Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450053 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #555 on: March 18, 2010, 07:02:58 PM »

Offline SalmonAndMashedPotatoes

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 366
  • Tommy Points: 119
So you don't have a problem with how things are run? Its other people's perceptions?

*shrug*

Then the other people should really PM us. Many posters have done so and usually we're pretty good about getting back quickly. (I still owe one person just such a PM though...  :-[)

Ahem, the perception problem is a *reflection* of how things are run; so therefore, yes, while I don't think there's an active bias at play in the moderation of this site, I *do* agree with the perception of bias in the way decisions are meted out.  Some things just look bad, even if after you look at all sides it's not really that bad after all. Like I said before, some it's because you can't divulge disciplinary decisions, some of it's the way personal like/dislike plays into the interpretation of rule-breaking, and some of it's the fact that you can't moderate the entirety of the site, meaning certain things slide when they aren't reported by members...

So, yeah, while I don't think there's much bias in the moderation on this site, I do think you could do more to correct the perception of whether there is a bias. 

I don't think the majority of people have a negative perception of either the Celticsblog membership or staff. 

Nobody said anything about a majority of anything.  What I did say is that in my experience the most common complaint against C-blog (when complaints are made on other C-related sites) is the in-crowd, out-crown perception of favoritism. 

Among those that do, there are certain members who have an agenda, there are others who disagree philosophically with certain rules (i.e., no profanity, etc.), and there are others who find this site just isn't their cup of tea, for whatever reason.

I think the number of members we *could* make happy, but don't because of our application of the rules, is practically nil.  To that very small minority, I'd recommend PMing the staff.  I feel that we're all remarkably accessible, although certain members of the staff may take awhile in getting back to you due to having other stuff going on.

Meh--'practically nil' is hardly accurate, if you count the ones who've left in a huff over perceived inconsistency in the application of the rules.  IMO, Celticsblog has lost more good members than it's retained because of the application of the rules.  This isn't about agendas, or philosophical differences over certain rules, or cup-of-tea defections--this is about perceived unfairness.

I've heard that Celticsblog has a reputation of being too strict, but I really haven't seen too many complaints about an "in crowd".  The ironic thing is that some of the folks people presumably perceive as being "staff favorites" have been disciplined in the past, whereas many of those who aren't necessarily seen as being in any sort of "group" are universally respected by the staff.

I think if you randomly took 20 different posters and asked them who the "in" and "out" groups were, you'd get wildly divergent answers.

Yeah, the thing with perception is that it's often unreliable ;)  I don't doubt that things like "in-crowd" and "staff favorites" are subject to wildly varied interpretations depending on who you ask.  Regardless of the irony involved, though, there could done more to create the appearance of objectivity, even if those measures were only for appearance's sake and don't have any real effect on the running of the site.

Perception problems are special--first you have to somehow determine whether the perception exists, and then you have to make decisions that change that perception, decisions that might not actually result in any real change.  I'm hearing a lot of defensive-sounding justifications of the process around here, and while I understand the need to justify one's process, the actual process is beside the point.  What I'm talking about is a way to improve the perception of fairness and that involves taking a look and finding ways that improve perception...
Folly. Persist.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #556 on: March 18, 2010, 07:24:35 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Meh--'practically nil' is hardly accurate, if you count the ones who've left in a huff over perceived inconsistency in the application of the rules.  IMO, Celticsblog has lost more good members than it's retained because of the application of the rules.  This isn't about agendas, or philosophical differences over certain rules, or cup-of-tea defections--this is about perceived unfairness.

#1) The opinion that we've lost more good members than we've retained is one you are certainly entitled to, but also one that think is a complete load. I've seen the members go and eventually come back, and I've seen members leave because they didn't like the how site was run and never come back. There are not many that i miss (although there are some.).

Our membership is the best on the internet. I will stand by that, 100%.

2) People that leave don't take the time to hash it out with us. They don't discuss it with us, and when they have a problem they don't speak honestly about it. So honestly, what are we supposed to do?

Im not sure what you're angling for here S&MP, but I'm not buying. Sure people have left because they disagree. Most that can, do come back. Maybe they come back in spite of the mod staff, but the people don't come here to read my posts, they come because of the community.

I do care if our members don't like the way we operate, because that's who we do it for...but I also could not care less if other sites water cooler talk thinks we suck.

"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 #557 on: March 18, 2010, 07:29:34 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
I wonder where this perception drama crap is coming from.

Also, there's no forum in the internet that doesn't have the one or two cry babies that go complaint for the sake of complaining about the forum on other sites. That's a guarantee.

People are just whiners by nature, and usually the two or three doing the whining are heard the loudest... but it doesn't make it any more truthful nor more representative of the majority.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #558 on: March 18, 2010, 07:40:11 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
Meh--'practically nil' is hardly accurate, if you count the ones who've left in a huff over perceived inconsistency in the application of the rules.  IMO, Celticsblog has lost more good members than it's retained because of the application of the rules.  This isn't about agendas, or philosophical differences over certain rules, or cup-of-tea defections--this is about perceived unfairness.

#1) The opinion that we've lost more good members than we've retained is one you are certainly entitled to, but also one that think is a complete load. I've seen the members go and eventually come back, and I've seen members leave because they didn't like the how site was run and never come back. There are not many that i miss (although there are some.).

Our membership is the best on the internet. I will stand by that, 100%.

