I know for a fact that I am not because I know for a fact I wasn't the first person ever to leave a username for another and I also know for a fact that I am not the only person that was using a different username. If anyone else ever makes the mistake of using their old username, I am sure they will be forgiven as well, regardless of who they are.

I did this with no malice intended.
I did not do it to fool anyone.
I did not do it to increase my Tommy Points(and I find the implication suggested by someone in another thread distasteful).

I did not do it for any other reason than to start over without a title next to my name that some people mistakenly took as my being a staff member and hence treated me differently. And believe me that did happen.

In some way I think some of the stuff being thrown out here is a direct product of people's opinions of me and not necessarily the staff or the enforcement of the rules. I am an aggressive poster with very direct debating style that rubs people the wrong way. I also have some very strong opinions on some delicate subjects and stand tall and proud in my resolve to make myself heard on those subjects.

Don't like that or me? Great!!! 

PM me. Tell me. I'm a big boy, actually very big, I can take it. But leave the staff alone in this matter. They did nothing wrong.


Nick, you're a great poster/Celtics fan and I hope you continue posting under whatever name you decide to stick with, but for about the nth time this isn't about you and it's not about me, or what I think about you, or how my relationship with my father might color my perception of authority or whatever new and interesting pop psychology idea somebody wants to throw out there in attempt to minimize and ignore what I'm saying.  Your stunt--as I saw it--was another in a long line of things that create the perception of an in-crowd, out-crowd favoritism on Celticsblog.  You broke the rules in a very very minor way, owned up to it, made a thread admitting your mistake and it's all good, so don't worry about it--this isn't about you, it's about the perception of Celticsblog.

***


Since the throngs of Celticblog users have spoken (that is, not spoken) in their non-support of what I see as a perception problem, I'll drop it at this time since it seems there's not enough community support to continue.  Then again, nobody likes talking about things like this and, in my experience at least, the ones who feel the in-crowd/out-crown divide tend to not have enough community concern in the first place to participate in polls/threads that attempt to ferret out whether such a divide exists. 

I would urge the mods to consider the subject broached and urge that next time the subject gets brought up that maybe they take the perception concerns a little more seriously, instead of passing them off as veiled passive aggresive attacks on various posters, mods, or Celticsblog itself.  Perhaps the reason few come forward with perception concerns is because those concerns are met with defensivenesss and pop pyschology by mods who seem to forget that their perspective in this matter is inherently limited.  I'm fairly certain that most if not all the mods here take their jobs seriosuly, but I'd remind them that the first step in giving someone a fair hearing is to recognize your limitations and attempt to look at the problem from both sides.  You don't engender the kind of give and take that leads to better tomorrows by attempting to marginalize the other side's viewpoint from the get-go.  It's fine to say you don't think there's a perception problem on Celticsblog--it's another thing to sidestep the question entirely and question my motives. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 19, 2010, 11:40:48 AM
Salmon, the problem is that if people had problems with how things are being handled, you can bet your ass that they will speak up in whatever form they can. That lack of it means that all this perception thing you're bringing forward is either pure crap, or limited to very few people particularly when compared with the whole.

I've been around too many message boards for too many years to buy the excuse of "the ones who feel the in-crowd/out-crown divide tend to not have enough community concern in the first place to participate in polls/threads that attempt to ferret out whether such a divide exists."

Also, the issue here shouldn't be whether there is an in-crowd or an out-crowd, since that's inevitably present everywhere... the issue should be on whether the community actually cares and on the magnitude of such a divide (which here in CB is quite tame compared with most other places I frequent).

As such, a complete non-isse at the moment and a much ado about nothing.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on March 19, 2010, 11:45:56 AM


I would urge the mods to consider the subject broached and urge that next time the subject gets brought up that maybe they take the perception concerns a little more seriously, instead of passing them off as veiled passive aggresive attacks on various posters, mods, or Celticsblog itself.  Perhaps the reason few come forward with perception concerns is because those concerns are met with defensivenesss and pop pyschology by mods who seem to forget that their perspective in this matter is inherently limited.  I'm fairly certain that most if not all the mods here take their jobs seriosuly, but I'd remind them that the first step in giving someone a fair hearing is to recognize your limitations and attempt to look at the problem from both sides.  You don't engender the kind of give and take that leads to better tomorrows by attempting to marginalize the other side's viewpoint from the get-go.  It's fine to say you don't think there's a perception problem on Celticsblog--it's another thing to sidestep the question entirely and question my motives. 


The problem isn't that we are not taking it serious (as you can see by the number of us responding and asking (or begging) for specifics as to better understand this).


The problem is that we have a single poster talking about a blog wide 'perception' that can not be explained to us.  That has no examples.  


It's like asking us to find a specific unnamed,undiscibed molocule of water in the London Fog.  


So again, we are asking any poster that has an issue to feel free to contact us about said issue and we will be happy to discuss it not only with you, but among the entire staff or even the entire blog if it is appropriate.  


Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Fafnir on March 19, 2010, 11:51:32 AM
Quote
I would urge the mods to consider the subject broached and urge that next time the subject gets brought up that maybe they take the perception concerns a little more seriously, instead of passing them off as veiled passive aggresive attacks on various posters, mods, or Celticsblog itself. 
If you think its a "serious problem" I suggest you take it more seriously be actually giving us enough information to address these "issues".

I have to use quotes around those because you have yet to say antyhing other than:

1. Its a perception issue

2. Its not your perception

3. You have no examples

4. You can't/won't tell us who holds these views

5. Your solution is for us to take PR more seriously.

6. Despite replies from many different mods asking for specifics and giving their viewpoints we're not "taking it seriously". By which I guess you mean we disagree with your viewpoint.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on March 19, 2010, 11:55:14 AM
Salmon, the problem is that if people had problems with how things are being handled, you can bet your ass that they will speak up in whatever form they can. That lack of it means that all this perception thing you're bringing forward is either pure crap, or limited to very few people particularly when compared with the whole.

