Well, that's a mouthful. I'll do my best to address the points you've made:
I will present a few examples of what appears to be hypocrisy. They are nothing major but still a bit unsettling for anyone who's thinking of investing time into this forum.
As a preamble, I will say that there isn't a forum in the world that is perfect. Also, what some see as hypocrisy, others will see as handling issues on a case-by-case basis.
I showed up on the Republican Debate thread. Someone was claiming GW Bush was a better President than Obama, and that there were many Republicans she would vote for instead of him. I don't think she ever answered why GW was better than Obama. I was badgered to come up with how Obama is better than Bush was. I'm not the one who was supporting GW Bush and current Republican candidates over Obama. Yet I was the one accused of answering questions with questions.
Having read through that thread, I don't think you were "badgered" at all. Here was your post:
Should we drop an A-Bomb on some evil country? That would show our strength, wouldn't it?
Perhaps you think Obama wasn't born in America?
I'm shocked that to this day someone is still supporting GW Bush. So you basically have no problem with illegal wars, torture, ruined economies, high unemployment, spy factories, huge increases in the national debt, massive tax cuts for the rich, etc.?
I guess it's all cool, because it's only your "no spin zone fair and balanced" opinion.
Shortly thereafter, we posted a reminder about our rules against unsupported generalizations, partisan attacks, and mocking the opinions of others. Your post met all three of those criteria.
I broke a rule by accident and mentioned how she had told me in private that disruptive people don't last long. I didn't quote her, but I admit I unwittingly broke your rule.
... and you weren't disciplined. Rather, we noted what the rules were, and asked you to comply with them.
I then left the thread because of your Jordan Rules. I had said something about itchy fingers on the ban button, what I felt was a clever phrase, thank you very much. I was then told by a mod that I might be presenting a self-fulfilling prophecy.
These aren't "Jordan Rules". They're rules, and they're written in black and white. It's not like there were others in the thread mocking others and disclosing the contents of private messages.
To me that was breaking your rule of it's not allowed to bait a person into breaking a rule. We the CB underclass should not have to walk on eggshells, if others don't have to. I was then reminded by the Bush supporter of what had been written in the pm, implying that I might be banned for how I was expressing myself.
Let's look at context. You're a new poster from another site, who has a history of allegedly trolling other sites. (Yes, I researched your history after some of your comments). You come onto CelticsBlog, and we welcome you with open arms. Despite that, you take it upon yourself to allege several times that the staff is heavy-handed and that you won't last long. Chris mentioned that your constant attacks on the staff about your fear of being banned could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. That's a gentle way of saying get back on topic, and quit trying to bait the staff.
The big thread in this subforum which really caught my attention was the one in which I believe a moderator took a post from a low volume blogger and started a thread based on his idea that low volume bloggers are often ignored, while the established bloggers usually dominate threads.
There were some good points made by each side. It was turning into a decent thread. But then it became a clear cut example that the low volume blogger was correct. Inside jokes were made. The established people were the ones turning it into a 20+ marathon discussion not staying true enough to the OP.
I stand by what was said in that thread. There is no possible way that a community will feel as familiar to a brand new member as it will be to somebody who has been here for several years. Some members get quoted more than others; that's life. My advice was, and continues to be, to keep posting interesting stuff, and people will notice you.
There's another thread in this section where a person was curious why he couldn't use the word chick and say players were performing like school girls. That too was an interesting thread at first but then turned silly with too much bloviating. But here's the thing I don't get. I do appreciate the political correctness you want us to ascribe to. I like knowing if I am unfairly attacked, there will be protection. I do not think you guys in power here are bad or make too many mistakes. You even admit on rare occasions you will mess up. That kind of humility or disclosure is refreshing. But....
I think it was Roy who put up a picture of young women on the first thread and the lot of you were then cracking jokes about who each admin was in the picture. Something like that. Now how was that much different than the poster who said something about a basketball player performing like a schoolgirl? That wasn't hypocritical?
You mean this post?
I've been on the site for years and I only have 100 posts because RoyH and The Mean Girls run this place.
That's Roy, IP, wdleehi, and Edgar (left to right)
[
We were called "Mean Girls", and I posted an image of the "Mean Girls". Are images of women from well-known movies that are directly on topic inherently sexist? I don't think so. As for the sexist language, we have pretty clear rules against that.
