Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions

[Roy H.]

OK, your apology is accepted.

However, a moderator took a shot at those of us who disagree in this thread in a manner that clearly would not be tolerated on a basketball subject.

How so?  By asking somebody to "deal with it"?  I'm sorry if that offended your sensibilities, but worse is said on a daily basis.  We require people to be respectful here.  We don't ask that people walk on eggshells to avoid hurting the feelings of those who are hyper-sensitive to a particular subject.

This is a sensitive subject to people who've lost a loved one to a drunk. This blog has always insisted that all viewpoints be repsected by posters - until this thread began. Apparently that rule doesn't apply to the subject of alcohol. Sad to see that standard lowered.

The "respect others" standard does, and always has, remained.  If you want to start an anti-drinking thread, again, you're welcome (and are encouraged) to do so.  However, since this is about the fourth time you've been given the same response, my guess is that you'd rather make trouble for the staff rather than start a thread that would educate others on a view that you say you feel extremely strongly about.

[Edgar]

abuse.

magic word this is

[Donoghus]

If people don't like it or are offended by a thread, my advice to them is simply avoid it.  

If's its not locked or deleted, odds are that the staff has determined that its a "go" for discussion.  Deal with it or find somewhere else to go.  If you want to voice your displeasure with the subject matter, come to this thread or start a new thread.  Don't come into a seemingly light-hearted thread and hijack it and go on the attack.  

My two cents as a poster, not a mod.  

[barefacedmonk]

This is a sensitive subject to people who've lost a loved one to a drunk. This blog has always insisted that all viewpoints be repsected by posters - until this thread began. Apparently that rule doesn't apply to the subject of alcohol. Sad to see that standard lowered.

CoachBo, it is VERY EASY to start a thread on this blog (even the nightly spammers know it )...on any subject as long as it falls within the site rules. What's preventing you or others from starting a thread on a subject you feel so passionate about...it'll probably be easier than trying to start a debate in "Check in if you're drunk" thread. No matter how you try to word your post...if it's in "drunk" thread...it will come across as "preaching"...and I'm not sure everyone likes that.

[outcry]

To voice my opinion as a member, rather than a mod:  it's disappointing that we have to accommodate hyper-sensitive posters who can't deal with a thread because of their own personal issues. 

Just because somebody is drawn to a thread like a "moth to a flame" doesn't mean that they shouldn't be asked to deal with it like an adult.  Speaking completely candidly here:  deal with it.  The thread has survived just fine for two years now without the world falling apart, and it would have continued along those lines just fine. 

I don't think I've ever posted in that thread before today, but I'd like the chance to drunk dial Perk when I'm blitzed without having to worry about another poster complaining about the unfairness of me posting about a completely legal activity on CelticsBlog.

Putting my "mod hat" back on:  I support IP's decision, and the need to make as many posters here as comfortable as possible.

Spot on. I've never seen a forum that has as many hyper-sensitive posters as seen on this blog. I'm not trying to start anything, but that's the way I see it from my experience with various forums. I'm not a fan of having the feeling of trying to skirt around something just because people are incredibly sensitive and can't deal.

[Neurotic Guy]

Why do we always have to cave to political correctness and the one person who has a problem with something?

And I am not starting a kum by ya thread so someone else has to do it.  

I do have a pet peeve about people shouting 'political correctness' when people are simply voicing their opinions (which sometimes is to voice one's offense).  It is completely untrue that this blog 'always caves' to the one person who has a problem.  With that said, freedom allows each of us to decide how we want to respond once we know that something is offensive to someone else.  What you call 'caving' I could just as easily call 'being respectful'. 

The impersonal nature of talk shows and blogs leave us with the potential to use anonymity to 'speak' to one another in ways we'd never do face to face.   There is some good in that, and I believe the modersators here do an excellent job of allowing a variety of points of view to be aired, while at times putting the brakes on when they feel it is getting out of hand.   That may feel like 'political correctness' gone awry to some, but I see it as being respectful to a diversely opinionated community.  Meanwhile, you still have the right to voice opinions that might be offensive to others -- that remains your choice.

[indeedproceed]

OK, your apology is accepted.