2) People that leave don't take the time to hash it out with us. They don't discuss it with us, and when they have a problem they don't speak honestly about it. So honestly, what are we supposed to do?

Im not sure what you're angling for here S&MP, but I'm not buying. Sure people have left because they disagree. Most that can, do come back. Maybe they come back in spite of the mod staff, but the people don't come here to read my posts, they come because of the community.

I do care if our members don't like the way we operate, because that's who we do it for...but I also could not care less if other sites water cooler talk thinks we suck.

Also, I'd be curious to know how many of those "good members" who "left" did so voluntarily.  Just because somebody now badmouths Celticsblog on another site doesn't mean -- and shouldn't imply -- that they left on their own terms.  Some of the people I've seen bash us elsewhere after a ban have subsequently begged to get back in, or have attempted to create separate user accounts and post under a different screen name.  I wouldn't call those folks the most objective of former members (i.e., they're in the "agenda" group I listed above), and I'm not at all worried about their perception.

As for having an ombudsman who is completely neutral, between membership and the staff:  1)  the staff is part of the membership -- these aren't two separate entities; and 2) it would be quite odd to find somebody who wanted to referee an imaginary problem on Celticsblog, but had no interest in the Celtics (if they did, such ombudsman would become part of the membership, and thus, couldn't be neutral). 

I suppose if Jeff wants to pay somebody they'd probably take the job, but again, I don't see a need to fix a problem that even our biggest critic in the last several pages of this thread says is largely a product of imaginary perception, rather than reality.

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 #559 on: March 18, 2010, 07:41:27 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Broad, general complaints are completely unhelpful.  It doesn't help the mod staff look at themselves and see if there is anything they might want to adjust.




Like any job; good, specific feedback helps make the worker better.


If Doc only ever told Rondo "be better" without giving him specifics based on what he sees, how would Rondo have improved to the point he has?


I know with my students, they learn more when I give them specific feedback instead of just a big red X.



The mod staff is not afraid of specific issues any poster might have or see.  We will discuss it with said poster and among ourself.  We may or may not adjust ourself based on what we think.




Now for the whole "in crowd", certain posters like to joke with each other.  They tend to talk a lot more in multiple threads.  It is not a case of being "favorites", it is a case of posting more.  And, without naming names, their have been more then one run in between so called "in crowd" members and staff.  But like anything else, the staff doesn't discuss it, and most members do not discuss it.  


You want to be in the "in crowd", get more involved in everything that goes on in the blog.  If you just want to talk Celtics and don't care about the "in crowd", keep on posting the way you are.  There are posters here that are going to respond.  I don't think there is any posters with a significant number of posts that have not had one of their post responded to.




So as others have already invited, PM a staff member with you specific concern or critique.  Or, if you feel so, PM a staff member what you think is done well.  

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #560 on: March 18, 2010, 07:55:37 PM »

Offline greg683x

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4097
  • Tommy Points: 585
we live in a world where there will always be a certain amount of people that will complain about something if theyre given the opportunity to do so, whether it be about a business, their school, their job, the government, etc.  Some of them are legit complaints and usually the majority of them are not.

What I dont understand is if you personally dont have a problem or a complaint, why make this so long and drawn out with the back and forth with the Mods here.  Im not trying to shoot you down or anything, but if you really truley dont have a problem with how this site is run, and this is really only about enlightening the Mods about what other people might think, then you've said your piece.

Greg

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #561 on: March 18, 2010, 09:00:09 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #562 on: March 18, 2010, 09:08:51 PM »

Offline Jeff

  • CelticsBlog CEO
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6672
  • Tommy Points: 301
  • ranter
I think people are just bored.  Go watch some NCAA tourney action folks!
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 #563 on: March 18, 2010, 09:29:56 PM »

Offline BASS_THUMPER

  • Scal's #1 Fan
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11446
  • Tommy Points: 5349
  • Thumper of the BASS!
I think people are just bored.  Go watch some NCAA tourney action folks!


wacked out sports is on..

im good!!

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #564 on: March 18, 2010, 09:33:42 PM »

Offline BASS_THUMPER

  • Scal's #1 Fan
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11446
  • Tommy Points: 5349
  • Thumper of the BASS!


You want to be in the "in crowd"



how do i join..?..

*sippin*

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #565 on: March 18, 2010, 09:36:35 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup


You want to be in the "in crowd"



how do i join..?..

*sippin*

Bass, you're "IN" so deep you're the core.  ;)
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #566 on: March 18, 2010, 09:40:26 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

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

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 #567 on: March 18, 2010, 09:43:29 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.


That's teh book of the month club book huh? Hopefully you get a free personal pan pizza out of it :)

"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 #568 on: March 18, 2010, 09:47:46 PM »

Offline BASS_THUMPER

  • Scal's #1 Fan
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11446
  • Tommy Points: 5349
  • Thumper of the BASS!


You want to be in the "in crowd"



how do i join..?..

*sippin*

Bass, you're "IN" so deep you're the core.  ;)


awwww....

im the CORE!!!

yea!!

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #569 on: March 18, 2010, 09:54:59 PM »

Offline BASS_THUMPER

  • Scal's #1 Fan
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11446
  • Tommy Points: 5349
  • Thumper of the BASS!


That's teh book of the month club book huh? Hopefully you get a free personal pan pizza out of it :)


lol...

that tickled me~

u got blessings..kids

after skool special..lol..but wait

maybe that personal pan is any way u want it...

read a book and get a personal pan up to 3 toppings...

extra for stuff crust