Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions

[MBunge]

Since the Nets thread got locked, I'll just post this here and tap out.   I'm not telling anyone how to run this place but while a bunch of us can be argumentative little jerks, like me, there is one guy who is consistently in the middle of most of the nonsense around here.  He's now taken up flat out lying about stuff he posted in the past which, even if he's just trying to be funny, is plain and simple trolling behavior.  I'm not saying the rest of us are angels, but there shouldn't be one guy everybody else has to tiptoe around, no matter how long he's been posting here.

Mike

[walker834]

I'm honestly split on that whole mindset.  I've had people take things i say the wrong way including mods just because there is no tone on the internet.  It's like someone attacks then they get attacked back and then the mods attack when what even happened isn't even that.  I say let people fight their own battles.  If people take it personally sometimes the moderators make it worse.

It would be great if the moderators were always perfect but even they take jokes the wrong way or even words when there is no tone on the internet.  Probably why i explain much how i mean things lol even though that isn't even it.  I try though...

KG was smacking people on the ass in the lockerroom and that's pretty funny to me.  Should he be banned for that? I don't know.  I love kg.  People take things too seriously and sometimes the people who are wrong on the internet and actually harming people  aren't even who people think. It's ridiculous.  Some people get offended. Some don't.  I don't know.

Good to keep threads on topic though... But we aren't all robots here. It's good if people at least try to do that and listen. I'm capable of that.

Half the issue is there is no tone over the internet.  It's absurd. Never been one to call people trolls either. 

I get what you are saying and it annoys some people.  Others not so much though.

half the issue with people is they assume things that aren't even true instead of looking deeper than that. Insecurity or whatever it is.

The moderators here are pretty good.  We are all human.

[Donoghus]

This discussion is probably better served to be in its own thread under the "Comments & Remarks" section or in the "Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions" than kind've getting buried in this thread and being off topic.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?board=14.0

[walker834]

I agree but there is too much of that crap on the internet and society in general though where p eople  are trying to make the world some utopian society though and it's kind of absurd. 

[Donoghus]

I agree but there is too much of that crap on the internet and society in general though where p eople  are trying to make the world some utopian society though and it's kind of absurd.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to tell me here.

[walker834]

Nothing overly. I've just had moderators try to control stuff and assume things too and go on the attack and be wrong before. Some forums are worse than others.  This one is fairly good for the most part. It's their board and how they run it.  People can be wrong in so many ways on the internet is all. I like to see these boards as communities and i tend to think this one does and are nicer than most.  Some boards are run like hitler.

[rondofan1255]

edited

[PhoSita]

Since the Nets thread got locked, I'll just post this here and tap out.   I'm not telling anyone how to run this place but while a bunch of us can be argumentative little jerks, like me, there is one guy who is consistently in the middle of most of the nonsense around here.  He's now taken up flat out lying about stuff he posted in the past which, even if he's just trying to be funny, is plain and simple trolling behavior.  I'm not saying the rest of us are angels, but there shouldn't be one guy everybody else has to tiptoe around, no matter how long he's been posting here.

Mike

See, the thing that I've noticed is that there's a certain group of posters who insist on derailing every thread in which that guy posts into a contentious and obviously futile exercise in trying to get him to admit to every mistaken thing he's ever predicted or opined upon.  The post becomes a referendum on a particular poster and his proclamations about Joel Embiid rather than whatever the original topic was.


To me, that's more of a problem than one guy on this forum who likes to post tongue in cheek and try to get attention by stating things that are in-context-controversial.  If you don't engage and don't take it so seriously, then the thread keeps moving along.  People just need to accept that some people are the way they are and do what they're gonna do, you're not going to get them to break down and admit they were wrong all along.  And moreover, it's not fun to be here if that's gonna be the goal of so many discussions -- to force people to own their mistakes and be held accountable for them.

