Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #435 on: June 16, 2009, 01:27:55 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
But crownsy using blanket statements and disparaging remarks are two different things.

I'd think if you're a politician or something disparaging remarks come with the territory. It's very hard to respect some of them.

I remember when Dole and Clinton were running against each other and Lettermen was like "Here for a public service announcement are the dancing singing albinos" and they sang "Dole is a cranky old man!" and then he band leader was like "Well in the interest of equal time don't we have to do a Clinton one now" and then they came out and sang "Clinton is a big fat slob".  The disparaged people were albinos.

Disparaging comments have a long and glorius tradition in American politics, so I just assumed we'd have it but I can see why I'd be wrong.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #436 on: June 16, 2009, 01:30:37 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.

Oh wait. Now I remember what I was thinking. I could see someone getting upset if one group gets to use a respectful nickname for their guy like "the Decider" or something for Bush, and the other group can't use their nickname. Hence if you are suggesting no nicknames, then I could see that

Well, they shouldn't get upset at that.  The goal is to keep things civil here.  I have never heard of someone getting upset or offended by using a respectful nickname for someone, however, it can incite flame-wars, if people start throwing out disrespectful nicknames.



I didn't think of it that way. Plus to me if you are uncivil towards a politician that doesn't mean you're being disrespectful to others, but I could see how others wouldn't agree. I get annoyed when people attack what I like, but I always felt like if I could do it back then it was fair.

Well, there is a lot of grey area there.  The problem is that many of the disrespectful nicknames thrown around at politicians in the past have not been directed just at that particular politician, but have been degrading in some way to the entire party they represent.  And sometimes its just innapropriate in general.

As far as being able to attack back when someone annoys you, while that may (or may not) work in real life, it just leads to anarchy on forums like that.  The anonymity that the internet provides often empowers people to cross lines they would never cross in real life, and this ussually leads to flame wars that destroy intelligent discussions, and ruins the time of those people who really want to discuss the issues.  

There is absolutely nothing worse than participating in a very interesting thread, and then having one or two posters take it over, and turn it into a personal battle of insults.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #437 on: June 16, 2009, 01:31:33 PM »

Offline crownsy

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8469
  • Tommy Points: 157
But crownsy using blanket statements and disparaging remarks are two different things.

I'd think if you're a politician or something disparaging remarks come with the territory. It's very hard to respect some of them.


I remember when Dole and Clinton were running against each other and Lettermen was like "Here for a public service announcement are the dancing singing albinos" and they sang "Dole is a cranky old man!" and then he band leader was like "Well in the interest of equal time don't we have to do a Clinton one now" and then they came out and sang "Clinton is a big fat slob".  The disparaged people were albinos.

Disparaging comments have a long and glorius tradition in American politics, so I just assumed we'd have it but I can see why I'd be wrong.

See, i get what your saying, but i don't agree with the bolded statement. I don't believe you need to insult people to get your point across.

I agree that the current events forum is ultra touchy on the "sarcasm as humor" posts, but that's because, if you look back through those threads that get locked, the sarcastic comments that would be fun in a sports thread suddenly become very personal and volatile in a political forum.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2009, 01:40:57 PM by crownsy »
“I will hurt you for this. A day will come when you think you’re safe and happy and your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth. And you will know the debt is paid.” – Tyrion

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #438 on: June 16, 2009, 01:43:04 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?

I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation.  I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.

Quote
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?

I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures.  Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.

(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point.  However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)

Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.

I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.

I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.

You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames.  "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody.  That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.

Oh wait. Now I remember what I was thinking. I could see someone getting upset if one group gets to use a respectful nickname for their guy like "the Decider" or something for Bush, and the other group can't use their nickname. Hence if you are suggesting no nicknames, then I could see that

Well, they shouldn't get upset at that.  The goal is to keep things civil here.  I have never heard of someone getting upset or offended by using a respectful nickname for someone, however, it can incite flame-wars, if people start throwing out disrespectful nicknames.



I didn't think of it that way. Plus to me if you are uncivil towards a politician that doesn't mean you're being disrespectful to others, but I could see how others wouldn't agree. I get annoyed when people attack what I like, but I always felt like if I could do it back then it was fair.

Well, there is a lot of grey area there.  The problem is that many of the disrespectful nicknames thrown around at politicians in the past have not been directed just at that particular politician, but have been degrading in some way to the entire party they represent.  And sometimes its just innapropriate in general.

As far as being able to attack back when someone annoys you, while that may (or may not) work in real life, it just leads to anarchy on forums like that.  The anonymity that the internet provides often empowers people to cross lines they would never cross in real life, and this ussually leads to flame wars that destroy intelligent discussions, and ruins the time of those people who really want to discuss the issues.  

