Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #765 on: December 31, 2011, 06:57:49 PM »

Offline dark_lord

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8808
  • Tommy Points: 1126
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?

i think u can use it in certain contexts. labeling another member isnt allowed. 

thats my interpretation

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #766 on: December 31, 2011, 06:58:32 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
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?

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=10.0


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", "homer", "koolaid drinker", etc.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #767 on: December 31, 2011, 07:01:28 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30939
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
It's all about context with the word.

Staff holds discretion on the moderation of it.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #768 on: December 31, 2011, 07:02:35 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Oh. I see what you're saying. I rarely see the red ink edit and got thrown off. That's not new at all. I thought we were dealing with a censored word, like the words you can't say on TV or something

False alarm

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #769 on: January 01, 2012, 11:09:51 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Mods just hating on you, eja.... ;) :D ;D

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #770 on: January 01, 2012, 03:48:51 PM »

Offline Jeff

  • CelticsBlog CEO
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6672
  • Tommy Points: 301
  • ranter
Faith and Sports - an essay by Jeff Clark

"Know what I pray for? The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin (Bill Watterson)

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #771 on: January 06, 2012, 01:15:01 PM »

Offline barefacedmonk

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7221
  • Tommy Points: 1796
  • The Dude Abides
I thought it was against the rules to mention the details of PMs in public.

*edited to just the rules question, the specific instance should be handled privately with the staff*

-Fafnir
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 01:35:53 PM by Fafnir »
"An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching." - M.K. Gandhi


Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #772 on: January 06, 2012, 01:26:47 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
I thought it was against the rules to mention the details of PMs in public.
Here is the relevant blog rule:
Quote
Do not post the contents of a private message in the forums or elsewhere without the permission of the poster sending you such message.  If a private message is inappropriate, please report its contents to the staff, via private message or the "report to a moderator" option.
So sharing PMs here or elsewhere from this forum is against this site's rules.

Though I don't know if its made clear in the rules moderators do share PMs when discussing discipline and other matters that require shared input (usually regarding discussion with posters over warnings and other discipline).

As to the specifics of any instance you'll have to PM them to me, this thread isn't the place as its a public discussion.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 01:31:57 PM by Fafnir »

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #773 on: March 30, 2012, 01:15:29 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I have an idea for a possibly better CB experience with pros and cons.

Sometimes it just occurs to me "Man. There are a lot of rules".

I like to think I know almost all of them (with the exception of some of the technical ones ..like for example there are 15 rules about signatures and 3 about links), but I often find there's another one I didn't know.

There are 117 rules here. I think it's possible due to just some of the backgrounds on the staff perhaps the site is slightly...um...overly legalistic.

However at the top there are 5 basic rules

The Basics:
Respect each other at all times.
Keep this site family friendly.  No profanity, no sexual content, no illegal activity.
Don't be a jerk, and don't ruin CelticsBlog for others.
Have fun!
For all of the specifics, see our detailed rules below.

Therefore I am suggesting the staff consider the idea of "The 24 hour warning lock"

Instead of two colors ..stop (lock)...and go (not locked)...there could be a yellow light (24 hour warning) during which we get redirection.  Not everything in a thread is a broken rule.

So take for example the recent locking of the "where are posters thread". It's locked and it'll be gone pretty soon. Only a few people will see it so only a few people will learn the rule.

Whereas if there was a good tone then the thread could get sorta a temporary reprieve from the governor and we could all learn the lesson.

At this point for example it wouldn't be good to open a very similar thread and then just not speculate (which was the broken rule in question).  But in a perfect world we could.  I'm just saying the main idea behind some threads don't always have to die.

A rule can maybe be bent for a sufficient amount of time to save a concept.

Am I making sense?

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #774 on: March 30, 2012, 01:25:04 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
You're making sense, but the fact is that since a lot of the people to be mentioned (and already mentioned) in the thread were likely banned or at the very least moderated. Because of that, it was locked.

Also, while your idea is a good one, I am personally lazy, and have a life, and a job, etc...

I mention that (#humblebrag), because a lot of times sorting through a thread, and redirecting it while punishing the guilty parties is a total pain in the balls that takes much longer than one might think. Then, you have people who complain because of who was or was not punished and how, and whatever...

Honestly, as a mod, I'd rather just lock the thing and be done with it. Saves my sanity. 