This becomes a negative environment if there's a frequent pattern of people refusing to take what other posters say in a given thread at face value because of the need to bring up the context of other posts in other threads.  The worst times I can think of to be on this forum have been when people insist on creating factions and using labels for posters who they perceive to be on the opposite side of whatever divide they want to create, whether it's Tankers vs Anti-Tankers, or whatever.  They disagree reflexively because the person making a post is somebody they identify as a "tanker," or whatever, and so fail to actually read what was said in that thread.

[Roy H.]

To be clear: both baiting and stalking are against our rules. It's been way too widespread.

Disagreements are fine. Devil's Advocate, in most instances, is fine. Calling one another out, across multiple threads, is a big issue, and we're going to be treating it as one.

[celticsclay]

Since the Nets thread got locked, I'll just post this here and tap out.   I'm not telling anyone how to run this place but while a bunch of us can be argumentative little jerks, like me, there is one guy who is consistently in the middle of most of the nonsense around here.  He's now taken up flat out lying about stuff he posted in the past which, even if he's just trying to be funny, is plain and simple trolling behavior.  I'm not saying the rest of us are angels, but there shouldn't be one guy everybody else has to tiptoe around, no matter how long he's been posting here.

Mike

See, the thing that I've noticed is that there's a certain group of posters who insist on derailing every thread in which that guy posts into a contentious and obviously futile exercise in trying to get him to admit to every mistaken thing he's ever predicted or opined upon.  The post becomes a referendum on a particular poster and his proclamations about Joel Embiid rather than whatever the original topic was.


To me, that's more of a problem than one guy on this forum who likes to post tongue in cheek and try to get attention by stating things that are in-context-controversial.  If you don't engage and don't take it so seriously, then the thread keeps moving along.  People just need to accept that some people are the way they are and do what they're gonna do, you're not going to get them to break down and admit they were wrong all along.  And moreover, it's not fun to be here if that's gonna be the goal of so many discussions -- to force people to own their mistakes and be held accountable for them.

This becomes a negative environment if there's a frequent pattern of people refusing to take what other posters say in a given thread at face value because of the need to bring up the context of other posts in other threads.  The worst times I can think of to be on this forum have been when people insist on creating factions and using labels for posters who they perceive to be on the opposite side of whatever divide they want to create, whether it's Tankers vs Anti-Tankers, or whatever.  They disagree reflexively because the person making a post is somebody they identify as a "tanker," or whatever, and so fail to actually read what was said in that thread.

Pho,

You have gotten into it a few times with said poster yourself and have also complained numerous times about the poster constantly making threads about themselves so this comment seems really disingenuous

[D Dub]

Free Bird!   

Don't y'all think it's kind of lazy to hammer the guys supposed predictions without actually finding & quoting the text in question?  Afterall, this *is* a message board, complete with advanced search...

[GratefulCs]

Caution: Do NOT Feed said poster


Easy as that (though hard at times)

[PhoSita]

You have gotten into it a few times with said poster yourself and have also complained numerous times about the poster constantly making threads about themselves so this comment seems really disingenuous

There's a difference, to me, between calling somebody out for being ridiculous in a particular thread, versus dismissing what they say because of things they've said elsewhere.  Even worse, on top of that, to then engage for the umpteenth time in a deep dive on that poster's history of opinions, sometimes literally posting extended quotes from threads six months deceased, to prove your point.

And in any case, if I do call BS on somebody, I try to just say so and then move on, not turn that into the topic of the thread, which is my real problem here.  You have a problem with what somebody else says, OK fine, address it and then move on, contribute something to the discussion.  When threads get derailed by bickering that has no hope of going anywhere, the forum is the worse for it.

[celticsclay]

You have gotten into it a few times with said poster yourself and have also complained numerous times about the poster constantly making threads about themselves so this comment seems really disingenuous

There's a difference, to me, between calling somebody out for being ridiculous in a particular thread, versus dismissing what they say because of things they've said elsewhere.  Even worse, on top of that, to then engage for the umpteenth time in a deep dive on that poster's history of opinions, sometimes literally posting extended quotes from threads six months deceased, to prove your point.