I've been around too many message boards for too many years to buy the excuse of "the ones who feel the in-crowd/out-crown divide tend to not have enough community concern in the first place to participate in polls/threads that attempt to ferret out whether such a divide exists."

Also, the issue here shouldn't be whether there is an in-crowd or an out-crowd, since that's inevitably present everywhere... the issue should be on whether the community actually cares and on the magnitude of such a divide (which here in CB is quite tame compared with most other places I frequent).

As such, a complete non-isse at the moment and a much ado about nothing.

I pretty much agree with this 100%.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ChampKind on March 19, 2010, 12:50:12 PM
In my opinion, there needs to be a ban on multiple accounts, active or not, if there's no disclosure about a poster's past. I don't understand the point of a fresh start when the odds of rehashing past drama are so high. I think this is a situation where the risk of creating controversy in the threads and leaving posters feeling upset is much higher than the benefit of letting someone change their username and post as someone new to the community.

On top of the problems I believe multiple usernames creates, changing your name and not telling anyone also just strikes me as dishonest. If this really is a community, then you shouldn't be able to put on a disguise and walk around pretending you're someone else. I think a lot of people treat this place like it's their neighborhood bar - a place you can go to relax, talk about the C's (or anything else you want), and maybe play a few games. People come and go, and that's fine, but if one person left and then came back trying to pick up a new persona, it would alienate that person and cause some problems at the bar. Seems to me like allowing multiple user names works against the community that has been built here.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: barefacedmonk on March 19, 2010, 01:32:30 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on March 19, 2010, 01:38:39 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 

Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: barefacedmonk on March 19, 2010, 01:50:18 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 



I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on March 19, 2010, 02:04:12 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 



I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)
Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: barefacedmonk on March 19, 2010, 02:18:13 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 



I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)
Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work or which posters are percieved as the "in crowd"...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: wdleehi on March 19, 2010, 02:23:25 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 



I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)
Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.


You mean the staff acted as if no rules was broke.  As in, we kept it between Nick and ourself.  Exactly like we said we would. 

We only explained what happened when others made mention of it.  Not because they were in the loop, but because they recognized Nick in his postings, no matter what the name is. 


It was at that point the staff explained what had happened.  If no one noticed or mentioned anything, Plamb account would still be locked and Nick would be posting as Nick.  The rule would have been addresses between the member as the staff. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BballTim on March 19, 2010, 02:29:37 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 



I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)

  Don't know why I'm commenting (or even reading this), but IMO this thread would be an absolute disaster. Every time I call Nick a sheep (get it? pLAMB, sheep?) he'd post in that thread that I should get disciplined. I'd then dredge up posts from others (or from Nick) that didn't result in a punishment. I'd insist that he should get an equal punisment for that old post. Any time Nick got in trouble, another poster (such as PLamb) would post that I should have been banned years ago and skated. If Roy ever suspended me I'd claim that he was holding a grudge about our "spirited discussions" about Rondo last summer. And that's just with me, and I'm pretty level-headed. Think of what might happen with some of the other posters...
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: indeedproceed on March 19, 2010, 02:30:56 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 



I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)
Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work or which posters are percieved as the "in crowd"...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.

#1: These members whoever they are, lied to you. This thread is proof. People get banned because they violate the rules, not because they're curious. As long as you ask questions in a respectful manner, you're gravy.

#2: Roy was not the only person who knew. Everyone knew. The problem was not that nick had a new account, the problem was that we as mods made the mistake of leaving his old one open, which was our issue, and nick as a poster used it to make a joke, which was his mistake. Since he was only allowed to commit his mistake because we made it possible by no following through with a ban on his old account, disciplining him didn't make much sense. Nick has said as much here on his own, so sharing this information isn't a big deal, but that brings me to #3....

#3: As you've read before, we don't discuss these things in public. This is completely out of character for the blog(discussing one particular incident, not discussing rules in general). The reasons are simple...It minimizes drama. If someone is banned it is because they broke the rules and either the infraction was so big that it is better just to move on, or either the member has been contacted and shown no inclination to change their behavior and no remorse for or understanding of their actions. Usually the second only occurs after someone has already been suspended, and reinstatement is being considered. In any case if someone is banned it is because other options have already been looked at. Lobbying from that person's friends or whatever would not help anyone. And, in actuality, people still lobby anyways.

#4) Nick is not the first guy who felt like he needed a fresh start on the blog for whatever reason. He's just the only one who had two accounts open, which was as I said before, our fault.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on March 19, 2010, 02:30:58 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 



I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)
Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work or which posters are percieved as the "in crowd"...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.
On page one of the thread Bahku asked the question if Nick=PLamb, PLamb=Nick at around 5:30PM. By the time MattG and darklord got around to asking the question if it was legal or not on page two it was 6:45 PM. The mods starting giving their interpretation of things before 7:30 PM.

That's pretty quick given that that time period is the time period for leaving work and having dinner on most of the east coast of the USA. The explanations did not however stop constant questioning and critiquing of how the situation was handled. My guess is that the questioning was going to occur whether the explanation happened on page 1 or page 3 or page 60. That's just the way this place is.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on March 19, 2010, 02:45:55 PM
Quote
I would urge the mods to consider the subject broached and urge that next time the subject gets brought up that maybe they take the perception concerns a little more seriously, instead of passing them off as veiled passive aggresive attacks on various posters, mods, or Celticsblog itself. 
If you think its a "serious problem" I suggest you take it more seriously be actually giving us enough information to address these "issues".

I said you could take the problem a little more seriously, not that it was a serious problem, per se.  My beef--outside of what I think is Celticsblog's perception problem--is that some questioned my motive, and didn't address my concerns.

I'd also urge you to read a little more carefully too.  If that sounds snide, or condescending, don't take it that way--it's just you've mis-read/mis-characterized what I've written multiple times already.  And you've done so while questioning my motive--not cool.