However, a moderator took a shot at those of us who disagree in this thread in a manner that clearly would not be tolerated on a basketball subject.

Nobody 'took a shot' at anyone. Show me where a moderator did so..because I just went back and read everything that was said, and I don't see how two people having a disagreement and settling it (which Redz and Bahku did) is anyone 'taking a shot'.

This is a sensitive subject to people who've lost a loved one to a drunk. This blog has always insisted that all viewpoints be repsected by posters - until this thread began. Apparently that rule doesn't apply to the subject of alcohol. Sad to see that standard lowered.

Nobody is silencing your opinion. This alleged disrespect was a matter of keeping a thread to the topic and purpose it was started, its not a moral dilemma, its a book keeping dilemma.

Hijacking? I wasn't aware that voicing another opinion was hijacking, but again, the rules of this blog seem to be evolving as the posts mount in this thread.

I'm really not interested in debating this further, and I'm not going to depricate your position the way the moderators have mine and others in this thread. At least some of us are going to adhere to the rules of this board.

How can you have two opinions in a thread dedicated to people popping their head in after a few drinks and saying "Ive had a few drinks"?

What is the other opinion there? "Don't drink"? I don't think so, because the thread wasn't called "Should I drink?" or "Is drinking good?". It was called "check in here if you're drunk". I would guess the other opinion there is "Check in here if you're sober"...and there is another thread for that.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=26595.0

I think the problem here is one of communication. You seem to think that I, or other mods, have a problem with someone speaking out against alcohol abuse, and that's simply not true. We have a problem with people doing it in the wrong thread, and hijacking the thread's intent into a discussion about morality.

Look at the other genius quotes in that thread, and tell me how speaking out against alcohol abuse is a valid counter point or opinion to any of it. Nobody is contesting that alcohol can ruin lives, because nobody is talking about alcohol's moral dilemma in there. If you feel that strongly about it, start a new thread, discussion how and why you feel alcohol abuse is wrong. If you can manage it without violating site policy, nobody is going to stop you.

[Eja117]

Why do we always have to cave to political correctness and the one person who has a problem with something?

And I am not starting a kum by ya thread so someone else has to do it.  

I do have a pet peeve about people shouting 'political correctness' when people are simply voicing their opinions (which sometimes is to voice one's offense).  It is completely untrue that this blog 'always caves' to the one person who has a problem.  With that said, freedom allows each of us to decide how we want to respond once we know that something is offensive to someone else.  What you call 'caving' I could just as easily call 'being respectful'. 

The impersonal nature of talk shows and blogs leave us with the potential to use anonymity to 'speak' to one another in ways we'd never do face to face.   There is some good in that, and I believe the modersators here do an excellent job of allowing a variety of points of view to be aired, while at times putting the brakes on when they feel it is getting out of hand.   That may feel like 'political correctness' gone awry to some, but I see it as being respectful to a diversely opinionated community.  Meanwhile, you still have the right to voice opinions that might be offensive to others -- that remains your choice.

maybe instead of calling it caving I should call it "catering".  Roy called it walking on egg shells.

The check in if your drunk thread couldn't be considered disrespectful to anyone because it wasn't aimed at anyone.  Also there was no opinion expressed.

This is the equivalent of if I made a thread called "check in here if you're dancing" and a Jehova's Witness or something says "Hey. I can't dance because it's offensive to my religion", then we change the name of the thread to "The music hall".

I have nothing against Jehova's Witnesses whatsoever on any level at all and admire the heck out of them. But if I make a thread like that I'd prefer not to change the name of it because someone doesn't like it and therefore declares it disrespectful to them.

And plus I take what I dish out anyway like a big boy. I think more people should try it, but I get that the mods would rather that not happen much.

[indeedproceed]

And plus I take what I dish out anyway like a big boy. I think more people should try it, but I get that the mods would rather that not happen much.

It's the paperwork. The paperwork is just unimaginable.

[thirstyboots18]

Are you just venting, EJ?  Because it sounds kind of like you are banging on a  hollow door....I am really not sure of your point.  It was a bad title for the thread, IMO.  I am glad the title has been changed, (and no, I didn't have any input in the decision).

