Modding stuff lately....

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

You should check out the RWBL message boards from a few weeks ago when Schmidty got drunk on a couple of wine coolers, went ape on a couple of other owners, quit the league and showed up sober the next trying to remember what the hell happened. Good stuff.

That was a true highlight of my year so far.

I still have no recollection of anything that night. I don't drink often anymore, but when I do, I go balls to the wall.

[Ben E Lou]

So...I glanced at this thread around lunch time today...do I need to read through it all?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

But that logic suggests that it's OK to call everyone on the board by an obscene name, so long as they aren't married to another board member and their spouse will go Jean Claude on your ass. That suggests there is some kind of magic shield protecting married board members. It can't work that way.

The mods have to have a "veil of ignorance" about these kind of things. You can't take those things into consideration.

Then again, FN took the high road and played the "your momma" card, so I think he loses any "don't pick on my wife" credibility.

I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying that the way I interpreted it was that stevew was insulting FN's wife and used the excuse of she's a banned member to do it...however, after re-looking the conversation, I see that I was wrong.

I agree that he lost the high road when he said that stevew's mom was a whore.

Edit--There is a huge difference between calling someone's mom a whore and someone's wife a cunt in my mind though.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

So...I glanced at this thread around lunch time today...do I need to read through it all?

It's pretty entertaining, so I say yes.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

So...I glanced at this thread around lunch time today...do I need to read through it all?

Not. Even. Close.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

That was a true highlight of my year so far.

I still have no recollection of anything that night. I don't drink often anymore, but when I do, I go balls to the wall.

You go balls to the wall on wine coolers? Sparty... Come on, they taught you better than that in Lansing. I know they did.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Edit--There is a huge difference between calling someone's mom a whore and someone's wife a cunt in my mind though.

What about calling your sister a diseased yak?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

You go balls to the wall on wine coolers? Sparty... Come on, they taught you better than that in Lansing. I know they did.

He was making a joke about the wine coolers. I was actually drinking straight Listerine.

[WVUFAN]

My opinion on the modding thing is twofold:

1. It seems that it isn't just conservatives or liberals that are being banned, but rather people who choose to spend most of their time in political discussions. Jesse Ewick and Capsicum come to mind. People may think them to be trolls, but I've read their posts and they're not. They're just either VERY liberal or VERY conservative. Having "extreme" viewpoints should not be grounds for banning, and neither should posting exclusively in political threads if a person wants to. So, while I agree with JoninMiddleGA in much of his point, the "banning" swing both ways. Which leads me to ...

2. I think the problem I have with the banning and boxing isn't that they're being banned or boxed, it's because there's no set rules in place to determine what constitutes a banning or boxing. I think it's great Skydog set new mods in place, but again, without a clear definition of what would cause a ban or box, people are left with more confusion. Example:

Jesse Ewick was banned for posting 70% in political threads. Others,
myself included, post quite a bit in POL threads. As far as it was
indicated, he was never warned, and really did nothing wrong.

Mr.Bigglesworth was boxed for calling Skydog a curse word. However,
when SteveW called a person a curseword FAR worse, nothing was done.

When you have one sheriff and no laws, the sheriff either has NO power, or too much. When you have 10 sheriffs and no laws, expand the same problem ten fold. The solution is to set new laws, which are in place to protect BOTH the people here and the mods, as people would have clear cut understanding on what is allowed and what isn't.

"Don't be an asshat", while cute, just doesn't cut it.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

What about calling your sister a diseased yak?

I have no sister that I know of...unless she's my twin and I am strong in the Force. In that case, she would be a princess, not a diseased yak.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

He was making a joke about the wine coolers. I was actually drinking straight Listerine.

Gotcha. And the crazy ass posts and quitting the league are sort of like burning couches on the internets?

[jeff061]

without a clear definition of what would cause a ban or box, people are left with more confusion

This is not possible.

The only thing more idiotic than every word being typed out on Jon's keyboard are the people supporting Capsicum. Damn republicans.

[Groundhog]

blah blah blah blah blah.

[illinifan999]

Mr. Fluffles has decided to EAT this thread.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Mr. Fluffles has decided to EAT this thread.

Quiet Dansik...go whore CQB or something

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

My opinion on the modding thing is twofold:

1. It seems that it isn't just conservatives or liberals that are being banned, but rather people who choose to spend most of their time in political discussions. Jesse Ewick and Capsicum come to mind. People may think them to be trolls, but I've read their posts and they're not. They're just either VERY liberal or VERY conservative. Having "extreme" viewpoints should not be grounds for banning, and neither should posting exclusively in political threads if a person wants to. So, while I agree with JoninMiddleGA in much of his point, the "banning" swing both ways. Which leads me to ...