I have to use quotes around those because you have yet to say antyhing other than:

1. Its a perception issue

2. Its not your perception

Well, not quite (see my reading comprehension aside above).  I believe the mods aren't biased in reality, but I also agree with the perception that there's favoritism in this site's moderation.  If that doesn't make sense, I'd urge you to reread the thread.

Now, obviously we can't agree on whether there's a perception problem in the first place.  As there are relatively few of us even arguing the other side, I'm prepared to drop it for now.  I only urge you to remember these concerns when they crop up again in the future, as they invariably will, instead of dismissing them as rantings of an angry minority, something which is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

3. You have no examples

I've addressed the 'lack' of examples in a previous post.  "Perception" by its nature isn't created by this or that example, it's created by millions of differing examples, feelings, impressions, etc.  So, examples aren't germane to this conversation.  Further, if I were to bring some in, you'd just minimize their importance by pointing out that those examples--however many I brought in--are just the angry minority, therby using the nature of perception (that it's built up over time via hundreds/thousands/million of experiences) to discount my particular perception.  I'm not going to play that game.

And, technically, I have presented 'examples,' mainly the phenomenon whereby departing members cite the in-crowd/out-crowd, percieved favoritism as a reason or the reason for their leaving. 


4. You can't/won't tell us who holds these views

I have; specifically I've said that while I believe the mods in general aren't biased, I can still see and agree with the perception that there is favoritism in play, a perception fed by the lack of transperancy, the role of interpersonal conflict or rapport on the perception of rule breaking, and the inabilty to completely police the site. 

And if you want more names, just go through the "I'm leaving" threads. 

5. Your solution is for us to take PR more seriously.

Yep; an ombudsman would be a great start, provided you could find someone the mods and members would respect.

6. Despite replies from many different mods asking for specifics and giving their viewpoints we're not "taking it seriously". By which I guess you mean we disagree with your viewpoint.

Well, this is pretty much point #3 all over again, right?  I get that you disagree with the viewpoint that Celticblog has a perception problem; what I don't get is the need to impugn my motives instead of coming right out with your disagreement.  Like I said, arbiters of disagreement have a duty to recognize their limitations while attempting to look at both sides.  It seems as if you and some others would rather simply jump to defend your perception by questioning the motives of perceptions that don't agree with yours.  You need to start any disagreement by recognizing the validity of the other party's view point--sadly, something that's been missing here.

***

Listen, I'm ready to drop this. It only started as an observation and I really didn't intend it to go further than that.  I don't expect to convince anyone right now, all I ask is to remember the concern the next time it comes up, and to maybe, at that point, be prepared to take it seriously.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on March 19, 2010, 03:02:28 PM
Quote
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on March 19, 2010, 03:08:48 PM
In SalmonandMashed's defense, apparently he now does have proof as barefacedmonk has come forward and said that there are some members that have come to him and said "that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning".

And to barefacedmonk, you've known me as PLamb and we have gotten along very well. I am still the same person with the same opinions and views. Do you think I was part of any "in" crowd then? Did you see me getting any special treatment then? I'm still the same guy.

You have now question the mods and lo and behold, you are still a member here and haven't been suspended. perhaps, just perhaps, the people you need to be questioning are the ones that told you about an "in" crowd and misled you regarding what happens to people that question mods.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: barefacedmonk on March 19, 2010, 03:25:03 PM
In SalmonandMashed's defense, apparently he now does have proof as barefacedmonk has come forward and said that there are some members that have come to him and said "that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning".

And to barefacedmonk, you've known me as PLamb and we have gotten along very well. I am still the same person with the same opinions and views. Do you think I was part of any "in" crowd then? Did you see me getting any special treatment then? I'm still the same guy.

You have now question the mods and lo and behold, you are still a member here and haven't been suspended. perhaps, just perhaps, the people you need to be questioning are the ones that told you about an "in" crowd and misled you regarding what happens to people that question mods.

I can tell you that Salmon's posts aren't without merit because I was really surprised to see how many people emailed me to tell me that the 'in crowd' really exists. My short stay here has not given me a reason to believe that such thing exists.

I hope I didn't offend anyone with my posts in this thread because that really wasn't my intent...neither do I like to play the trouble maker.

As fo you, Nick...I'd said it before and I say it now...so far, I have no reason to believe that the 'in crowd' really exists. I do however find most of your posts as Nickagenta come across in an angry and confronting manner...I liked Plamb better(whatever that means).

Okay, now this really is my last post in this thread.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on March 19, 2010, 03:55:07 PM
Quote
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

It's not beyond anyone's means--nobody said you should hire a professional ombudsman.  If you're serious, though, we can go into it with more detail, but wouldn't it be easy enough to have a nominating thread, then a vote, the winner of which to be approved by the staff?  It would be a non-paying gig, of course.

In my mind, to improve the perception of this site, a Celticsblog ombudsman would have be privy to the inner-workings of the site, such as the internal discussions regarding disciplinary measures, and could also be a mediary in disputes (though not the ultimate decider), and perhaps would be required to give state of blog reports every so often about his or her views... 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 19, 2010, 04:04:12 PM
Quote
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

In my mind, to improve the perception of this site, a Celticsblog ombudsman would have be privy to the inner-workings of the site, such as the internal discussions regarding disciplinary measures, and could also be a mediary in disputes (though not the ultimate decider), and perhaps would be required to give state of blog reports every so often about his or her views... 

I think this is pretty ridiculous. I really don't know what else to say to refute it.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Fafnir on March 19, 2010, 04:05:37 PM
Quote
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

It's not beyond anyone's means--nobody said you should hire a professional ombudsman.  If you're serious, though, we can go into it with more detail, but wouldn't it be easy enough to have a nominating thread, then a vote, the winner of which to be approved by the staff?  It would be a non-paying gig, of course.

