Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions

[Bob Day]

I think the majority of the perception problem here just went away.

[indeedproceed]

The thread being locked didn't surprise me, its the cost of doing business around here, if its too sensitive go somewhere where they play rougher. Do I think it should have been locked? I don't care one way or another, but this didn't silence anyone or infringe on anyone's rights. Its not like anyone got kicked out for finding the pickle article funny, I thought, like the poster before me, that the article was lacking in class, humor and consideration for others....but I don't begrudge anyone who found it funny, and I didn't attack anyone who did. I wrote in the forum something nasty to the author but thats where it ends. I expressed myself, just like I think everyone else got a chance to.

[Roy Hobbs]

Bottom line is that there wasn't enough substance for it to have possibly turned into any sort of great discussion anyhow. This wasn't going to turn into the Council of Trent.

Bingo.

I understand that.  But why lock it - why not let it die its own quiet death?  If a thread truly isn't worth a [dang] then there's no need to respond - it will simply go away on its own, no?

You think threads dealing with potentially inflammatory content which a majority of posters find distasteful are going to die a quiet death?  Especially when numerous posters are calling for the thread to be locked?  The internet just doesn't work that way.  Those threads have a way of turning into something nasty.  Heck, the Reggie Lewis memorial thread turned sour; I can't imagine where this one would have gone, but it certainly wouldn't have simply fizzled out into oblivion.

Actually, a huge portion of the internet does, in fact, work that way.

Link?

Link?  Come on Roy, you've surely surfed the net enough to know.  Shall I give some examples?  Wonkette/Kos/Vox Popoli/Huffington Post/Tim Blair/Protein Wisdom.....

You cited the Daily Kos, Wonkette, and the Huffington Post as examples of sites where threads "die a quiet death" without getting nasty?  I'm at a total loss as to the point you're trying to make, Scintan, since those sites are some of the most inflammatory and biased sites on the internet, and their threads often devolve into name-calling and mud-slinging as soon as somebody disagrees with the majority.  That's exactly what we *don't* want Celticsblog turning into.

[wheres rondo?]

Edited and banned.  For anybody who caught that, that's exactly how you *don't* express disagreement.  Why a poster would come on here and attack the staff with repeated use of profanity is beyond me.

[dark_lord]

the quality of the blog has gone way down over the last few days. i have not seen so much inappropriateness and disrespect in the few years i have been here! its sad really.

[Donoghus]

Look, I was one of the people who requested the thread to be locked yesterday.  And it wasn't because i'm "conservative" in my views or anything.  (Actually, i'm about as far from conservative on most things as anyone).

I requested the lock because i felt that the article brought zero to Celticsblog, much like the Tedy Bruschi thread from last week.  It was a tasteless article that was making light of a very serious and unfortunate event in the past (Len Bias' death).  I just felt that any discussion on such a horrendous attempt at humor was just non-beneficial to this blog and wasn't worth the time to discuss. That's it.

 

[priceisright]

Hey everyone, long time listener, rare poster.  I'm writing because it seems to me that the locking of threads is out of hand.  I realize that I'm only a user of this site, and that I'm beholden to the terms of use as designed by the site administrators.  That said, it's getting to the point where I'd rather read Celtic forums on other sites purely so that I don't have to worry about the 1st amendment being suppressed.  Often times threads seem to get locked for very subjective reasons.

I want to be careful with this post, as I do really enjoy CelticBlog.  It's an excellent site, with (mostly) respectful and erudite fans.  And, as stated, I realize the terms of use are entirely up to the site administrators. 

That disclaimer aside, frankly, I'm stunned given the liberal nature of the internet that more people aren't up in arms over this issue.  Am I the only one that feels this site is much too militant?

[Donoghus]

The locking of the two threads regarding the mentality of Celtics fans this morning were rightfully justified.

Those threads were going nowhere and was just bickering between a handful of posters.  Those threads contributed nothing.

[ManUp]

No comment

*looks to the left, and right for RoyHobbs*

[Roy Hobbs]

That said, it's getting to the point where I'd rather read Celtic forums on other sites purely so that I don't have to worry about the 1st amendment being suppressed

As Jeff and the rest of the staff aren't government actors, the First Amendment doesn't apply here.  Jeff has created a set of community standards here which may be more strict than other sites, but which also keep the tone of discussion on here respectful and civil. 

Threads may be locked at times for discretionary reasons, but the staff almost uniformly provides an explanation of why the thread was locked.  I certainly don't think that staff actions are in any way arbitrary or biased. 

I haven't been on the board this morning, so I don't know exactly what was locked, but I will trust to the discretion of the other moderators and administrators on this board, who have proven themselves to be fair and just time and time again.

[warriorspirit]

I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. Yes you want free speech and the ability to debate topics from many angles. However when a topic has degraded to the point were is just bickering and the main debate has been lost then you should stop it. Also when people start to attack each other on a personal basis it needed to be dealt with. (attack the idea not the person who said it). I for one have been on sites that take a very loss (if any) form of control. Those sites are very hard to work on because you have so much garbage to filter though. You need to have rules and keep everyone in line or it will become anarchy.

[kamakawiwaole]

i agree somewhat too.  i find often threads aren't given a chance and its frustrating to go into a thread be ready to comment then realize its locked.  i understand some threads should be locked but it does occur a lot.

i understand why, but at the same time it would be nice to use a little more rational before locking threads.

cheers

kamakaw

[Edgar]

The locking of the two threads regarding the mentality of Celtics fans this morning were rightfully justified.

Those threads were going nowhere and was just bickering between a handful of posters.  Those threads contributed nothing.

As one who locked one..heres what i think..

[nickagneta]

Hey everyone, long time listener, rare poster.  I'm writing because it seems to me that the locking of threads is out of hand.  I realize that I'm only a user of this site, and that I'm beholden to the terms of use as designed by the site administrators.  That said, it's getting to the point where I'd rather read Celtic forums on other sites purely so that I don't have to worry about the 1st amendment being suppressed.  Often times threads seem to get locked for very subjective reasons.

I want to be careful with this post, as I do really enjoy CelticBlog.  It's an excellent site, with (mostly) respectful and erudite fans.  And, as stated, I realize the terms of use are entirely up to the site administrators. 

That disclaimer aside, frankly, I'm stunned given the liberal nature of the internet that more people aren't up in arms over this issue.  Am I the only one that feels this site is much too militant?

Militant is an awfully strong word. Deferential to a certain standard of etiquette would probably better describe the goings on here. If you are a frequent visitor to the site you can pretty much predict what will and what will not get locked.

That said there is some inconsistencies that occur, although that could be attributed to the fact that there are times of high volume and lack of mods?! Not sure. But the quality of the site as a whole is excellent and for stickier subjects, "Off Topic Discussions" are available where I believe the mods will have some leniency.

BTW Shout out to all the mods and administrators who do what they do here. It is truly an exceptional place to voice opinions. Great job.

[Roy Hobbs]

=
That said there is some inconsistencies that occur, although that could be attributed to the fact that there are times of high volume and lack of mods?! Not sure.

Basically, that's right.  There are hundreds and thousands of responses on this site daily, and it's hard for mods to read each and every post.  In addition to moderating this board, we all have fairly busy full-time jobs, as well.  If posters think a thread is inappropriate, they should either PM one of the mods, or use the "report to a moderator" button.  It definitely makes our jobs easier.