Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450055 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #600 on: March 19, 2010, 04:23:53 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2990
  • Tommy Points: 72
Ombudsmen have worked so well for newspapers and ESPN in keeping their reputations shiny. Just kidding.

I don't think anything is needed. If there is an in-crowd - I'm not privy to it. I got mods I like and mods I don't :)

I've been banned and apologized and been allowed back.

This site does a great job at self management as is.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #601 on: March 19, 2010, 04:23:58 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

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

We would never do something like this.  If a member wants to discuss their suspension, that's fine, but otherwise, we're not going to air their dirty laundry.  It could potentially create a stigma toward members returning from a suspension, and for banned members, they don't have a chance to tell their side of the story.

I think the negative well outweighs the positive here.  I mean, is there really a problem?  Outside of spammers and trolls, we ban a handful of people (five or less, and usually less) per year.

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 #602 on: March 19, 2010, 04:27:07 PM »

Offline ACF

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10756
  • Tommy Points: 1157
  • A Celtic Fan
Ombudsmen have worked so well for newspapers and ESPN in keeping their reputations shiny. Just kidding.

I don't think anything is needed. If there is an in-crowd - I'm not privy to it. I got mods I like and mods I don't :)

I've been banned and apologized and been allowed back.

This site does a great job at self management as is.

Good post. TP.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #603 on: March 19, 2010, 04:31:11 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
Quote
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

It's not beyond anyone's means--nobody said you should hire a professional ombudsman.  If you're serious, though, we can go into it with more detail, but wouldn't it be easy enough to have a nominating thread, then a vote, the winner of which to be approved by the staff?  It would be a non-paying gig, of course.

In my mind, to improve the perception of this site, a Celticsblog ombudsman would have be privy to the inner-workings of the site, such as the internal discussions regarding disciplinary measures, and could also be a mediary in disputes (though not the ultimate decider), and perhaps would be required to give state of blog reports every so often about his or her views... 

How would that person be neutral?  And why are they more neutral than the staff, or Jeff (who usually stays out of moderating decisions?)

I don't think there's a dichotomy between "staff" and "membership".  I mean, all of the staffs are members, who post a lot and give their opinions, just like anybody else.  Any member can become a member of the staff at any time, upon selection and acceptance.  However, if there was such a dichotomy, how would choosing a ombudsman from the membership help this dichotomy?  Wouldn't they simply be more sympathetic toward the membership, rather than the staff?

It makes no sense to me, but regardless, I don't really take the perception problem seriously.  If people believe something that isn't true, even after all of the counter-examples, there's not much I or any other staff member can do to change it.

My guess would be that a lot of the people sending out PMs are people who have been disciplined, or who have had their friends disciplined.  It's pretty obvious where their anti-staff bias comes from, and the fact that they're intentionally reaching out to new members to "poison the well" says a lot about their motives and credibility.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2010, 04:37:14 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 #604 on: March 19, 2010, 04:37:50 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
Quote
So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

It's not beyond anyone's means--nobody said you should hire a professional ombudsman.  If you're serious, though, we can go into it with more detail, but wouldn't it be easy enough to have a nominating thread, then a vote, the winner of which to be approved by the staff?  It would be a non-paying gig, of course.

In my mind, to improve the perception of this site, a Celticsblog ombudsman would have be privy to the inner-workings of the site, such as the internal discussions regarding disciplinary measures, and could also be a mediary in disputes (though not the ultimate decider), and perhaps would be required to give state of blog reports every so often about his or her views... 

How would that person be neutral?  And why are they more neutral than the staff, or Jeff (who usually stays out of moderating decisions?)
I'd also add how will publically electing a member to this position reduce the perception that there are "in-crowds". Wouldn't a public election just create drama?

I'd also add that mods don't really have "power". We can't do anything on our own without the consent and rewiew of the other mods. There is trust that we'll all be reasonable in our initial actions but we talk about everything.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #605 on: March 19, 2010, 05:05:05 PM »

Offline nickagneta

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

My guess would be that a lot of the people sending out PMs are people who have been disciplined, or who have had their friends disciplined.  It's pretty obvious where their anti-staff bias comes from, and the fact that they're intentionally reaching out to new members to "poison the well" says a lot about their motives and credibility.
Exactly the point I was trying to make to barefacedmonk regarding the people he mentioned. Perhaps instead of questioning the staff's decisions and perceptions, perhaps when people get PMs from members talking about in crowds and warning of the mods, the people who's motives they should be questioning are those that are sending them the PMs.