There is absolutely nothing worse than participating in a very interesting thread, and then having one or two posters take it over, and turn it into a personal battle of insults.

I always just filtered those things out in my mind and focused on good posters, but it definitely takes a lot of space and that stuff doesn't happen as much in newspapers, and it's partly what ruins talk radio.
Plus I guess it's still fair when both groups can respect their guy and don't get to disrespect the other.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #439 on: June 16, 2009, 03:14:52 PM »

Offline nickagneta

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


Last, splitting hairs isn't likely to win anyone the "most wise" award.  Don't like the acronym BHO?  Would you rather just BO?  If I was the PUSA (or POTUS) I definitely would prefer BHO instead of being associated with "body odor."  These are all legitimate acronyms even if one of them doesn't float someone's ideological boat. 

Thanks Crownsy, good post.


The reason I brought up my concerns were because of how the acronyms were used in the original post of the Iran thread. At the time I had no idea what BHO, PUSA, Rham E and some other language used in the post were.

The reason I thought the acronyms might have been a bit insulting is first, the way they were used:

Quote
Second: what should PUSA be doing? Currently he appears to be voting president. And while Rham E said "never let a good crisis go to waste" - that appears to be the current plan in place at the white house. What should we be doing?

Quote
As loyal opposition (me) or supporters of BHO (everyone else ) I think we (those who are American) have an obligation to push for BHO to do the right thing, and part of that is figuring out what the right thing is.


The poster is an admitted opponent of the president and nowhere in the post did he refer to the president as President Obama or Mr. Obama or even Obama or Barrack. He only uses acronyms. "what should PUSA be doing? Currently he appears to be voting president." "As loyal opposition (me) or supporters of BHO (everyone else )." And lets face it, neither use is exactly flattering and BHO is used to emphasize the H as in Hussein which opponents of the president love doing to passively aggresively portray the president as Muslim.

If you think I'm not being wise in mentioning it or that I'm just splitting hairs, fine. But I still contend that it was the intent to show disrespect to the president and not just to save time writing the words "President" or "President Obama" or "Obama". Especially given the fact that the poster had no problem spelling out the words "Dinner Jacket" in order to disparage the president of Iran.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #440 on: June 16, 2009, 04:18:14 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7187
  • Tommy Points: 590
My question to the mods about this is: Why do we have to respect the president, whe he disrespects our nation on his latest apology tour?
Still don't believe in Joe.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #441 on: June 16, 2009, 04:39:03 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
My question to the mods about this is: Why do we have to respect the president, whe he disrespects our nation on his latest apology tour?

For the same reason we ask you to be respectful of everyone (except Kobe).  Feel free to disagree on his policies and state your dismay, but that can be done without directly calling him a poopyhead or whatever.  If you state your case well, your opinion of the man should be pretty clear.

edit - ok...kobe too
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #442 on: June 16, 2009, 04:44:36 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
My question to the mods about this is: Why do we have to respect the president, whe he disrespects our nation on his latest apology tour?

For the same reason we ask you to be respectful of everyone (except Kobe).  Feel free to disagree on his policies and state your dismay, but that can be done without directly calling him a poopyhead or whatever.  If you state your case well, your opinion of the man should be pretty clear.

edit - ok...kobe too

I think it's kind of funny that Kobe is actually specifically mentioned in the rules, and I think somewhere it was stated you can't call anyone a clown, except you, though I think Roy called a player a clown the other day. I don't remember which player. But the player really was a clown in the sense that Roy used it. Possibly Artest

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #443 on: June 16, 2009, 04:53:17 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
My question to the mods about this is: Why do we have to respect the president, whe he disrespects our nation on his latest apology tour?

For the same reason we ask you to be respectful of everyone (except Kobe).  Feel free to disagree on his policies and state your dismay, but that can be done without directly calling him a poopyhead or whatever.  If you state your case well, your opinion of the man should be pretty clear.

edit - ok...kobe too

I think it's kind of funny that Kobe is actually specifically mentioned in the rules, and I think somewhere it was stated you can't call anyone a clown, except you, though I think Roy called a player a clown the other day. I don't remember which player. But the player really was a clown in the sense that Roy used it. Possibly Artest

There is some reference being referred to by a nickname involving his legal history.

And yeh, feel free to call me a clown legally.   :D
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #444 on: July 05, 2009, 04:55:47 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I'd like to propose if you want to criticize mods do it here and if you do it in threads meant to honor recently murdered highly respected people then you get an auto suspension of something like a month.