In my mind, to improve the perception of this site, a Celticsblog ombudsman would have be privy to the inner-workings of the site, such as the internal discussions regarding disciplinary measures, and could also be a mediary in disputes (though not the ultimate decider), and perhaps would be required to give state of blog reports every so often about his or her views... 
How would this person be any different than a new moderator?
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 19, 2010, 04:21:02 PM
In my opinion, there needs to be a ban on multiple accounts, active or not, if there's no disclosure about a poster's past. I don't understand the point of a fresh start when the odds of rehashing past drama are so high. I think this is a situation where the risk of creating controversy in the threads and leaving posters feeling upset is much higher than the benefit of letting someone change their username and post as someone new to the community.

On top of the problems I believe multiple usernames creates, changing your name and not telling anyone also just strikes me as dishonest. If this really is a community, then you shouldn't be able to put on a disguise and walk around pretending you're someone else. I think a lot of people treat this place like it's their neighborhood bar - a place you can go to relax, talk about the C's (or anything else you want), and maybe play a few games. People come and go, and that's fine, but if one person left and then came back trying to pick up a new persona, it would alienate that person and cause some problems at the bar. Seems to me like allowing multiple user names works against the community that has been built here.

What if your name was "GeraldGreenRules", or something?  Or, what if you made said something really dumb once, to the point where people continually took shots at you for it?  A clean start isn't such a bad thing.  The proper course of action, though, is to let the staff know what you're up to.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on March 19, 2010, 04:23:13 PM
Quote
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

It's not beyond anyone's means--nobody said you should hire a professional ombudsman.  If you're serious, though, we can go into it with more detail, but wouldn't it be easy enough to have a nominating thread, then a vote, the winner of which to be approved by the staff?  It would be a non-paying gig, of course.

In my mind, to improve the perception of this site, a Celticsblog ombudsman would have be privy to the inner-workings of the site, such as the internal discussions regarding disciplinary measures, and could also be a mediary in disputes (though not the ultimate decider), and perhaps would be required to give state of blog reports every so often about his or her views... 
How would this person be any different than a new moderator?

Well, they wouldn't be moderating, they wouldn't have decision-making power, and they would be approved and voted in by members.  They would have knowledge of the site's innerworkings (which would be transparent to them), but they wouldn't have any direct power, other than the persuasiveness of their opinion.

I'm sure some might say: well, what's the point of that, they don't have power so it won't make a difference anyway!  Well, like I've been saying all along, if you have a perception problem, you don't necessarily have to change a thing, you just have to change the perception of the thing.  So, the next time somebody makes the favoritism charge, you kindly acknowledge the complaint and direct them to the ombudsman, who's job it is to be an independent and objective reviewer of everything that happens on the site, basically a middle man between moderators and members.  And then the ombudsman makes his or her findings, either periodically to the site as a whole, or in private to concerned members.

Of course, the ombudsman's opinion would need to be respected, or the whole appearance thing wouldn't work.  To get that respect from the members, the members would periodically choose one from amongst their ranks, and to get that respect from the moderators, the moderators would have to approve of the members' selection, and then make a committment to respect the ombudsman's opinion after they approve the selection.

Or something like that.  I'm just brainstorming off the top of my head--the actual parameters of the ombudsman are negotiable, just like everything else.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Brendan on March 19, 2010, 04:23:53 PM
Ombudsmen have worked so well for newspapers and ESPN in keeping their reputations shiny. Just kidding.

I don't think anything is needed. If there is an in-crowd - I'm not privy to it. I got mods I like and mods I don't :)

I've been banned and apologized and been allowed back.

This site does a great job at self management as is.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 19, 2010, 04:23:58 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

We would never do something like this.  If a member wants to discuss their suspension, that's fine, but otherwise, we're not going to air their dirty laundry.  It could potentially create a stigma toward members returning from a suspension, and for banned members, they don't have a chance to tell their side of the story.

I think the negative well outweighs the positive here.  I mean, is there really a problem?  Outside of spammers and trolls, we ban a handful of people (five or less, and usually less) per year.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: ACF on March 19, 2010, 04:27:07 PM
Ombudsmen have worked so well for newspapers and ESPN in keeping their reputations shiny. Just kidding.

I don't think anything is needed. If there is an in-crowd - I'm not privy to it. I got mods I like and mods I don't :)

I've been banned and apologized and been allowed back.

This site does a great job at self management as is.

Good post. TP.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 19, 2010, 04:31:11 PM
Quote
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

It's not beyond anyone's means--nobody said you should hire a professional ombudsman.  If you're serious, though, we can go into it with more detail, but wouldn't it be easy enough to have a nominating thread, then a vote, the winner of which to be approved by the staff?  It would be a non-paying gig, of course.

In my mind, to improve the perception of this site, a Celticsblog ombudsman would have be privy to the inner-workings of the site, such as the internal discussions regarding disciplinary measures, and could also be a mediary in disputes (though not the ultimate decider), and perhaps would be required to give state of blog reports every so often about his or her views... 

How would that person be neutral?  And why are they more neutral than the staff, or Jeff (who usually stays out of moderating decisions?)

I don't think there's a dichotomy between "staff" and "membership".  I mean, all of the staffs are members, who post a lot and give their opinions, just like anybody else.  Any member can become a member of the staff at any time, upon selection and acceptance.  However, if there was such a dichotomy, how would choosing a ombudsman from the membership help this dichotomy?  Wouldn't they simply be more sympathetic toward the membership, rather than the staff?

It makes no sense to me, but regardless, I don't really take the perception problem seriously.  If people believe something that isn't true, even after all of the counter-examples, there's not much I or any other staff member can do to change it.

My guess would be that a lot of the people sending out PMs are people who have been disciplined, or who have had their friends disciplined.  It's pretty obvious where their anti-staff bias comes from, and the fact that they're intentionally reaching out to new members to "poison the well" says a lot about their motives and credibility.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Fafnir on March 19, 2010, 04:37:50 PM
Quote
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

It's not beyond anyone's means--nobody said you should hire a professional ombudsman.  If you're serious, though, we can go into it with more detail, but wouldn't it be easy enough to have a nominating thread, then a vote, the winner of which to be approved by the staff?  It would be a non-paying gig, of course.