Regarding the ombundsman, doesn't the whole election of an ombundsman then become a popularity contest based on likes and dislikes and not necessarily on qualifications? What happens if someone with a clear anti-mod agenda gets elected like one of the people sending out PMs to barefacedmonk? What good does that do anyone as the drama that would ensue regarding electing someone and the problems a person with a clear agenda would cause would be ridiculous.

Ultimately, isn't Jeff the ultimate ombundsman? Really, this isn't a democracy here as the once common calls of censorship once proved. It's Jeff's site and if he wants it this way and thinks this is the best way to keep the atmosphere he wants, that's the way it will be.

And I'm good with that.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #606 on: March 19, 2010, 06:23:07 PM »

Offline Jeff

  • CelticsBlog CEO
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6672
  • Tommy Points: 301
  • ranter
I'm really more of a omsamadamssman, but yeah
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 #607 on: March 19, 2010, 06:25:51 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
I'm really more of a omsamadamssman, but yeah

Fine humor like that is why you're the face of Celtics Nation, Jeff.

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 #608 on: March 19, 2010, 06:32:41 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
I'm really more of a omsamadamssman, but yeah

Fine humor like that is why you're the face of Celtics Nation, Jeff.

pick the better arbitrator?



Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #609 on: March 19, 2010, 06:44:20 PM »

Offline MattG12

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3638
  • Tommy Points: 997
  • PEACE
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.)
Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work or which posters are percieved as the "in crowd"...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.

#1: These members whoever they are, lied to you. This thread is proof. People get banned because they violate the rules, not because they're curious. As long as you ask questions in a respectful manner, you're gravy.

#2: Roy was not the only person who knew. Everyone knew. The problem was not that nick had a new account, the problem was that we as mods made the mistake of leaving his old one open, which was our issue, and nick as a poster used it to make a joke, which was his mistake. Since he was only allowed to commit his mistake because we made it possible by no following through with a ban on his old account, disciplining him didn't make much sense. Nick has said as much here on his own, so sharing this information isn't a big deal, but that brings me to #3....

#3: As you've read before, we don't discuss these things in public. This is completely out of character for the blog(discussing one particular incident, not discussing rules in general). The reasons are simple...It minimizes drama. If someone is banned it is because they broke the rules and either the infraction was so big that it is better just to move on, or either the member has been contacted and shown no inclination to change their behavior and no remorse for or understanding of their actions. Usually the second only occurs after someone has already been suspended, and reinstatement is being considered. In any case if someone is banned it is because other options have already been looked at. Lobbying from that person's friends or whatever would not help anyone. And, in actuality, people still lobby anyways.

#4) Nick is not the first guy who felt like he needed a fresh start on the blog for whatever reason. He's just the only one who had two accounts open, which was as I said before, our fault.

To respond to your #2...

You are very wrong. I for one did not know that Nick and Plamb were the same person and judging by the way people reacted when it was revealed in the "Logging off for good" thread I was not the only person who didn't know.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #610 on: March 19, 2010, 06:54:33 PM »

Offline MattG12

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3638
  • Tommy Points: 997
  • PEACE
I don't know who mentioned the perception of an in crowd I think it was either barefacedmonk or salmonandmashedpotatoes... if I'm wrong I apologize.

I have seen the mods on these threads repeatedly ask for examples of this perception people have.

Just look at page 8 of the "Logging off for good" thread. IP (sorry to single you out, I like you as a poster) enters the discussion by mocking the allegations that have been made about an in crowd by talking about a meeting of blood brothers and what not. Immediately all of these mods and others who may be perceived as being part of an in crowd jump on the bandwagon and continue to mock the other people on this blog by talking about this stupid made up meeting.

Whether the inner circle exists or not, it is things like that that causes the general public to believe there is an inner circle amongst the blog.

To Roy(I think), you mentioned the fact that blind polls have been conducted and the responses have always seemed to favor the mods. Perhaps if you were to conduct a blind poll right now the results wouldn't favor the mods as you seem to think they would. A time like this would be a perfect time to have a poll. I believe there is a silent majority who believes there is an in crowd and there is a big time segregation happening on this blog.

Mocking people who believe something strange is going on doesn't help the image of the "CelticsBlog community", it only hurts it.

