Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450066 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #375 on: June 06, 2009, 05:49:05 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
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.  

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #376 on: June 06, 2009, 05:49:47 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
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?

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #377 on: June 06, 2009, 05:50:58 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
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. 

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #378 on: June 06, 2009, 05:51:38 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale

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.

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.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 05:56:52 PM by Roy Hobbs »

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #379 on: June 06, 2009, 05:55:27 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice

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.



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.


Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #380 on: June 06, 2009, 05:58:11 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice

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.

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?

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #381 on: June 06, 2009, 05:59:27 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
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.  


Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #382 on: June 06, 2009, 06:00:55 PM »

Offline SSFan V

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 630
  • Tommy Points: 177
sometimes you have to bite your lip, exhale and move on.  So, I have.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #383 on: June 06, 2009, 06:02:03 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
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)


Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #384 on: June 06, 2009, 06:02:46 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale

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." 

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #385 on: June 06, 2009, 06:04:38 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
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. 

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #386 on: June 06, 2009, 06:05:58 PM »

Offline SSFan V

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 630
  • Tommy Points: 177
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"
sometimes you have to bite your lip, exhale and move on.  So, I have.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #387 on: June 06, 2009, 06:07:18 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice

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?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 06:13:40 PM by cordobes »

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #388 on: June 06, 2009, 06:10:23 PM »

Offline cordobes

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3556
  • Tommy Points: 576
  • Basketball is like chess, only without the dice
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?

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #389 on: June 06, 2009, 06:11:49 PM »

Offline Thruthelookingglass

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2687
  • Tommy Points: 133
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.