In my mind, to improve the perception of this site, a Celticsblog ombudsman would have be privy to the inner-workings of the site, such as the internal discussions regarding disciplinary measures, and could also be a mediary in disputes (though not the ultimate decider), and perhaps would be required to give state of blog reports every so often about his or her views... 

How would that person be neutral?  And why are they more neutral than the staff, or Jeff (who usually stays out of moderating decisions?)
I'd also add how will publically electing a member to this position reduce the perception that there are "in-crowds". Wouldn't a public election just create drama?

I'd also add that mods don't really have "power". We can't do anything on our own without the consent and rewiew of the other mods. There is trust that we'll all be reasonable in our initial actions but we talk about everything.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: nickagneta on March 19, 2010, 05:05:05 PM

My guess would be that a lot of the people sending out PMs are people who have been disciplined, or who have had their friends disciplined.  It's pretty obvious where their anti-staff bias comes from, and the fact that they're intentionally reaching out to new members to "poison the well" says a lot about their motives and credibility.
Exactly the point I was trying to make to barefacedmonk regarding the people he mentioned. Perhaps instead of questioning the staff's decisions and perceptions, perhaps when people get PMs from members talking about in crowds and warning of the mods, the people who's motives they should be questioning are those that are sending them the PMs.

Regarding the ombundsman, doesn't the whole election of an ombundsman then become a popularity contest based on likes and dislikes and not necessarily on qualifications? What happens if someone with a clear anti-mod agenda gets elected like one of the people sending out PMs to barefacedmonk? What good does that do anyone as the drama that would ensue regarding electing someone and the problems a person with a clear agenda would cause would be ridiculous.

Ultimately, isn't Jeff the ultimate ombundsman? Really, this isn't a democracy here as the once common calls of censorship once proved. It's Jeff's site and if he wants it this way and thinks this is the best way to keep the atmosphere he wants, that's the way it will be.

And I'm good with that.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Jeff on March 19, 2010, 06:23:07 PM
I'm really more of a omsamadamssman, but yeah
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 19, 2010, 06:25:51 PM
I'm really more of a omsamadamssman, but yeah

Fine humor like that is why you're the face of Celtics Nation, Jeff.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Redz on March 19, 2010, 06:32:41 PM
I'm really more of a omsamadamssman, but yeah

Fine humor like that is why you're the face of Celtics Nation, Jeff.

pick the better arbitrator?

(http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q232/grapplermatt/Budman3.png)

(http://coolrulespronto.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/samadams.jpg)
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: MattG12 on March 19, 2010, 06:44:20 PM
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 



I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)
Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work or which posters are percieved as the "in crowd"...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.

#1: These members whoever they are, lied to you. This thread is proof. People get banned because they violate the rules, not because they're curious. As long as you ask questions in a respectful manner, you're gravy.

#2: Roy was not the only person who knew. Everyone knew. The problem was not that nick had a new account, the problem was that we as mods made the mistake of leaving his old one open, which was our issue, and nick as a poster used it to make a joke, which was his mistake. Since he was only allowed to commit his mistake because we made it possible by no following through with a ban on his old account, disciplining him didn't make much sense. Nick has said as much here on his own, so sharing this information isn't a big deal, but that brings me to #3....

#3: As you've read before, we don't discuss these things in public. This is completely out of character for the blog(discussing one particular incident, not discussing rules in general). The reasons are simple...It minimizes drama. If someone is banned it is because they broke the rules and either the infraction was so big that it is better just to move on, or either the member has been contacted and shown no inclination to change their behavior and no remorse for or understanding of their actions. Usually the second only occurs after someone has already been suspended, and reinstatement is being considered. In any case if someone is banned it is because other options have already been looked at. Lobbying from that person's friends or whatever would not help anyone. And, in actuality, people still lobby anyways.

#4) Nick is not the first guy who felt like he needed a fresh start on the blog for whatever reason. He's just the only one who had two accounts open, which was as I said before, our fault.

To respond to your #2...

You are very wrong. I for one did not know that Nick and Plamb were the same person and judging by the way people reacted when it was revealed in the "Logging off for good" thread I was not the only person who didn't know.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: MattG12 on March 19, 2010, 06:54:33 PM
I don't know who mentioned the perception of an in crowd I think it was either barefacedmonk or salmonandmashedpotatoes... if I'm wrong I apologize.

I have seen the mods on these threads repeatedly ask for examples of this perception people have.

Just look at page 8 of the "Logging off for good" thread. IP (sorry to single you out, I like you as a poster) enters the discussion by mocking the allegations that have been made about an in crowd by talking about a meeting of blood brothers and what not. Immediately all of these mods and others who may be perceived as being part of an in crowd jump on the bandwagon and continue to mock the other people on this blog by talking about this stupid made up meeting.

Whether the inner circle exists or not, it is things like that that causes the general public to believe there is an inner circle amongst the blog.

To Roy(I think), you mentioned the fact that blind polls have been conducted and the responses have always seemed to favor the mods. Perhaps if you were to conduct a blind poll right now the results wouldn't favor the mods as you seem to think they would. A time like this would be a perfect time to have a poll. I believe there is a silent majority who believes there is an in crowd and there is a big time segregation happening on this blog.

Mocking people who believe something strange is going on doesn't help the image of the "CelticsBlog community", it only hurts it.

If I have over stepped my boundaries in this post, which I don't believe I have, please just delete my post and we'll move on. I won't cause a fiasco.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 19, 2010, 07:07:05 PM
I don't know who mentioned the perception of an in crowd I think it was either barefacedmonk or salmonandmashedpotatoes... if I'm wrong I apologize.

I have seen the mods on these threads repeatedly ask for examples of this perception people have.