If I have over stepped my boundaries in this post, which I don't believe I have, please just delete my post and we'll move on. I won't cause a fiasco.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #611 on: March 19, 2010, 07:07:05 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
I don't know who mentioned the perception of an in crowd I think it was either barefacedmonk or salmonandmashedpotatoes... if I'm wrong I apologize.

I have seen the mods on these threads repeatedly ask for examples of this perception people have.

Just look at page 8 of the "Logging off for good" thread. IP (sorry to single you out, I like you as a poster) enters the discussion by mocking the allegations that have been made about an in crowd by talking about a meeting of blood brothers and what not. Immediately all of these mods and others who may be perceived as being part of an in crowd jump on the bandwagon and continue to mock the other people on this blog by talking about this stupid made up meeting.

Whether the inner circle exists or not, it is things like that that causes the general public to believe there is an inner circle amongst the blog.

To Roy(I think), you mentioned the fact that blind polls have been conducted and the responses have always seemed to favor the mods. Perhaps if you were to conduct a blind poll right now the results wouldn't favor the mods as you seem to think they would. A time like this would be a perfect time to have a poll. I believe there is a silent majority who believes there is an in crowd and there is a big time segregation happening on this blog.

Mocking people who believe something strange is going on doesn't help the image of the "CelticsBlog community", it only hurts it.

If I have over stepped my boundaries in this post, which I don't believe I have. Please just delete my post and we'll move on. I won't cause a fiasco.

The blind polls were conducted immediately after the "Celticsblog has lost its way" and related threads.  If there was a time to get a flavor for the feeling of the blog, that would seem to have been the time.  Negative feelings were at their height at that point.  Here's one example:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=31637.0

87.5% gave the blog either an A or a B.  To me, that's the overwhelming majority of the blog.  Furthermore, we have an entire forum dedicated to feedback about the blog, and we've spent dozens of hours responding to that feedback.  I personally think we do a good job.

It should come as no surprise that the staff is on good terms with one another.  However, I don't think that means that that proves the existence of an "in crowd" and an "out crowd".  If IP makes a joke, and others join in, I don't see any problem with that.  If people think the mods are buddies, I honestly don't see 1) a problem with that, or 2) a way to avoid it.

What I'd have an issue with is favoritism, where certain posters were unfairly punished, and other "favored" posters avoided discipline.  Based upon the facts that 1) nobody can identify who the "in crowd" is; and 2) members who some have linked to this purported "in crowd" have admitted to having been suspended in the past, I don't see what the problem is. 

It's clear that the staff has no problem suspending members who individual staff members are on good terms with, and it should be equally clear that there are plenty of members that individual staff members disagree with who are still posting strongly.  (As BBallTim mentioned above, he and I have vigorously disagreed plenty of times over the years, and he's still here in good standing.)

What's the "strange" thing that you think is going on here?  That certain members get along with one another more than others? 

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

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #612 on: March 19, 2010, 07:20:41 PM »

Offline MattG12

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3638
  • Tommy Points: 997
  • PEACE
I don't know who mentioned the perception of an in crowd I think it was either barefacedmonk or salmonandmashedpotatoes... if I'm wrong I apologize.

I have seen the mods on these threads repeatedly ask for examples of this perception people have.

Just look at page 8 of the "Logging off for good" thread. IP (sorry to single you out, I like you as a poster) enters the discussion by mocking the allegations that have been made about an in crowd by talking about a meeting of blood brothers and what not. Immediately all of these mods and others who may be perceived as being part of an in crowd jump on the bandwagon and continue to mock the other people on this blog by talking about this stupid made up meeting.

Whether the inner circle exists or not, it is things like that that causes the general public to believe there is an inner circle amongst the blog.

To Roy(I think), you mentioned the fact that blind polls have been conducted and the responses have always seemed to favor the mods. Perhaps if you were to conduct a blind poll right now the results wouldn't favor the mods as you seem to think they would. A time like this would be a perfect time to have a poll. I believe there is a silent majority who believes there is an in crowd and there is a big time segregation happening on this blog.

Mocking people who believe something strange is going on doesn't help the image of the "CelticsBlog community", it only hurts it.

If I have over stepped my boundaries in this post, which I don't believe I have. Please just delete my post and we'll move on. I won't cause a fiasco.

The blind polls were conducted immediately after the "Celticsblog has lost its way" and related threads.  If there was a time to get a flavor for the feeling of the blog, that would seem to have been the time.  Negative feelings were at their height at that point.  Here's one example:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=31637.0

87.5% gave the blog either an A or a B.  To me, that's the overwhelming majority of the blog.  Furthermore, we have an entire forum dedicated to feedback about the blog, and we've spent dozens of hours responding to that feedback.  I personally think we do a good job.