2. I think the problem I have with the banning and boxing isn't that they're being banned or boxed, it's because there's no set rules in place to determine what constitutes a banning or boxing. I think it's great Skydog set new mods in place, but again, without a clear definition of what would cause a ban or box, people are left with more confusion. Example:

Jesse Ewick was banned for posting 70% in political threads. Others,
myself included, post quite a bit in POL threads. As far as it was
indicated, he was never warned, and really did nothing wrong.

Mr.Bigglesworth was boxed for calling Skydog a curse word. However,
when SteveW called a person a curseword FAR worse, nothing was done.

When you have one sheriff and no laws, the sheriff either has NO power, or too much. When you have 10 sheriffs and no laws, expand the same problem ten fold. The solution is to set new laws, which are in place to protect BOTH the people here and the mods, as people would have clear cut understanding on what is allowed and what isn't.

"Don't be an asshat", while cute, just doesn't cut it.

You weren't around when, for example, mrskippy and wignifty were here, so I can understand why you'd think that. The problem is that while, in theory, a clearly-defined-and-spelled out set of rules sounds great, in practice, it is another headache entirely: a whole lot of work put into a set of guidelines that certain types of people delight in figuring out how they can adhere to the letter of the law while causing as many problems as possible.

I'll guarantee this: we could draw up x number of clearly-defined rules, with rule #(x+1) saying, "The moderators reserve the right to edit or delete posts, or suspend or ban users, when behaviors not detailed in the above x rules yet deemed by the mods to be detrimental to the community occur." We'd then spend the vast majority of disciplinary actions with people arguing over whether that person's behavior was "detrimental to the community...." and that's not to mention the various behaviors that some people would routinely engage in to push the envelope of every single one of the x rules. Then, when that person who intentionally lived on the edge of all x rules and never broke one finally got a suspension (likely for behavior not quite breaking the rules), the defenders would be up in arms: HE NEVER EVER EVER EVER BROKE A RULE!!! HOW CAN YOU DO THIS!!! OMG!!! LOL!! WTF!!!!!11111

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Jesse Ewick and Capsicum come to mind. People may think them to be trolls, but I've read their posts and they're not. They're just either VERY liberal or VERY conservative. Having "extreme" viewpoints should not be grounds for banning, and neither should posting exclusively in political threads if a person wants to.

Turns out capsicum deleted a number of her most controversial threads, so not all of the evidence is still around for the reasons she was banned. I read many of them, and they were extremely inflammatory - she earned her banning. And it wasn't simply the content (i.e. very conservative christian), it was the manner in which the content was delivered, and the fact that those inflammatory posts were the vast majority of her posting history right out of the gate.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

HE NEVER EVER EVER EVER BROKE A RULE!!! HOW CAN YOU DO THIS!!! OMG!!! LOL!! WTF!!!!!11111

This made me laugh.

[Deattribution]

Something alot of people don't seem to get - certain people are trying to make it out like there aren't clearly enough defined rules....

if I come here and I post someone needs to get hit by a bus, or I call someone a cunt, or a faggot.. I don't need to see a rule that says it isn't allowed to know that it's questionable and could lead to me being banned... not unless I'm an idiot. Even if someone else was given the benefit of the doubt, or more leeway cause they're buddy buddy... it doesn't change the fact *I* and anyone with half a brain should know it's questionable.

Same if I came here and spewed political shit constantly, it's one thing to take a side passionately, it's another to constantly just attack another side. Eventually you gotta know you're pushing buttons, and sometimes that comes back and bites you.

Fact of the matter is, I'm sure 90% of the people here haven't ever even came close to being banned, yet I don't get why all the dramatic BS about how fuzzy the rules are. If you have to question whether you could get banned for saying something, even if someone else has said it before - maybe you better just go participate in one of the boards other 12,000 threads.

[st.cronin]

Willie McGinest

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

Something alot of people don't seem to get - certain people are trying to make it out like there aren't clearly enough defined rules....

if I come here and I post someone needs to get hit by a bus, or I call someone a cunt, or a faggot.. I don't need to see a rule that says it isn't allowed to know that it's questionable and could lead to me being banned... not unless I'm an idiot. Even if someone else was given the benefit of the doubt, or more leeway cause they're buddy buddy... it doesn't change the fact *I* and anyone with half a brain should know it's questionable.

Same if I came here and spewed political shit constantly, it's one thing to take a side passionately, it's another to constantly just attack another side. Eventually you gotta know you're pushing buttons, and sometimes that comes back and bites you.