And in any case, if I do call BS on somebody, I try to just say so and then move on, not turn that into the topic of the thread, which is my real problem here.  You have a problem with what somebody else says, OK fine, address it and then move on, contribute something to the discussion.  When threads get derailed by bickering that has no hope of going anywhere, the forum is the worse for it.

If your addressing this to me specifically I haven't been posting any user's old posts. I don't really even know how the people do that. I was able to find one person's post on a really unique word once, but if I typed in Nets and someone's name I think I get like 200 results. (I also don't think it is a great thing to do regularly)

However, making the point that that you have called out a user x times and only in specific threads and others have called them out x times plus 15 that seems kind of like splitting hairs.

I think an actual issue is that there is a common denominator in all of these derailed threads. I would argue that aside from a few political discussions that became heated, there is one consistent user in every single thread that gets locked on here. It seems like if the threads are to stay on track and not need to be locked the common theme needs to be addressed. Perhaps it does not to be addressed. That is obviously completely up to the mods and how they want to run the forum.

[LarBrd33]

There was a recent podcast with Bill Simmons and Tony Kornheiser earlier this month where they talked about the nature of Sports Journalism and how it's changed in the Internet era.  Kornheiser went on to explain that back in the day, guys like him were able to take a stance on something that wasn't necessarily entirely genuine.  You'd make a declaration like, "Rick Pitino has to go!... he's a disaster on every front" and built your argument in support of that premise... basically blindly dismissing the aspects of Pitino that might actually be overlooked positives.  Or alternatively, you'd say "We're in year 4 of Danny Ainge's tenure and we have the 5th worst record in the league - Ainge has failed this team!"....  Point is, those kind of brash declarations aren't possible from Sports Journalists in the Internet era.   

Simmons talks about how if someone takes a hard stance on something today, they'll get torn apart in comment threads and follow-up blog posts and overall attacks on their credibility.   We're all a little guilty of it.  I still believe Jemele Hill is a Grade-A idiot for some of the articles she wrote close to a decade ago about how Kobe was better than Jordan.  Clearly, we have all sorts of videos mocking the many times Steven A. Smith has been wrong "predicting" the playoffs outcome.  Or videos/articles tearing apart folks like Chad Ford or Skip Bayless.  We are meant to trust these people as they are providing their "professional" analysis of the Sports world.  Their credibility and their careers are on the line.  How dare they ever be "wrong" about anything. 

As a result, you have writers who now naturally go half-in.  They make a case, but are quick to point out the opposing viewpoint.   You can't just say Jahlil Okafor is a disaster, you need to present the positives - just in case.  Nobody is making bold declarations.  Everyone is covering their bases.

In some ways, Simmons and Kornheiser admit that this could be a good thing as it requires an even-keeled and fair approach to Sports journalism.   They should cover both sides, right? 

On the other hand, Simmons and Konheiser admit that the rabid internet culture has basically cut the balls off a lot of guys who otherwise would be out expressing strong opinions and making bold statements. 

I even find that in my own posts, I throw ice on every opinion I might have and give myself an "out-clause" for fear of the wrath of the angry internet hoard.  I can't just say, "Brooklyn has the talent that makes them more dangerous than people think".  I instead have to say, "Brooklyn may have the talent to possibly be more dangerous than people think... this all assuming they remain healthy"... I just find myself instinctively doing this after spending over a decade commenting on forums like these.   

And yet, I shouldn't have to.  Because I'm not Skip Bayless.   I'm not Steven A Smith.  I'm not writing something in the Boston Globe.   This isn't "Sports Center".  This isn't my career.  This is an internet forum where people are free to share their opinions, debate about various team-related topics, express their doubts, comment on things they are excited about - even if unreasonable.  It's all part of the experience of being a sports fan in the internet culture.   That's all any of us here are.  Fans.   It's why I have to roll my eyes when people throw out words like "credibility" and "integrity" when it comes to fan opinions.  These brash declarations that later prove to be idiotic are perfectly suitable for an internet forum.  I know someone once insisted that Fab Melo was going to be a star after a handful of blocks in a D-League game... I'm not going to personally call out that person for that opinion though.  It's an opinion they had in the moment.  So what?  I'm not dismissing that person's opinions simply because they were high on Fab Melo at the time.