It should come as no surprise that the staff is on good terms with one another.  However, I don't think that means that that proves the existence of an "in crowd" and an "out crowd".  If IP makes a joke, and others join in, I don't see any problem with that.  If people think the mods are buddies, I honestly don't see 1) a problem with that, or 2) a way to avoid it.

What I'd have an issue with is favoritism, where certain posters were unfairly punished, and other "favored" posters avoided discipline.  Based upon the facts that 1) nobody can identify who the "in crowd" is; and 2) members who some have linked to this purported "in crowd" have admitted to having been suspended in the past, I don't see what the problem is. 

It's clear that the staff has no problem suspending members who individual staff members are on good terms with, and it should be equally clear that there are plenty of members that individual staff members disagree with who are still posting strongly.  (As BBallTim mentioned above, he and I have vigorously disagreed plenty of times over the years, and he's still here in good standing.)

What's the "strange" thing that you think is going on here?  That certain members get along with one another more than others? 

I'm not going to get lured in to discussing my views of the blog so I can get punished.

I didn't say something strange is going on, I said "Mocking people who believe something strange is going on... etc."

You say you don't see a problem in some mods joining in on a little joke, but I respectfully disagree. Many blog members aren't happy about this situation and having a bunch of mods mock them doesn't make it any better. I don't care if their comments are completely innocent, they can be taken the wrong way. Much like my comment that people with two accounts can TP themselves was taken the wrong way by Nick.

I for one don't feel all that comfortable voicing my opinion on here because I know I'm going to have a lot of people, mainly mods, just waiting to chew me out because of it... and I know I'm not the only one.

Something like 35% of that poll gave the staff a "B"... I don't remember the exact number. I'm pretty sure I was one of those people. The B grade expressed the opinion that the mods are doing a good job for the most part but they could improve in some areas. Perhaps situations like these are one of those areas.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #613 on: March 19, 2010, 07:36:47 PM »

Offline Master Po

  • Author and
  • CelticsBlog Relic
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2277
  • Tommy Points: 242
  • The Man behind the Curtain
I have been here since the very beginning....longer than almost anyone.....I knew Jeff before he started this place......and before he knew Jeff

The reason this blog thing "took off" and became something highly successful was because of the tireless hours of Jeff's work, Hagrid' support and then others came along who helped as well. Jeff has devoted so many hours to this blog it's uncountable. Some people like Hobbs, G17, and so many others have carried lots of water in here for free....so many hours and lots of work.

As this site grew a mod "staff" was needed.....there was no need for stiff formality and staffing rules as Jeff picked people he thought were trustworthy and level-headed enough to help him manage this "success". (most worked out and some didn't) In turn some of the people Jeff chose in turn asked other people who seem like-minded and level headed if they wanted to help. Invariably people choose people who they think will fit nicely and do the work asked with out creating more problems than they solve. Invariably mods become friends but not exclusive friends.

This blog isn't the government!!!!!, this isn't a private corporation having to adhere with Equal Opportunity rules and state/fed statutory regulations governing every aspect of hiring people, firing people, censoring people, etc. because there isn't any MONEY or employment contracts. It's a BLOG!!!!!!!

Even if there were secret meetings going on with mods and favoritism was being overtly and purposely used to disrespect others or make them feel inferior it's really nobody's flippin business except for Jeff's!!!! If people didn't like it they could simply move on and should move on IMO (change the channel if you will). I suspect most people (>99%) won't do that because they enjoy the site in the context in which they use the site. I am guessing the people who did not find what they wanted have moved on already and those still here but still complaining do that very same thing in all aspects of their lives.....

Jeff is too nice to let any shenanigans go on (however Jeff is not a saint LOL) He is instead just a mild mannered guy who has  done a really good job in putting together a good solid staff that is both fair and reasonable.

While I no longer hold much of a position around here anymore (mainly my own choice) I can say that when I step out of line I am called out for it by forum mods. I could pull rank and go over everybody's head and go directly to Jeff....... but..... despite Jeff and I having a close relationship I would never do that....... and even if I did he would somehow find a nice but firm way to make me pay the price for whatever I did.... if it was called for - he wouldn't play favorites - not even with me (I make myself sound really so very important).