That was embarrassing. I can't believe a thread for Steve McNair had to be locked. It was like the mods had to split the thread to allow people to criticize them for enforcing posted rules

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #445 on: July 05, 2009, 04:58:17 PM »

Offline Rondoholic

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 379
  • Tommy Points: 21
I'd like to propose if you want to criticize mods do it here and if you do it in threads meant to honor recently murdered highly respected people then you get an auto suspension of something like a month.

That was embarrassing. I can't believe a thread for Steve McNair had to be locked. It was like the mods had to split the thread to allow people to criticize them for enforcing posted rules

Agreed.  That was so ridiculous.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #446 on: July 23, 2009, 08:08:28 AM »

Offline SSFan V

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 630
  • Tommy Points: 177
indirectly I have some thoughts on the subject at my blog about Proverbs and Pslams

http://doughnutholes.wordpress.com/

Why can we randomly and intelligently talk about the topic of religion but we can't randomly and intelligently talk about topics such as the passing of an adult movie star? 

I find this very hypocritical.  Both can be considered divisive and both can be considered inflammatory.  Both can be considered quite private and both when put out into the public can cause strong feelings one way or another.  Yet, only one of the two has been the cause of hatred and wars that have ruined the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

I think the subject of religion should be a non topic on Celticsblog or if you are going to allow one controversial subject you allow all.

thank you.
sometimes you have to bite your lip, exhale and move on.  So, I have.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #447 on: July 23, 2009, 08:22:06 AM »

Offline Jeff

  • CelticsBlog CEO
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6672
  • Tommy Points: 301
  • ranter
we went back and forth on that for a long time (religion/politics) and decided to let it be discussed

I however, want to run a PG, family friendly site, so adult film discussion is not what we're looking for here

my choice, blame me if you like
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 #448 on: July 23, 2009, 08:24:13 AM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
indirectly I have some thoughts on the subject at my blog about Proverbs and Pslams

http://doughnutholes.wordpress.com/

Why can we randomly and intelligently talk about the topic of religion but we can't randomly and intelligently talk about topics such as the passing of an adult movie star? 

I find this very hypocritical.  Both can be considered divisive and both can be considered inflammatory.  Both can be considered quite private and both when put out into the public can cause strong feelings one way or another.  Yet, only one of the two has been the cause of hatred and wars that have ruined the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

I think the subject of religion should be a non topic on Celticsblog or if you are going to allow one controversial subject you allow all.

thank you.

This blog has certain standards.  One of them is that we don't discuss p0rn.  I don't even understand the complaint you have; if we can discuss religion, we should be able to discuss p0rnography?  How so?  This blog is meant to be family friendly.  What that means in practical effect is that we don't allow swearing, we don't allow a lot of sexual innuendo or objectification of women, and we ask people to be respectful of one another.

This is Jeff's blog.  He's a man of faith, and he has every right to link to it.  He's far from heavy-handed about his spirituality, and I don't think this is an area where he deserves any criticism at all.

Regardless, though, Jeff's allowed to have any rules he wants around here.  It's up to individual posters to decide whether they can live with those rules, or whether they'd be best served on RealGM or another Celtics forum.

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 #449 on: July 23, 2009, 08:36:51 AM »

Offline SSFan V

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 630
  • Tommy Points: 177
indirectly I have some thoughts on the subject at my blog about Proverbs and Pslams

http://doughnutholes.wordpress.com/

Why can we randomly and intelligently talk about the topic of religion but we can't randomly and intelligently talk about topics such as the passing of an adult movie star? 

I find this very hypocritical.  Both can be considered divisive and both can be considered inflammatory.  Both can be considered quite private and both when put out into the public can cause strong feelings one way or another.  Yet, only one of the two has been the cause of hatred and wars that have ruined the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

I think the subject of religion should be a non topic on Celticsblog or if you are going to allow one controversial subject you allow all.

thank you.

This blog has certain standards.  One of them is that we don't discuss p0rn.  I don't even understand the complaint you have; if we can discuss religion, we should be able to discuss p0rnography?  How so?  This blog is meant to be family friendly.  What that means in practical effect is that we don't allow swearing, we don't allow a lot of sexual innuendo or objectification of women, and we ask people to be respectful of one another.

This is Jeff's blog.  He's a man of faith, and he has every right to link to it.  He's far from heavy-handed about his spirituality, and I don't think this is an area where he deserves any criticism at all.

Regardless, though, Jeff's allowed to have any rules he wants around here.  It's up to individual posters to decide whether they can live with those rules, or whether they'd be best served on RealGM or another Celtics forum.

Roy I agree 100% and I have said so -- but I still find it hypocritical. 

As for my complaint -- it's not important because it does neither of us any good to rehash it.
sometimes you have to bite your lip, exhale and move on.  So, I have.