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #775 on: March 30, 2012, 01:25:41 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58559
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
From time to time, we'll use temporary locks.  Normally, those are in situations where we want to internally discuss what to do with a thread, or where we just want people to cool down.  In both cases, it's usually where things are pretty borderline.

Where a rule is explicit, though, we try to enforce it.  There's no doubt that we've got a lot of rules.  The reason for that is that we don't want to appear arbitrary when we enforce something.  Many of these situations have come up time and time again, and we've had internal "unwritten rules" about them.  Rather than just internally abiding by those rules without explanation, we've tried to give the membership some insight into our thought process.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #776 on: March 30, 2012, 01:33:06 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30939
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
We have a bunch of rules so we don't become an ESPN or CBS messageboard.  They're in place to try and create a more pleasant community experience.

We don't need a temporary lock system.  Consider each thread already under that label.  If things get out of hand, they get locked.  Like Roy mentioned, the times we do "temporarily" lock something is because its under discussion by staff on whether or not to keep it going. 

This instance was rather clear cut.  The thread violated one of our posting rules, so we locked it.  Why place a temporary lock on something that is against the rules anyways?


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #777 on: March 30, 2012, 01:54:03 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Well I guess to answer that question Dons, the best I could say is that up till now I had envisioned locks as something mostly used when things had "gotten out of hand".

A thread that isn't out of hand, but is breaking a rule, could potentially be told, "stop breaking this rule" and then the thread could be saved if it hadn't gotten out of hand.

Perhaps people have different ideas about what is and isn't out of hand. You mentioned the rules as being for a pleasant community experience and I thought it was, but then all of a sudden it wasn't so much.  I agree the potential was there to get less pleasant and it would have gotten so as a result of breaking rules, but I just didn't see it at that time as out of hand.

I admit it broke one of the 117 rules, but it didn't seem to break the basic rules.

It seemed
1 People were respecting each other
2 It was staying family friendly
3 Nobody was being a jerk yet
4 people were having fun

I'm just thinking out loud philosophically. Indeed's post makes a lot of sense to me.
i definitely don't want this interpreted about whether you lock too much or about a specific thread. I am all about black and white. 

But sometimes I just think a tweak here and there and there we go.

I think in the past Roy has encouraged us not to think of locks as wrecking balls. I try hard not to, but sometimes I can't.

A wrecking ball can be a great thing. Sometimes things have got to go. But sometimes as an architect (Vandalay Enterpries!) you just think "Ok there has to be a way to save the foundation" or better yet undergo facadomy (which is my new favorite word).

I guess maybe the difference is that some threads get multiple warnings and then get locked because they got out of hand but the original post wasn't a rule break, whereas sometimes a thread that's not out of hand is actually based on coming very close to breaking a rule and even though it's not out of hand it gets locked.

I just hadn't thought of it as breaking a rule. I thought people might say "He was just here last night man". I just thought there was more potential for good than bad and that there might be some posts that might fall under that and that the staff could use a different tool.

That was my thinking. 

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #778 on: March 30, 2012, 02:06:54 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58559
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I hear you, eja.  As I alluded to at the time of the lock, I understand where you're coming from, and it's nice reminiscing about old members.  However, we try to respect members' privacy; sometimes, there are reasons that people leave, and generally if they wanted those known, they'd tell us before moving on.

I'll throw this out as a compromise:  if your intent was to honor past members, re-launch your thread as a "Great members from CelticsBlog's past", or something like that.  Stay away from the "whatever happened to so-and-so" aspect, and just talk about guys you liked, and what you liked about them.  Stay away from the speculation, and concentrate on the positive, and you'll be well within our rules.

In terms of Dons' point, though, I agree whole-heartedly:  if a thread directly violates one of our rules, we have to lock it, regardless of the original posters' intent.  We try to enforce things as uniformly as we can; if we start picking and choosing which rules to enforce, we'll come across as arbitrary and inconsistent.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #779 on: March 30, 2012, 02:16:17 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
i guess that all makes sense.

It was actually meant a little more to relocate or to relearn about members I don't know well.

This place is small enough that most likely I pretty much know everyone here, but it's big enough I had thought of people possibly falling through the cracks or just being in a different area of things.

I think I'm going to have to pm you on this as it probably makes more sense at this point, since I know now inviting public speculation can't be done.

But I also thought adding a tool to the tool box might have been a good idea.

I just figured there must be times when a mod thinks "I don't want to lock this thread but I have to" and in those scenarios there might be a better way. 

I was thinking out loud and learned a thing and relearned another I guess.