Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450334 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #390 on: June 06, 2009, 06:13:14 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

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

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 #391 on: June 06, 2009, 06:14:56 PM »

Offline cordobes

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

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #392 on: June 06, 2009, 06:15:55 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

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

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 #393 on: June 06, 2009, 06:16:36 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

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

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 #394 on: June 06, 2009, 06:16:52 PM »

Offline cordobes

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

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #395 on: June 06, 2009, 06:21:15 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?

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.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #396 on: June 06, 2009, 06:22:40 PM »

Offline cordobes

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

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.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #397 on: June 06, 2009, 06:22:48 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
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.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 06:29:55 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 #398 on: June 06, 2009, 06:23:00 PM »

Offline SSFan V

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 630
  • Tommy Points: 177
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.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 06:59:06 PM by SSFan V »
sometimes you have to bite your lip, exhale and move on.  So, I have.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #399 on: June 06, 2009, 08:14:13 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
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.


Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #400 on: June 06, 2009, 08:25:15 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

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

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 #401 on: June 06, 2009, 09:02:24 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
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

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #402 on: June 06, 2009, 09:08:11 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
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

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #403 on: June 06, 2009, 09:11:10 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
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.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #404 on: June 06, 2009, 09:18:00 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
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