And the poster in the first thread who complained about his Tommy Points being manipulated was correct to be upset. Admins should not be messing around with things like that. I know the generic responses. It was to show how meaningless TP's are. This isn't a democracy, it's a private forum. There are many other blogs one can go to, if one doesn't like the rules or atmosphere here.
Yeah, people need to grow up about Tommy Points. They're arbitrary.
You may have over 8,000 members, but that is a hollow stat. On the Celtics Hub forum, we have a lot of members, but only three of us are currently posting.
I'm not sure what relevance this has, but unlike CH (which is a great site), 95% of our members aren't spambots.
I am willing to take a leap of faith and trust that not much undue censorship takes place on this board. It clearly goes on at the Boston Globe, beyond being the result of simple glitches. I recently saved a thread in which three of my posts were unfairly deleted. I had broken no rule. It's a shame one needs to save web pages in order to defend oneself. Then there is Mooltrikon's great point that these are sports boards. It's not like these are important court documents. I think Roy made the similar point in regards to this debate on low versus high volume posting, that a mountain was being created out of an anthill.
Sorry about your experience at the Globe forums. We don't delete posts here unless they're spam or they break the rules in an over-the-top manner.
Yet, that last point could potentially be seen as another implementation of a Jordan Rule. One person says oh what a stupid thread and gets reprimanded. Another writes that mountains are being made out of anthills and doesn't, because the rule breaking was done in a "politically correct" manner.
You don't see a difference between saying "Your thread is stupid", and saying "I don't think this conflict is a big deal; it's making a mountain out of a molehill", especially after making a good faith effort to explain your position?
One blogger gets somewhat brow-beaten for saying things about "chicks" and schoolgirls. Others sort of do the same thing with the photograph of women, but somehow that is allowed.
Yeah, see above. I'm not sure if you just haven't seen the movie, but this is not your strongest point. Also, nobody was brow-beaten. Rather, their thread was locked, and they were asked to repost it without the half-dozen sexist stereotypes that it contained. That's a pretty reasonable request.
Many of us are told to stay on-topic and produce good posts. While others, those high volume posters can tell their inside jokes, go off-topic, copy and paste others and add not much more than +1 and get away with it.
I think this is your perception rather than reality. We ask "volume posters", and even staff members, to stay on topic all the time. Heck, I told IP to stay on topic yesterday. Also yesterday (I think) I edited out an image posted by a long-time poster that could be perceived to be offensive, despite the fact that I personally found it to be funny. As for inside jokes, see above. They're impossible to avoid, and as BBallTim says, inside jokes can be a good thing for a community, so long as they're not being used to attack others.
If the established posters and admins really want to understand what newbies and low volume posters are going through, then perhaps let them get whatever they're feeling out of their system. Established bloggers shouldn't feel the need to get as involved as they have in such threads. It comes off as if they really don't want to understand why non-established bloggers are feeling some angst in regards to the atmosphere.
I'm not sure it's fair to ask others not to express their opinions, especially when they're frequently being criticized in such threads.
There's nothing more that will turn someone off to blogging on a big forum than when there appears to be a minority of powerful members and then everyone else; When it feels like some kind of behavior modification program is in place, whether deliberate or not; When admins and mods can delete or manipulate or outright censor or browbeat or walk on solid ground, while the rest have to contend with watching what they say and looking out for eggshells, etc..
Such is life. We don't delete or censor posts except where the rules have been clearly broken, which is what Jeff asks us to do. Nobody has to walk around of egg shells, though. Heck, if you were truly walking on egg shells, you wouldn't have made this post.
It seems like every three or four months, we get somebody who wants to stir things up by complaining about the hypocrisy and heavy-handedness of the staff. I'm sure that this happens on every message board in America (at least the ones that feature moderators), but I don't see a lot of complaints that have any substance.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, though. If you have any ideas on what you'd like to see done differently -- rather than just saying we browbeat people and employ "Jordan Rules" -- it would be appreciated.
EDIT: And I do sincerely mean the part about how we appreciate constructive criticism. Honestly, I don't see much that is constructive about this thread, but it doesn't mean we'll have our ears closed if you do want to offer something new. (The only new suggestion I saw was the volume posters should stay silent in threads -- especially Comments & Remarks threads -- while newbie posters express their thoughts. While I don't think that's a good idea, kudos to offering up something new.)