Fact of the matter is, I'm sure 90% of the people here haven't ever even came close to being banned, yet I don't get why all the dramatic BS about how fuzzy the rules are. If you have to question whether you could get banned for saying something, even if someone else has said it before - maybe you better just go participate in one of the boards other 12,000 threads.

What just happened....makes too much sense...does not compute!

[jeff061]

I used to think I was borderline(or not) childish about bannings and other authority related stuff. But now I find myself agreeing with SD and Deattribution and similar posts.

So is it me floating back to the middle or are you all just damn nuts?

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

I don't get why all the dramatic BS about how fuzzy the rules are.

Originally Posted by VPI97

People just lke to bitch about mods.

.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

Something alot of people don't seem to get - certain people are trying to make it out like there aren't clearly enough defined rules....

Those certain people are me, and that's because there aren't clearly defined rules.

if I come here and I post someone needs to get hit by a bus, or I call someone a cunt, or a faggot.. I don't need to see a rule that says it isn't allowed to know that it's questionable and could lead to me being banned... not unless I'm an idiot. Even if someone else was given the benefit of the doubt, or more leeway cause they're buddy buddy... it doesn't change the fact *I* and anyone with half a brain should know it's questionable.

You're missing the point. What's "acceptable" or "questionable" for you or I may not be for another person. Having "half a brain" has nothing to do with it, it's a matter of experience. Plus, when you see people calling people those words or telling people to die and not getting banned says to MOST that it must be acceptable, because there should be no bias on acceptablility at all. What's good or bad for one should be good or bad for another.

Same if I came here and spewed political shit constantly, it's one thing to take a side passionately, it's another to constantly just attack another side. Eventually you gotta know you're pushing buttons, and sometimes that comes back and bites you.

Where's the line? Who defines it? You? Me? How does one know he's moved from "passionately defending one's viewpoint" to "bashing for no reason". Again, it's a matter of viewpoint -- what one person may consider bashing, another may see it as rough discussion. That's WHY most boards have clearly defined rules.

Fact of the matter is, I'm sure 90% of the people here haven't ever even came close to being banned, yet I don't get why all the dramatic BS about how fuzzy the rules are. If you have to question whether you could get banned for saying something, even if someone else has said it before - maybe you better just go participate in one of the boards other 12,000 threads.

Or, better yet, have rules that at least ATTEMPT to define what is and is not acceptable. If, as Skydog says people try to take advantage comes true, then tackle the issue when that comes. Without rules, you're gonna have this every time a mod takes an action on someone, right or wrong.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Willie McGinest

Who is someone who has never been in my kitchen?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Who is someone who has never been in my kitchen?

wrong

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Willie McGinest

Who is Overrated?

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I still have no recollection of anything that night. I don't drink often anymore, but when I do, I go balls to the wall.

and, usually there's a PM or 2 headed my way

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Willie McGinest

Who is: your suggested replacement for the reference formally made to Kirby Puckett at FOFC?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Who is Overrated?

Well, that depends on how you rate him. If you rate him as Better Than Every Other Linebacker Ever Put Together, then he's slightly overrated, yeah.

[McSweeny]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, that depends on how you rate him. If you rate him as Better Than Every Other Linebacker Ever Put Together, then he's slightly overrated, yeah.

and even then it's debatable

[TazFTW]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Who is Overrated?

Tedy Bruschi

[Blade6119]

Im sorry, i think i just threw up in my mouth

[Blade6119]

dola, that was to jon and mcsweeney, not taz

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by McSweeny

and even then it's debatable

Now, if you rate him as Somebody Who Peyton Manning is Afraid Of, then quite clearly he is UNDERrated.

[Desnudo]

Who was better? Andre Tippett? Vincent Brown?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Who was better? Andre Tippett? Vincent Brown?

Well, I say Tippett.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

You're missing the point. What's "acceptable" or "questionable" for you or I may not be for another person. Having "half a brain" has nothing to do with it, it's a matter of experience. Plus, when you see people calling people those words or telling people to die and not getting banned says to MOST that it must be acceptable, because there should be no bias on acceptablility at all. What's good or bad for one should be good or bad for another.

There is no situation where a person should think they can come here and call a person a cunt, or a faggot or anything racial/deregatory. At the same time, some people have been here for literally years.

So, it's a no brainer if a guy that's been here since 2000 gets into a fit of anger and calls someone a cunt or something is going to get more leeway than a guy that just registered. It's easy for you (seemingly here since nov 2005), or someone else to say there should be no bias but when someone has contributed for 5 or 6 years to the forum they get the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect to be able to come here and mouth off like JIMGA does sometimes, but also - I don't have any interest in doing it, so I don't complain about not being able to and that he can.. cause I don't care.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Where's the line? Who defines it? You? Me? How does one know he's moved from "passionately defending one's viewpoint" to "bashing for no reason". Again, it's a matter of viewpoint -- what one person may consider bashing, another may see it as rough discussion. That's WHY most boards have clearly defined rules.