Personally speaking, nothing I say here is intended as some grand prediction.  I'm not putting money on my declaration that Golden State is going to run the table on the season and rattle off a decade of championships.   I'm not putting my career on the line and asking you to trust me that I'll be right.  Mostly, I'm just a dumb fan expressing my own often tongue-in-cheek fears and trying to set my own expectations low.   

Obviously in an ideal world, Boston dominates every season.  But I'm not going to blame a fan for being pessimistic, making some reverse-jinxing comments in a pointless forum thread as a means of coping with the fan experience.  Countless people do this.  Literally every game thread.  Seriously, look at literally any game thread.  Wait for the other team to go on a bit of a run and like clockwork someone well comment, "Welp, we're cooked.  Best of luck next games boys."  Then the team goes on a run, pulls off the victory, and you get an "OMG That was amazing!" from the same fan who had doomed the team a half hour prior.   That's just part of fandom.   You brush that off and move on.   

It would seem kind of foolish to go to those threads, copy all of those quotes, and paste them months later as some kind of "proof" that a fan's opinion is invalid.  "Don't listen to anything RandoFan says.  He's the guy who predicted we were cooked after Boston fell down 10 points."   Or... "How confident are you in this prediction... are you as confident as you were when you predicted  Boston was cooked in RandoGame?"... or "Have some credibility and integrity and admit that you were WRONG when you predicted Boston was cooked when they fell down 10 points!" 

That stuff is obnoxious.  It adds nothing.  It's all ax-grindy and derails threads.  To the people who do that - first and foremost, I'd say that nobody here is putting their careers on the line so who cares what they've said in the past.   Second of all, let's admit that the reason you're doing it is to classlessly disregard a comment a poster is making in the present - typically because you don't have a valid rebuttal to the point being made and would rather just trash the person you disagree with.   Third, let's admit that even if that poster went out of his way to humor you and admit he was "oh so very wrong" when he "predicted" Boston was "cooked" in that random game - that's not the result you're looking for.  It's not going to stop you from continuing to obnoxiously "call out" that poster for their past opinions.  If anything, it just sets a bad precedent where fans have to be held accountable for dumb things they've said in the past in order to "justify" comments they are making in the present - which is a terrible idea as basically everyone here is guilty of having said something stupid in the past.  Let's not open up that Pandora's box.  Also I know for a FACT that "admitting" isn't going to make a difference, because I've admitted to being wrong on this forum NUMEROUS times and yet there's still a handful of folks who consistently go out of their way to say "he's wrong this time just like he was wrong last time.  He'll never admit to being wrong!  Ignore his comments!" 

I do think a lot of people take these threads more seriously than they need to.  And while I admit my sense of humor isn't for everyone, I typically try my best to diffuse situations with my own brand of self-deprecating nonsensery when I find certain behaviors on this forum to be deplorable.   If a certain poster here is consistently disrespecting another individual's opinions, labeling you him/her a "troll", calling him/her a hater, or insisting that there's a conspiracy and he/she is a fan of a rival team, I wouldn't fault the victim of that disrespect from returning favor.   It's pretty straight-forward stuff here.  Treat people how you want to be treated.   Treat people with respect and they'll treat you with respect back.   And while there might be a little chicken/egg thing going on here - and it's obvious that I'm personally one of the main characters being called out in this thread, I will say that for my own part, I do spend a lot of time having Pm's with various individuals who disagree with me... and for the most part, they'd agree that I go out of my way to consider their opinions and respond to them as politely and appropriately as possible. 

Just my fifty cents.   

Side note:  Briefly responding to Clay's comments.  If you're referring to me as the "common denominator", it's fair to point out that I'm a "common denominator" in EVERY CelticsBlog thread.  Period.  I participate in every conversation and share many opinions.  People don't often agree with them.