Just look at page 8 of the "Logging off for good" thread. IP (sorry to single you out, I like you as a poster) enters the discussion by mocking the allegations that have been made about an in crowd by talking about a meeting of blood brothers and what not. Immediately all of these mods and others who may be perceived as being part of an in crowd jump on the bandwagon and continue to mock the other people on this blog by talking about this stupid made up meeting.

Whether the inner circle exists or not, it is things like that that causes the general public to believe there is an inner circle amongst the blog.

To Roy(I think), you mentioned the fact that blind polls have been conducted and the responses have always seemed to favor the mods. Perhaps if you were to conduct a blind poll right now the results wouldn't favor the mods as you seem to think they would. A time like this would be a perfect time to have a poll. I believe there is a silent majority who believes there is an in crowd and there is a big time segregation happening on this blog.

Mocking people who believe something strange is going on doesn't help the image of the "CelticsBlog community", it only hurts it.

If I have over stepped my boundaries in this post, which I don't believe I have. Please just delete my post and we'll move on. I won't cause a fiasco.

The blind polls were conducted immediately after the "Celticsblog has lost its way" and related threads.  If there was a time to get a flavor for the feeling of the blog, that would seem to have been the time.  Negative feelings were at their height at that point.  Here's one example:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=31637.0

87.5% gave the blog either an A or a B.  To me, that's the overwhelming majority of the blog.  Furthermore, we have an entire forum dedicated to feedback about the blog, and we've spent dozens of hours responding to that feedback.  I personally think we do a good job.

It should come as no surprise that the staff is on good terms with one another.  However, I don't think that means that that proves the existence of an "in crowd" and an "out crowd".  If IP makes a joke, and others join in, I don't see any problem with that.  If people think the mods are buddies, I honestly don't see 1) a problem with that, or 2) a way to avoid it.

What I'd have an issue with is favoritism, where certain posters were unfairly punished, and other "favored" posters avoided discipline.  Based upon the facts that 1) nobody can identify who the "in crowd" is; and 2) members who some have linked to this purported "in crowd" have admitted to having been suspended in the past, I don't see what the problem is. 

It's clear that the staff has no problem suspending members who individual staff members are on good terms with, and it should be equally clear that there are plenty of members that individual staff members disagree with who are still posting strongly.  (As BBallTim mentioned above, he and I have vigorously disagreed plenty of times over the years, and he's still here in good standing.)

What's the "strange" thing that you think is going on here?  That certain members get along with one another more than others? 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: MattG12 on March 19, 2010, 07:20:41 PM
I don't know who mentioned the perception of an in crowd I think it was either barefacedmonk or salmonandmashedpotatoes... if I'm wrong I apologize.

I have seen the mods on these threads repeatedly ask for examples of this perception people have.

Just look at page 8 of the "Logging off for good" thread. IP (sorry to single you out, I like you as a poster) enters the discussion by mocking the allegations that have been made about an in crowd by talking about a meeting of blood brothers and what not. Immediately all of these mods and others who may be perceived as being part of an in crowd jump on the bandwagon and continue to mock the other people on this blog by talking about this stupid made up meeting.

Whether the inner circle exists or not, it is things like that that causes the general public to believe there is an inner circle amongst the blog.

To Roy(I think), you mentioned the fact that blind polls have been conducted and the responses have always seemed to favor the mods. Perhaps if you were to conduct a blind poll right now the results wouldn't favor the mods as you seem to think they would. A time like this would be a perfect time to have a poll. I believe there is a silent majority who believes there is an in crowd and there is a big time segregation happening on this blog.

Mocking people who believe something strange is going on doesn't help the image of the "CelticsBlog community", it only hurts it.

If I have over stepped my boundaries in this post, which I don't believe I have. Please just delete my post and we'll move on. I won't cause a fiasco.

The blind polls were conducted immediately after the "Celticsblog has lost its way" and related threads.  If there was a time to get a flavor for the feeling of the blog, that would seem to have been the time.  Negative feelings were at their height at that point.  Here's one example:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=31637.0

87.5% gave the blog either an A or a B.  To me, that's the overwhelming majority of the blog.  Furthermore, we have an entire forum dedicated to feedback about the blog, and we've spent dozens of hours responding to that feedback.  I personally think we do a good job.

It should come as no surprise that the staff is on good terms with one another.  However, I don't think that means that that proves the existence of an "in crowd" and an "out crowd".  If IP makes a joke, and others join in, I don't see any problem with that.  If people think the mods are buddies, I honestly don't see 1) a problem with that, or 2) a way to avoid it.

What I'd have an issue with is favoritism, where certain posters were unfairly punished, and other "favored" posters avoided discipline.  Based upon the facts that 1) nobody can identify who the "in crowd" is; and 2) members who some have linked to this purported "in crowd" have admitted to having been suspended in the past, I don't see what the problem is. 

It's clear that the staff has no problem suspending members who individual staff members are on good terms with, and it should be equally clear that there are plenty of members that individual staff members disagree with who are still posting strongly.  (As BBallTim mentioned above, he and I have vigorously disagreed plenty of times over the years, and he's still here in good standing.)

What's the "strange" thing that you think is going on here?  That certain members get along with one another more than others? 

I'm not going to get lured in to discussing my views of the blog so I can get punished.

I didn't say something strange is going on, I said "Mocking people who believe something strange is going on... etc."

You say you don't see a problem in some mods joining in on a little joke, but I respectfully disagree. Many blog members aren't happy about this situation and having a bunch of mods mock them doesn't make it any better. I don't care if their comments are completely innocent, they can be taken the wrong way. Much like my comment that people with two accounts can TP themselves was taken the wrong way by Nick.

I for one don't feel all that comfortable voicing my opinion on here because I know I'm going to have a lot of people, mainly mods, just waiting to chew me out because of it... and I know I'm not the only one.

