Author Topic: Behavior Modification?  (Read 11981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Behavior Modification?
« on: September 30, 2011, 03:00:22 PM »

Offline NickFaldo

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 58
  • Tommy Points: 11
Roy Hobbs encouraged me to start a thread on the topic of forum deletions.
   
I first read through the forum rules and then a couple long threads in this subforum. I hate to break it to you guys, but there is a bit of hypocrisy and bullying going on by the staff and high volume posters.   
   
It's cool to have rules. It's not cool when they are not equally applied. It's sort of like being subjected to Jordan or rookie foul rules.

I'm not saying it's all bad. But there is something imho, not much but still tangible, that is holding this place back.   
    
I'll try to not write a book, as you did with your rules. 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. 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.
    
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.

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.

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.   
   
Please bear with me and let me finish before forming any potential responses.   
   
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.   
    
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?

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.
   
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.

Now the big problem skewing this discussion, and I think Roy mentioned it elsewhere, is that with the lockout there isn't really much to keep us Celtics fans entertained on Celtics boards.
   
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.    

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. 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.
   
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.

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.
    
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..
   
You've a nice forum. It's certainly more fair and interesting than the Boston Globe Celtics forum. But for those with more substance, content, and aspirations, more is expected.   
 
"So he makes a study. I couldn't care less."  Red Auerbach

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2011, 03:41:53 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123


  So is the minority of powerful members the moderators, or are others included?

  Personally, I don't see the harm in inside jokes, it's supposed to be some type of community or something.

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2011, 04:18:43 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58548
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.   
   
Quote
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.
    
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
   
Quote
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. ;)  
   
Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
    
Quote
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.)
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 05:23:25 PM by Roy H. »


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2011, 04:38:19 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
I think this blog is moderated fairly.   It's for the greater good of all.  We will never agree on everything but without rules and moderation this would be chaotic not the best Celtic's Blog out there.

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2011, 04:40:37 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
I'd comment, but I'm scared of making an inside joke or taking it off-topic.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2011, 04:48:04 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58548
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I'd comment, but I'm scared of making an inside joke or taking it off-topic.

There you go again, Karen.  Err, I mean IP.



(See, this is an example of a good-natured joke.  If people feel isolated by it, or see it as an example of unchecked staff power, you have my humble apologies, but I doubt it ever changes.  My advice is, join in the jokes, or ignore them.)


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2011, 05:15:06 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58548
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
By the way, what happened to this guy?

Quote from: NickFaldo on CelticsHub boards, Sept. 21, 2011
As for SB Nation Celtics Blog, I am very happy with it. It seems to fit my need for a Celtics board. While I will always want to stick around wherever dslack and Mool are, I cannot say enough how impressed I am with the quality of posts and moderating on Celtics Blog's forums.

;)


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2011, 05:20:18 PM »

Offline 2short

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6080
  • Tommy Points: 428
I thought this was about clockwork orange  ::)
but thanks for the chloe photos........

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2011, 06:14:58 PM »

Offline Finkelskyhook

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2887
  • Tommy Points: 285
After reading faldo's silliness on politics....I'm thinking it's probably a good thing I can't comment on them....Or see them for that matter.

I haven't seen Jordan rules here, Nick.  I'd love to see who the rules don't apply to.  I see spirited discussions.  When they get too heated, there are volunteers intervening.  I'd rather have things that way than a bunch of constant profanity.

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2011, 07:54:05 PM »

Offline BASS_THUMPER

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

no nba but still fun topics and fun peoples..

they allow me to drank and act a lil off.

its a celtics blog but not just..


Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2011, 08:22:09 PM »

Offline action781

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5217
  • Tommy Points: 609
I understand the poster and other new members' frustration with high volume posters dominating conversations and responding to other high volume posters rather than newer members.  It can make new members not really feel as welcome.  I remember feeling this way for quite some time... maybe for 2 years or so.  Then I joined a couple offseason games and stuff, became more familiar with the members, and I do feel like my posts are more noticed and responded to more frequently.  So, I think there is something real going on behind that complaint that was a major focus of discussion in another thread.

But Roy explained it pretty clearly.  If I'm looking to carry on a conversation on this blog, am I going to address my point more towards a poster who I know will be on the forums and respond within the next 24 hours, or a poster that I'm unsure that will or not?  Sure, it would be more "fair" if everyone got equal attention.  But my primary reason for being here is my personal enjoyment, and putting time and thought into conversations that end up getting abandoned is not very fulfilling.