The bottom line for me is that if you feel this sight is not treating you right, or not being "fair" or playing favorites, or whatever you can't stand (and you can't seem to resolve it to your own satisfaction) then just move on please! - quickly, quietly and without anger. All people don't fit in all places.

This is site about the Boston Celtics and at the end of the day it should be fun and if it isn't fun then please just call it a day and go.

A line from an old movie I like......."There are only three things around here to do: coal mine, moonshine or move it on down the line"

Well there is only really three things to do @ Celticsblog........ trade Celtic trade tag idea lines, Celtic Playoff fun time and finally keep Celtic hope alive in the summertime while sipping on green moonshine


Peace

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #614 on: March 19, 2010, 07:40:13 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
I don't know who mentioned the perception of an in crowd I think it was either barefacedmonk or salmonandmashedpotatoes... if I'm wrong I apologize.

I have seen the mods on these threads repeatedly ask for examples of this perception people have.

Just look at page 8 of the "Logging off for good" thread. IP (sorry to single you out, I like you as a poster) enters the discussion by mocking the allegations that have been made about an in crowd by talking about a meeting of blood brothers and what not. Immediately all of these mods and others who may be perceived as being part of an in crowd jump on the bandwagon and continue to mock the other people on this blog by talking about this stupid made up meeting.

Whether the inner circle exists or not, it is things like that that causes the general public to believe there is an inner circle amongst the blog.

To Roy(I think), you mentioned the fact that blind polls have been conducted and the responses have always seemed to favor the mods. Perhaps if you were to conduct a blind poll right now the results wouldn't favor the mods as you seem to think they would. A time like this would be a perfect time to have a poll. I believe there is a silent majority who believes there is an in crowd and there is a big time segregation happening on this blog.

Mocking people who believe something strange is going on doesn't help the image of the "CelticsBlog community", it only hurts it.

If I have over stepped my boundaries in this post, which I don't believe I have. Please just delete my post and we'll move on. I won't cause a fiasco.

The blind polls were conducted immediately after the "Celticsblog has lost its way" and related threads.  If there was a time to get a flavor for the feeling of the blog, that would seem to have been the time.  Negative feelings were at their height at that point.  Here's one example:  http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=31637.0

87.5% gave the blog either an A or a B.  To me, that's the overwhelming majority of the blog.  Furthermore, we have an entire forum dedicated to feedback about the blog, and we've spent dozens of hours responding to that feedback.  I personally think we do a good job.

It should come as no surprise that the staff is on good terms with one another.  However, I don't think that means that that proves the existence of an "in crowd" and an "out crowd".  If IP makes a joke, and others join in, I don't see any problem with that.  If people think the mods are buddies, I honestly don't see 1) a problem with that, or 2) a way to avoid it.

What I'd have an issue with is favoritism, where certain posters were unfairly punished, and other "favored" posters avoided discipline.  Based upon the facts that 1) nobody can identify who the "in crowd" is; and 2) members who some have linked to this purported "in crowd" have admitted to having been suspended in the past, I don't see what the problem is. 

It's clear that the staff has no problem suspending members who individual staff members are on good terms with, and it should be equally clear that there are plenty of members that individual staff members disagree with who are still posting strongly.  (As BBallTim mentioned above, he and I have vigorously disagreed plenty of times over the years, and he's still here in good standing.)

What's the "strange" thing that you think is going on here?  That certain members get along with one another more than others? 

I'm not going to get lured in to discussing my views of the blog so I can get punished.

I didn't say something strange is going on, I said "Mocking people who believe something strange is going on... etc."

You say you don't see a problem in some mods joining in on a little joke, but I respectfully disagree. Many blog members aren't happy about this situation and having a bunch of mods mock them doesn't make it any better. I don't care if their comments are completely innocent, they can be taken the wrong way. Much like my comment that people with two accounts can TP themselves was taken the wrong way by Nick.

I for one don't feel all that comfortable voicing my opinion on here because I know I'm going to have a lot of people, mainly mods, just waiting to chew me out because of it... and I know I'm not the only one.

Something like 35% of that poll gave the staff a "B"... I don't remember the exact number. I'm pretty sure I was one of those people. The B grade expressed the opinion that the mods are doing a good job for the most part but they could improve in some areas. Perhaps situations like these are one of those areas.

So in other words, we have a fun vs. uptight people dynamic going on. I'd say the bigger problem here is the people that make big issues of the littlest of things.