Something like 35% of that poll gave the staff a "B"... I don't remember the exact number. I'm pretty sure I was one of those people. The B grade expressed the opinion that the mods are doing a good job for the most part but they could improve in some areas. Perhaps situations like these are one of those areas.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Master Po on March 19, 2010, 07:36:47 PM
I have been here since the very beginning....longer than almost anyone.....I knew Jeff before he started this place......and before he knew Jeff

The reason this blog thing "took off" and became something highly successful was because of the tireless hours of Jeff's work, Hagrid' support and then others came along who helped as well. Jeff has devoted so many hours to this blog it's uncountable. Some people like Hobbs, G17, and so many others have carried lots of water in here for free....so many hours and lots of work.

As this site grew a mod "staff" was needed.....there was no need for stiff formality and staffing rules as Jeff picked people he thought were trustworthy and level-headed enough to help him manage this "success". (most worked out and some didn't) In turn some of the people Jeff chose in turn asked other people who seem like-minded and level headed if they wanted to help. Invariably people choose people who they think will fit nicely and do the work asked with out creating more problems than they solve. Invariably mods become friends but not exclusive friends.

This blog isn't the government!!!!!, this isn't a private corporation having to adhere with Equal Opportunity rules and state/fed statutory regulations governing every aspect of hiring people, firing people, censoring people, etc. because there isn't any MONEY or employment contracts. It's a BLOG!!!!!!!

Even if there were secret meetings going on with mods and favoritism was being overtly and purposely used to disrespect others or make them feel inferior it's really nobody's flippin business except for Jeff's!!!! If people didn't like it they could simply move on and should move on IMO (change the channel if you will). I suspect most people (>99%) won't do that because they enjoy the site in the context in which they use the site. I am guessing the people who did not find what they wanted have moved on already and those still here but still complaining do that very same thing in all aspects of their lives.....

Jeff is too nice to let any shenanigans go on (however Jeff is not a saint LOL) He is instead just a mild mannered guy who has  done a really good job in putting together a good solid staff that is both fair and reasonable.

While I no longer hold much of a position around here anymore (mainly my own choice) I can say that when I step out of line I am called out for it by forum mods. I could pull rank and go over everybody's head and go directly to Jeff....... but..... despite Jeff and I having a close relationship I would never do that....... and even if I did he would somehow find a nice but firm way to make me pay the price for whatever I did.... if it was called for - he wouldn't play favorites - not even with me (I make myself sound really so very important).

The bottom line for me is that if you feel this sight is not treating you right, or not being "fair" or playing favorites, or whatever you can't stand (and you can't seem to resolve it to your own satisfaction) then just move on please! - quickly, quietly and without anger. All people don't fit in all places.

This is site about the Boston Celtics and at the end of the day it should be fun and if it isn't fun then please just call it a day and go.

A line from an old movie I like......."There are only three things around here to do: coal mine, moonshine or move it on down the line"

Well there is only really three things to do @ Celticsblog........ trade Celtic trade tag idea lines, Celtic Playoff fun time and finally keep Celtic hope alive in the summertime while sipping on green moonshine


Peace
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on March 19, 2010, 07:40:13 PM
I don't know who mentioned the perception of an in crowd I think it was either barefacedmonk or salmonandmashedpotatoes... if I'm wrong I apologize.

I have seen the mods on these threads repeatedly ask for examples of this perception people have.

Just look at page 8 of the "Logging off for good" thread. IP (sorry to single you out, I like you as a poster) enters the discussion by mocking the allegations that have been made about an in crowd by talking about a meeting of blood brothers and what not. Immediately all of these mods and others who may be perceived as being part of an in crowd jump on the bandwagon and continue to mock the other people on this blog by talking about this stupid made up meeting.

Whether the inner circle exists or not, it is things like that that causes the general public to believe there is an inner circle amongst the blog.

To Roy(I think), you mentioned the fact that blind polls have been conducted and the responses have always seemed to favor the mods. Perhaps if you were to conduct a blind poll right now the results wouldn't favor the mods as you seem to think they would. A time like this would be a perfect time to have a poll. I believe there is a silent majority who believes there is an in crowd and there is a big time segregation happening on this blog.

Mocking people who believe something strange is going on doesn't help the image of the "CelticsBlog community", it only hurts it.

If I have over stepped my boundaries in this post, which I don't believe I have. Please just delete my post and we'll move on. I won't cause a fiasco.

The blind polls were conducted immediately after the "Celticsblog has lost its way" and related threads.  If there was a time to get a flavor for the feeling of the blog, that would seem to have been the time.  Negative feelings were at their height at that point.  Here's one example:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=31637.0

87.5% gave the blog either an A or a B.  To me, that's the overwhelming majority of the blog.  Furthermore, we have an entire forum dedicated to feedback about the blog, and we've spent dozens of hours responding to that feedback.  I personally think we do a good job.

It should come as no surprise that the staff is on good terms with one another.  However, I don't think that means that that proves the existence of an "in crowd" and an "out crowd".  If IP makes a joke, and others join in, I don't see any problem with that.  If people think the mods are buddies, I honestly don't see 1) a problem with that, or 2) a way to avoid it.

What I'd have an issue with is favoritism, where certain posters were unfairly punished, and other "favored" posters avoided discipline.  Based upon the facts that 1) nobody can identify who the "in crowd" is; and 2) members who some have linked to this purported "in crowd" have admitted to having been suspended in the past, I don't see what the problem is. 

It's clear that the staff has no problem suspending members who individual staff members are on good terms with, and it should be equally clear that there are plenty of members that individual staff members disagree with who are still posting strongly.  (As BBallTim mentioned above, he and I have vigorously disagreed plenty of times over the years, and he's still here in good standing.)

What's the "strange" thing that you think is going on here?  That certain members get along with one another more than others? 

I'm not going to get lured in to discussing my views of the blog so I can get punished.

I didn't say something strange is going on, I said "Mocking people who believe something strange is going on... etc."