For those who feel this way and really care about it that much, stick around, post often, and you'll feel like part of the community here too.  For those who feel this way, but don't care that much about it.... I don't see the point in bringing it up.
2020 CelticsStrong All-2000s Draft -- Utah Jazz
 
Finals Starters:  Jason Kidd - Reggie Miller - PJ Tucker - Al Horford - Shaq
Bench:  Rajon Rondo - Trae Young - Marcus Smart - Jaylen Brown -  Peja Stojakovic - Jamal Mashburn - Carlos Boozer - Tristan Thompson - Mehmet Okur

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2011, 08:37:38 PM »

Offline BASS_THUMPER

  • Scal's #1 Fan
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11446
  • Tommy Points: 5349
  • Thumper of the BASS!
lots of people here look over my posts and dont respond..but alot of people like what i what i say in my post..


the thing is dont try to please others and be yourself..be respectable .

if u do that then u wont even think about that other stuff

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2011, 08:57:40 PM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
Nick Faldo,

I'm pretty far to the left of a lot of the Celtics Blog aristocracy.  That said, I remember quite clearly when you jumped into that "Republican Debate" thread and went after one of the kindest, most-level headed, non condescending posters on this site. 

And, I thought to myself, "that ain't cool."

Enjoy yourself, speak your mind, but don't be a jerk. 

And, if you feel like you absolutely have to be, be subtle about it.

This, of course, is just my opinion. 

Welcome.
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2011, 09:12:40 PM »

Offline NickFaldo

  • Oshae Brissett
  • Posts: 58
  • Tommy Points: 11
Roy's response was unfair.

I'm not the one who was supporting GW Bush, which is the ultimate in indefensible statements. That has nothing to do with partisan politics. He was one of the worst Presidents in US History just as 2+2=4.

Yes, I was not punished but prodded to look at the rules. I was not persistent. I left that thread. Now do any moderator's have any opinions on this post by Finkelskyhook?

Quote
After reading faldo's silliness on politics....I'm thinking it's probably a good thing I can't comment on them....Or see them for that matter.

If you're going to have rules, apply them to everyone.

I didn't reveal too much from the private message. I didn't quote from it. I took my medicine and said I was sorry for mentioning it. I wasn't the one who initiated those pm's. I wouldn't have written this thread, if Roy hadn't encouraged me to do so.

Quote
Let's look at context.  You're a new poster from another site, who has a history of allegedly trolling other sites.

That's totally unfair to mention. I've never been banned by the Boston Globe and have made just over 300 posts there in about three years.

If you're talking about my thing with Sam's Forum, are we now going to get into that? Seriously, why bring that up? If you're going to share allegations of me being a troll, then please back it up with proof. If you don't want to get into that, then don't mention it at all. That's common sense. 

You're the one making mountains out of molehills. So I had one or two posts you guys didn't like. You pointed it out. Now you're the one making an issue out of it, just because I took you up on your offer to write something in this subforum.

You can say that the thing with the "Mean Girls" is different from someone saying a basketball player plays like a girl. I still don't agree.

Quote
Chris mentioned that your constant attacks on the staff about your fear of being banned could become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

You're spinning me as a troll who makes constant attacks. It's not true. It's like you're baiting me into coming up with some form of retort towards you, say like how come there seem to be so many conservatives on this board. You will deny you're baiting me. But that's how it feels from my viewpoint.

If you think chick is a sexist word, fine. If you think it's sexist to say a player has been playing like a schoolgirl, fine. But don't spin that I am an alleged troll who has been making constant attacks on your board. You are not as welcoming a board as you may think, unless of course one has a similar worldview and is into group think on certain things. That's my opinion. Just like you have some opinion I might be a troll. Hey, thanks for writing that. It makes me feel so confident to keep interacting with you without fear of the eggshell. Not.
"So he makes a study. I couldn't care less."  Red Auerbach

Re: Behavior Modification?
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2011, 09:26:15 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58548
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I've gotta be honest, Nick (and atypically blunt):  you're just not making a very good impression, because you're coming across as somebody who just enjoys causing trouble.  If that's an unfair impression, I apologize, but it's the one I have.  

So far in your short career here, you've attacked a popular member repeatedly, have criticized the entire staff, and have basically made it known that the only valid political opinions are the ones that you agree with.  That's led us to do some basic google research, and it doesn't seem like this is new with you.  To be frank, you have a reputation in at least part of the Celtics community as being a trouble-maker.  Again, fair or unfair, that's what your track record says about you.  

That said, there's no reason that reputations can't be changed. I'd love to see you focus your energy here on making some positive contributions.  The "sports villains" thread was a good idea, and I'm hopeful that you'll continue to add positive things to the blog.  However, picking fights for the sake of picking fights just isn't the right way to make an impression.  

I'm sure the entire staff is fine with starting over with a clean slate.  If you want to be treated like just another poster, we're happy to oblige.  However, if your stance continues to be that people who supported Bush were idiots, and that the staff is a bunch of hypocrites, and you're the smartest dude in the universe, then I'm not sure you're going to enjoy your stay here.  Let's work together to make this a positive experience for all involved.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes