Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450277 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #570 on: March 18, 2010, 10:07:49 PM »

Offline Rondo2287

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13009
  • Tommy Points: 816
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.

Isnt the whole point of the "perception," of something is its how the general public views a topic.  I think there is something to be said that almost every, "Signing off for good thread," mentions the same things. 
CB Draft LA Lakers: Lamarcus Aldridge, Carmelo Anthony,Jrue Holiday, Wes Matthews  6.11, 7.16, 8.14, 8.15, 9.16, 11.5, 11.16

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #571 on: March 18, 2010, 10:14:46 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.

Isnt the whole point of the "perception," of something is its how the general public views a topic.  I think there is something to be said that almost every, "Signing off for good thread," mentions the same things. 

Well, the "general public" doesn't see things that way.  Every time there's a blind poll asking people to rate the site / staff, the ratings are extremely high.  It's only a disgruntled minority that has this negative "perception".

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 #572 on: March 18, 2010, 10:16:36 PM »

Offline Rondo2287

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13009
  • Tommy Points: 816
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.

Isnt the whole point of the "perception," of something is its how the general public views a topic.  I think there is something to be said that almost every, "Signing off for good thread," mentions the same things. 

Well, the "general public" doesn't see things that way.  Every time there's a blind poll asking people to rate the site / staff, the ratings are extremely high.  It's only a disgruntled minority that has this negative "perception".

Yup i suppose thats true, and then because they are disgruntled they are more vocal.  Makes sense I suppose.  good point roy
CB Draft LA Lakers: Lamarcus Aldridge, Carmelo Anthony,Jrue Holiday, Wes Matthews  6.11, 7.16, 8.14, 8.15, 9.16, 11.5, 11.16

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #573 on: March 18, 2010, 10:16:39 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30897
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.

Isnt the whole point of the "perception," of something is its how the general public views a topic.  I think there is something to be said that almost every, "Signing off for good thread," mentions the same things. 

How does this represent the "general public" though?  Unless there is a largely silent majority of our membership who feels this way, it is the perception of a very few vocal people you are talking about.
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #574 on: March 18, 2010, 10:28:28 PM »

Offline Eja117

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


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.

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.
It took about 90 seconds to realize the first paragraph is true.

It took about 4 minutes to realize the 2nd part is true.

The 3rd part is interesting, but I don't see how that would be practically done. Oh hey. 15 out of 20 random posters think so and so is in the "in crowd".  But 5 think he's out. I don't see how it would help either.

Why do people think about or care who is in or out?  You have to be one with yourself. Yes I realized that sounded something like Phil Jackson would say. Well I think I actually prefer that to how Red would say it. Or Doc for that matter. I think he'd say "Be yourself" or something. Kind of non-advice.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #575 on: March 18, 2010, 11:59:43 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
To set the record straight the thread was set up in the spirit of honesty. Due to some slippage, word was already out that I was PLamb. I then broke the twp username rule as a joke and had to give up a name.

I could have just come back as nickagneta but word was already out that I was PLamb. Without this thread, the crap storm that would have happened would have been much worse. It would have appeared as a cover up that the mods were complicit in and the number of people complaining would have been much larger and vocal.

There has been nothing hidden here and I hope I wasn't treated any differently than anyone else would have been. I'm pretty sure I know for a fact that I am not because I know for a fact I wasn't the first person ever to leave a username for another and I also know for a fact that I am not the only person that was using a different username. If anyone else ever makes the mistake of using their old username, I am sure they will be forgiven as well, regardless of who they are.

I did this with no malice intended.
I did not do it to fool anyone.
I did not do it to increase my Tommy Points(and I find the implication suggested by someone in another thread distasteful).

I did not do it for any other reason than to start over without a title next to my name that some people mistakenly took as my being a staff member and hence treated me differently. And believe me that did happen.

In some way I think some of the stuff being thrown out here is a direct product of people's opinions of me and not necessarily the staff or the enforcement of the rules. I am an aggressive poster with very direct debating style that rubs people the wrong way. I also have some very strong opinions on some delicate subjects and stand tall and proud in my resolve to make myself heard on those subjects.

Don't like that or me? Great!!! 

PM me. Tell me. I'm a big boy, actually very big, I can take it. But leave the staff alone in this matter. They did nothing wrong.




Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #576 on: March 19, 2010, 11:24:15 AM »

Offline SalmonAndMashedPotatoes

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 366
  • Tommy Points: 119
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.

I see your point, but the issue I'm bringing up doesn't lend itself to specifics.  It's a general concern about the perception of Celticsblog, "perception" being rather hard to break down into specifics, since it's created over time via hundreds/thousands/millions of seperate, idiosyncratic experiences.

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.


Meh--I don't want to be in the in-crowd, nor do I care about the distinction between in- or out-crowds.  I'm talking about the perception of Celticsblog and how to possibly improve it.

Personally, I'm here because I like the Celitcs, not because I want or need to be loved by other Celtic fans.  But thanks for dismissing my concerns by interpreting them as some kind of need to fit in. ::)

So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

To set the record straight the thread was set up in the spirit of honesty. Due to some slippage, word was already out that I was PLamb. I then broke the twp username rule as a joke and had to give up a name.

I could have just come back as nickagneta but word was already out that I was PLamb. Without this thread, the crap storm that would have happened would have been much worse. It would have appeared as a cover up that the mods were complicit in and the number of people complaining would have been much larger and vocal.

There has been nothing hidden here and I hope I wasn't treated any differently than anyone else would have been. I'm pretty sure I know for a fact that I am not because I know for a fact I wasn't the first person ever to leave a username for another and I also know for a fact that I am not the only person that was using a different username. If anyone else ever makes the mistake of using their old username, I am sure they will be forgiven as well, regardless of who they are.

I did this with no malice intended.
I did not do it to fool anyone.
I did not do it to increase my Tommy Points(and I find the implication suggested by someone in another thread distasteful).

I did not do it for any other reason than to start over without a title next to my name that some people mistakenly took as my being a staff member and hence treated me differently. And believe me that did happen.

In some way I think some of the stuff being thrown out here is a direct product of people's opinions of me and not necessarily the staff or the enforcement of the rules. I am an aggressive poster with very direct debating style that rubs people the wrong way. I also have some very strong opinions on some delicate subjects and stand tall and proud in my resolve to make myself heard on those subjects.

Don't like that or me? Great!!! 

PM me. Tell me. I'm a big boy, actually very big, I can take it. But leave the staff alone in this matter. They did nothing wrong.


Nick, you're a great poster/Celtics fan and I hope you continue posting under whatever name you decide to stick with, but for about the nth time this isn't about you and it's not about me, or what I think about you, or how my relationship with my father might color my perception of authority or whatever new and interesting pop psychology idea somebody wants to throw out there in attempt to minimize and ignore what I'm saying.  Your stunt--as I saw it--was another in a long line of things that create the perception of an in-crowd, out-crowd favoritism on Celticsblog.  You broke the rules in a very very minor way, owned up to it, made a thread admitting your mistake and it's all good, so don't worry about it--this isn't about you, it's about the perception of Celticsblog.

***


Since the throngs of Celticblog users have spoken (that is, not spoken) in their non-support of what I see as a perception problem, I'll drop it at this time since it seems there's not enough community support to continue.  Then again, nobody likes talking about things like this and, in my experience at least, the ones who feel the in-crowd/out-crown divide tend to not have enough community concern in the first place to participate in polls/threads that attempt to ferret out whether such a divide exists. 

I would urge the mods to consider the subject broached and urge that next time the subject gets brought up that maybe they take the perception concerns a little more seriously, instead of passing them off as veiled passive aggresive attacks on various posters, mods, or Celticsblog itself.  Perhaps the reason few come forward with perception concerns is because those concerns are met with defensivenesss and pop pyschology by mods who seem to forget that their perspective in this matter is inherently limited.  I'm fairly certain that most if not all the mods here take their jobs seriosuly, but I'd remind them that the first step in giving someone a fair hearing is to recognize your limitations and attempt to look at the problem from both sides.  You don't engender the kind of give and take that leads to better tomorrows by attempting to marginalize the other side's viewpoint from the get-go.  It's fine to say you don't think there's a perception problem on Celticsblog--it's another thing to sidestep the question entirely and question my motives. 
Folly. Persist.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #577 on: March 19, 2010, 11:40:48 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
Salmon, the problem is that if people had problems with how things are being handled, you can bet your ass that they will speak up in whatever form they can. That lack of it means that all this perception thing you're bringing forward is either pure crap, or limited to very few people particularly when compared with the whole.

I've been around too many message boards for too many years to buy the excuse of "the ones who feel the in-crowd/out-crown divide tend to not have enough community concern in the first place to participate in polls/threads that attempt to ferret out whether such a divide exists."

Also, the issue here shouldn't be whether there is an in-crowd or an out-crowd, since that's inevitably present everywhere... the issue should be on whether the community actually cares and on the magnitude of such a divide (which here in CB is quite tame compared with most other places I frequent).

As such, a complete non-isse at the moment and a much ado about nothing.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #578 on: March 19, 2010, 11:45:56 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics


I would urge the mods to consider the subject broached and urge that next time the subject gets brought up that maybe they take the perception concerns a little more seriously, instead of passing them off as veiled passive aggresive attacks on various posters, mods, or Celticsblog itself.  Perhaps the reason few come forward with perception concerns is because those concerns are met with defensivenesss and pop pyschology by mods who seem to forget that their perspective in this matter is inherently limited.  I'm fairly certain that most if not all the mods here take their jobs seriosuly, but I'd remind them that the first step in giving someone a fair hearing is to recognize your limitations and attempt to look at the problem from both sides.  You don't engender the kind of give and take that leads to better tomorrows by attempting to marginalize the other side's viewpoint from the get-go.  It's fine to say you don't think there's a perception problem on Celticsblog--it's another thing to sidestep the question entirely and question my motives. 


The problem isn't that we are not taking it serious (as you can see by the number of us responding and asking (or begging) for specifics as to better understand this).


The problem is that we have a single poster talking about a blog wide 'perception' that can not be explained to us.  That has no examples.  


It's like asking us to find a specific unnamed,undiscibed molocule of water in the London Fog.  


So again, we are asking any poster that has an issue to feel free to contact us about said issue and we will be happy to discuss it not only with you, but among the entire staff or even the entire blog if it is appropriate.  



Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #579 on: March 19, 2010, 11:51:32 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
Quote
I would urge the mods to consider the subject broached and urge that next time the subject gets brought up that maybe they take the perception concerns a little more seriously, instead of passing them off as veiled passive aggresive attacks on various posters, mods, or Celticsblog itself. 
If you think its a "serious problem" I suggest you take it more seriously be actually giving us enough information to address these "issues".

I have to use quotes around those because you have yet to say antyhing other than:

1. Its a perception issue

2. Its not your perception

3. You have no examples

4. You can't/won't tell us who holds these views

5. Your solution is for us to take PR more seriously.

6. Despite replies from many different mods asking for specifics and giving their viewpoints we're not "taking it seriously". By which I guess you mean we disagree with your viewpoint.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #580 on: March 19, 2010, 11:55:14 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Salmon, the problem is that if people had problems with how things are being handled, you can bet your ass that they will speak up in whatever form they can. That lack of it means that all this perception thing you're bringing forward is either pure crap, or limited to very few people particularly when compared with the whole.

I've been around too many message boards for too many years to buy the excuse of "the ones who feel the in-crowd/out-crown divide tend to not have enough community concern in the first place to participate in polls/threads that attempt to ferret out whether such a divide exists."

Also, the issue here shouldn't be whether there is an in-crowd or an out-crowd, since that's inevitably present everywhere... the issue should be on whether the community actually cares and on the magnitude of such a divide (which here in CB is quite tame compared with most other places I frequent).

As such, a complete non-isse at the moment and a much ado about nothing.

I pretty much agree with this 100%.

"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 #581 on: March 19, 2010, 12:50:12 PM »

Offline ChampKind

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3079
  • Tommy Points: 665
  • I left Indiana. Because it was horrible.
In my opinion, there needs to be a ban on multiple accounts, active or not, if there's no disclosure about a poster's past. I don't understand the point of a fresh start when the odds of rehashing past drama are so high. I think this is a situation where the risk of creating controversy in the threads and leaving posters feeling upset is much higher than the benefit of letting someone change their username and post as someone new to the community.

On top of the problems I believe multiple usernames creates, changing your name and not telling anyone also just strikes me as dishonest. If this really is a community, then you shouldn't be able to put on a disguise and walk around pretending you're someone else. I think a lot of people treat this place like it's their neighborhood bar - a place you can go to relax, talk about the C's (or anything else you want), and maybe play a few games. People come and go, and that's fine, but if one person left and then came back trying to pick up a new persona, it would alienate that person and cause some problems at the bar. Seems to me like allowing multiple user names works against the community that has been built here.
CB Draft Bucks: Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Tobias Harris, Zach LaVine, Aaron Afflalo, Jeff Green, Donatas Motiejunas, Jarrett Jack, Frank Kaminsky, Lance Stephenson, JaVale McGee, Shane Larkin, Nick Young

DKC Bucks. Also terrible.

http://www.anchorofgold.com

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #582 on: March 19, 2010, 01:32:30 PM »

Offline barefacedmonk

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7221
  • Tommy Points: 1796
  • The Dude Abides
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)
"An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching." - M.K. Gandhi


Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #583 on: March 19, 2010, 01:38:39 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 


Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #584 on: March 19, 2010, 01:50:18 PM »

Offline barefacedmonk

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7221
  • Tommy Points: 1796
  • The Dude Abides
I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out. :)

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 



I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)
« Last Edit: March 19, 2010, 02:00:21 PM by barefacedmonk »
"An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching." - M.K. Gandhi