Obviously the line is defined by the mod, and talking political in this case, when you go from fuck those republican fucks (ala jesse ewok), ect.. you're walking the line, if you don't know that, the forum is better off without you.

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Or, better yet, have rules that at least ATTEMPT to define what is and is not acceptable. If, as Skydog says people try to take advantage comes true, then tackle the issue when that comes. Without rules, you're gonna have this every time a mod takes an action on someone, right or wrong.

SD, or any of the other mods could write a rule book the size of the NFL regulation book, and all they'd accomplish is wasting an evening. People don't come here to follow rules, the ones that do don't break them, and the ones that break them generally are looking for loopholes in the rules to point out and test.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

There is no situation where a person should think they can come here and call a person a cunt, or a faggot or anything racial/deregatory. At the same time, some people have been here for literally years.

So, it's a no brainer if a guy that's been here since 2000 gets into a fit of anger and calls someone a cunt or something is going to get more leeway than a guy that just registered. It's easy for you (seemingly here since nov 2005), or someone else to say there should be no bias but when someone has contributed for 5 or 6 years to the forum they get the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect to be able to come here and mouth off like JIMGA does sometimes, but also - I don't have any interest in doing it, so I don't complain about not being able to and that he can.. cause I don't care.



Obviously the line is defined by the mod, and talking political in this case, when you go from fuck those republican fucks (ala jesse ewok), ect.. you're walking the line, if you don't know that, the forum is better off without you.




SD, or any of the other mods could write a rule book the size of the NFL regulation book, and all they'd accomplish is wasting an evening. People don't come here to follow rules, the ones that do don't break them, and the ones that break them generally are looking for loopholes in the rules to point out and test.

THIS MAKES SOOO MUCH SENSE IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE!!! HOW CAN ONE MAN BE SOO RIGHT??? MY HEAD HURTS!!!

[st.cronin]

thread's dead, baby. thread's dead

[McSweeny]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

thread's dead, baby. thread's dead

a job well done

[Desnudo]

I now declare this thread the domain of Great Patriot Linebackers: 1980-2005, a Retrospective.

[Desnudo]

Steve Nelson #57, North Dakota State

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

thread's dead, baby. thread's dead

What?? A 5 page thread about moderating that doesn't change anything? NO WAY - that NEVER happens... man ,this is a new precedent, we need a new thread about how this board is falling apart or something cause of this.

[Desnudo]

Don Blackmon, Tulsa

[Desnudo]

Johnny Rembert, Clemson

[st.cronin]

Johnny Rembert!!!!

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

There is no situation where a person should think they can come here and call a person a cunt, or a faggot or anything racial/deregatory. At the same time, some people have been here for literally years.

But yet they do, and have. Just recently. No boxing. No banning.

So, it's a no brainer if a guy that's been here since 2000 gets into a fit of anger and calls someone a cunt or something is going to get more leeway than a guy that just registered.

No, it isn't a no-brainer. The people who have been here for years, by your logic, should KNOW not to do that. The newbies have no such knowledge. The leeway should go to the newbies. Or, better yet, no leeway at all for anyone. Anything less is favoritism.

It's easy for you (seemingly here since nov 2005), or someone else to say there should be no bias but when someone has contributed for 5 or 6 years to the forum they get the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect to be able to come here and mouth off like JIMGA does sometimes, but also - I don't have any interest in doing it, so I don't complain about not being able to and that he can.. cause I don't care.

I'm not speaking from someone who is a newbie, as I don't think I've done anything to cause a box or ban, but in general, there should be an even playing field of punishment.

Obviously the line is defined by the mod, and talking political in this case, when you go from fuck those republican fucks (ala jesse ewok), ect.. you're walking the line, if you don't know that, the forum is better off without you.

Wow. Did Jesse say that? I remember reading the thread, and while I felt it was kinda strange, I also say the title as being an attempt at a joke. Nothing to constitute a banning. But I disgress, since that conversation is already discussed.

Look, all I'm doing is trying something that will stop the rash of boxing and bannings. I guess I'm in the minority. The current method of box/ban on a mod's whim just isn't working.


SD, or any of the other mods could write a rule book the size of the NFL regulation book, and all they'd accomplish is wasting an evening. People don't come here to follow rules, the ones that do don't break them, and the ones that break them generally are looking for loopholes in the rules to point out and test.[/quote]

[Desnudo]

*cough* Chris Singleton, Arizona

[st.cronin]

d'oh too slow