This blog does have a family friendly attitude, and I don't think that looks good for younger members.  Just my opinion. 

[Eja117]

Are you just venting, EJ?  Because it sounds kind of like you are banging on a  hollow door....I am really not sure of your point.  It was a bad title for the thread, IMO.  I am glad the title has been changed, (and no, I didn't have any input in the decision).

This blog does have a family friendly attitude, and I don't think that looks good for younger members.  Just my opinion. 

I totally agree with you. The title is better now. If I had had a crystal ball and I knew how much it would bother someone I wouldn't have called it that. You can see from the first post I wasn't all that drunk.

I just don't think posters or mods should have to worry that if they make a bad thread title that they're going to cause a flare up of someone's ptsd. It was an accident.

And speaking of a hollow door where is that anti-drinking thread that will be named so well? I don't think it will happen.

[barefacedmonk]

Who doesn't have a couple of drinks once in a while...so, if there is a thread where you can drop by and post a couple of sentences after you've had a few drink, what's the harm in that. This thread is not promoting drinking..or drinking and driving or anything illegal. It's just for fun.

We have threads about squirrels, bacon, admit your man/woman love etc. Now just because we have a thread about bacon does not mean we are promoting unhealthy eating habits...or posting in the "admit your man/woman love" does not mean we are promoting homosexuality over heterosexuality or vice versa.

Off-topic threads are meant for fun, imo.

[Chris]

My stance on this is pretty simple.  Everyone has something that hits that nerve.  Something that has affected us in a deep, personal way, and that it is easy for us to get offended about. 

For some of us it is alcohol and drug use.  For some of us, it is politics or religion.  For some of us, it is a particular member of the C's.  For some of us, it is something more along the lines of the way people speak, or the way they act towards others.

However, as a mature adult, I personally think we all have a responsibility to recognize that not everyone reacts the same way to these things.  We need to understand if something offends us, that does not necessarily mean it is an inappropriate discussion, and in fact, our negative reaction could have an even more negative affect on the discussion in general, and may cause more harm than good.

Or in the words of the great Adam Carolla, "If it doesn't make you happy, or make you money...then let it go!"  And I have a hard time believing that complaining about people talking about drinking really makes any one happy, and it certainly doesn't make anyone money.  Basically, all it does is create drama, and makes other people feel bad about themselves.  So, why not just allow the people who enjoy the thread, enjoy it, and you can find a thread that you enjoy, and everyone will be happier for it.

[nickagneta]

As a person who has had a scotch or three during game threads, I don't see the problem with the original name of the thread or the need to change it. Never visited the thread, probably never will and didn't see Bahku's post so have no comment regarding its intent or appropriateness to the thread but...

Come on you had to know a but was coming

...sometimes when there are threads expressing an opinion about a topic, having a strong opposite opinion is great and expressing that opinion is the thing that great debate is made from. Subjects in the current events forum come to mind in this regard like a very famous thread on Gay Marriage that had very different opinions that was handled fabulously by all involved.

...sometimes having a strong opposite opinion and expressing it is not good, especially if it is in a "feel good", "having fun" type of thread. The words "buzz kill" come to mind and yes, in this case that is probably literal. BTW I'm not saying Bahku's original story was like this or meant this way, again, I never read it.

But, mmbaby and CoachBo, I respect tremendously your stances but in this particular thread, those types of opinions just do not belong there. eja wasn't promoting drunkenness or alcohol abuse. He was just saying if your drunk(and to be drunk, let's remember, legally that's only a BAC of .08 in some places so you could be talking just 2-3 beers) come into this thread and say something. That's all. Nothing more.

I don't know. I've been busy and not at the blog as much anymore but it doesn't sound like the staff handled this any differently than a million other disputes I have seen across this blog in the 4-5 years I have been coming here.

[Eja117]

Woah woah woah.  You can't say "hater" any more? When did that happen? Can you use it in relation to yourself? I still want to see those walking Darth Vaders saying Haters gonna hate.  This is probably a good rule. I just feel like I missed something. Did something else get blocked out too? Is this the result of something?