You say you don't see a problem in some mods joining in on a little joke, but I respectfully disagree. Many blog members aren't happy about this situation and having a bunch of mods mock them doesn't make it any better. I don't care if their comments are completely innocent, they can be taken the wrong way. Much like my comment that people with two accounts can TP themselves was taken the wrong way by Nick.

I for one don't feel all that comfortable voicing my opinion on here because I know I'm going to have a lot of people, mainly mods, just waiting to chew me out because of it... and I know I'm not the only one.

Something like 35% of that poll gave the staff a "B"... I don't remember the exact number. I'm pretty sure I was one of those people. The B grade expressed the opinion that the mods are doing a good job for the most part but they could improve in some areas. Perhaps situations like these are one of those areas.

So in other words, we have a fun vs. uptight people dynamic going on. I'd say the bigger problem here is the people that make big issues of the littlest of things.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 19, 2010, 07:42:30 PM

I'm not going to get lured in to discussing my views of the blog so I can get punished.



Sigh...  I hope this was dry humor.  I think it's pretty clear that we don't "punish" people for voicing their opinions or giving dissenting views.  If we did, don't you think you'd know about it by now?  I mean, you were one of the first people to criticize the staff in the original thread.  Did any staff member contact you and tell you to hush up?  Did anybody threaten you with discipline?

No, they didn't.  Why?  Because we don't do that sort of thing on here.  Members are "punished" because they break rules, not because they voice their opinion.

I do take it from your comment that you're unhappy here. (The fact that you don't want to discuss your views of the blog suggests that those views are negative ones).  I think that's unfortunate, but without specific feedback, I'm not sure what we can do to make things better for you. 
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Edgar on March 19, 2010, 07:46:49 PM
Quote
I have been here since the very beginning....longer than almost anyone.....I knew Jeff before he started this place......and before he knew Jeff


And before human race.


Quote
most worked out and some didn't)

but I tried..really. :-[


Quote
Invariably mods become friends but not exclusive friends.

 :'(




Quote
http://Even if there were secret meetings going on with mods and favoritism was being overtly and purposely used to disrespect others or make them feel inferior it's really nobody's flippin business


But there were only 2 beers with redz....well 3  :P

Quote
He is instead just a mild mannered guy who has  done a really good job in putting together a good solid staff that is both fair and reasonable.


And me.


Quote
he wouldn't play favorites - not even with me (I make myself sound really so very important)

Darn ....... you were my winning card.




Quote
Well there is only really three things to do @ Celticsblog........ trade Celtic trade tag idea lines, Celtic Playoff fun time and finally keep Celtic hope alive in the summertime while sipping on green moonshine

And ask Edgar, talk about squirrels, bacon, off topic things, talk about chuck norris, elephants, play fantasy games.... ;D
And specially mess with Old ladies posts.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Roy Hobbs on March 19, 2010, 07:51:07 PM
I have been here since the very beginning....longer than almost anyone.....I knew Jeff before he started this place......and before he knew Jeff

The reason this blog thing "took off" and became something highly successful was because of the tireless hours of Jeff's work, Hagrid' support and then others came along who helped as well. Jeff has devoted so many hours to this blog it's uncountable. Some people like Hobbs, G17, and so many others have carried lots of water in here for free....so many hours and lots of work.

As this site grew a mod "staff" was needed.....there was no need for stiff formality and staffing rules as Jeff picked people he thought were trustworthy and level-headed enough to help him manage this "success". (most worked out and some didn't) In turn some of the people Jeff chose in turn asked other people who seem like-minded and level headed if they wanted to help. Invariably people choose people who they think will fit nicely and do the work asked with out creating more problems than they solve. Invariably mods become friends but not exclusive friends.

This blog isn't the government!!!!!, this isn't a private corporation having to adhere with Equal Opportunity rules and state/fed statutory regulations governing every aspect of hiring people, firing people, censoring people, etc. because there isn't any MONEY or employment contracts. It's a BLOG!!!!!!!

Even if there were secret meetings going on with mods and favoritism was being overtly and purposely used to disrespect others or make them feel inferior it's really nobody's flippin business except for Jeff's!!!! If people didn't like it they could simply move on and should move on IMO (change the channel if you will). I suspect most people (>99%) won't do that because they enjoy the site in the context in which they use the site. I am guessing the people who did not find what they wanted have moved on already and those still here but still complaining do that very same thing in all aspects of their lives.....

Jeff is too nice to let any shenanigans go on (however Jeff is not a saint LOL) He is instead just a mild mannered guy who has  done a really good job in putting together a good solid staff that is both fair and reasonable.

While I no longer hold much of a position around here anymore (mainly my own choice) I can say that when I step out of line I am called out for it by forum mods. I could pull rank and go over everybody's head and go directly to Jeff....... but..... despite Jeff and I having a close relationship I would never do that....... and even if I did he would somehow find a nice but firm way to make me pay the price for whatever I did.... if it was called for - he wouldn't play favorites - not even with me (I make myself sound really so very important).

The bottom line for me is that if you feel this sight is not treating you right, or not being "fair" or playing favorites, or whatever you can't stand (and you can't seem to resolve it to your own satisfaction) then just move on please! - quickly, quietly and without anger. All people don't fit in all places.

This is site about the Boston Celtics and at the end of the day it should be fun and if it isn't fun then please just call it a day and go.

A line from an old movie I like......."There are only three things around here to do: coal mine, moonshine or move it on down the line"

Well there is only really three things to do @ Celticsblog........ trade Celtic trade tag idea lines, Celtic Playoff fun time and finally keep Celtic hope alive in the summertime while sipping on green moonshine


Peace

Po, you'll always be in my personal "in crowd".  I wish I could entice you to post more in the forums. ;)  Next time we have a top secret meeting, you can come as an invited guest.  Until then, we'll just keep your retired jersey hanging from the rafters of IP's garage.
Title: Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
Post by: Fafnir on March 19, 2010, 08:09:51 PM
I believe there is a silent majority who believes there is an in crowd and there is a bi