Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450172 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #255 on: September 05, 2007, 06:07:19 PM »

Offline nickagneta

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

lollololololololololololololololololololol
Man I almost cant resist throwing this loud laugh, that surely will make me look like an Idiot in my office bcause of u
This one specially

"If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to...."  ;D

I will put this one in my nominateds for post of the year
I will

Lol.  I'd like to hear some of those suggestions, myself.  I'm sure they'd all be thoughtful and kind. ;)

Like, "If I could, I'd tell Roy Hobbs to marry my supermodel sister".

That's what you were anticipating, right, Nick?
My sister's a lesbian so good luck!!

Course then you'ld probably have the same sex life as most married guys, none.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of:

... buy me a beer.

... come through on that promise and pay for my season tickets.

... come down to the station. I need legal representation.

... buy me another beer.

... go date my lesbian sister. (Ooops already discussed that.)

well you get the idea.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #256 on: January 30, 2008, 06:50:38 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Quote
The hateing will never stop.

Quote
this is just blatent hating, and an opinion that won't be shaken.

Comments like the above need to stop, now.  I would suggest that everybody read our posting rules, which state:

Quote
Do not label fellow posters in a way that is likely to provoke a negative response.  Dependent upon context, examples include, but are not limited to, "fake fan", "bandwagon fan", "not a real fan", "hater", "koolaid drinker", etc.

It's unfortunate that so many here are unable to engage in legitimate debate -- whether through lazyness or inability -- so they instead attack, caricature, and tear down others, without even considering the validity of the opposing viewpoint.

Do not do it again.  The next person to use any derivative of the word "hater", "hating", etc. in this thread is getting suspended.


Last time I checked, saying "this post is hate" and "you are a hater" were two distinctly different things. Whereas the first one points out the characteristics of a specific opinion, the second one labels an individual. Just to clarify, you don't have to be a hater to deliver an opinion that's pure hate, just the same way you don't have to be stupid in general to make a stupid post.

Now the question is, why is this not the first occasion on which I have a problem with how Roy enforces forum regulations.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #257 on: January 30, 2008, 06:54:26 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

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

Use semantics all you want.  I was involved in drafting the rules, so I've got a pretty good idea what they do and what they don't mean.  I see no distinction whatsoever between "You're a hater" and "you're hating".  I mean, wouldn't the very definition of "hater" be something along the lines of "one who hates" or "one engaged in the act of hating"?  The use of either word simply caricatures one's opinion, without adding any merit to a conversation.  It's shorthand for actually having to respond to an argument, and it doesn't engender the respect towards others that we require at all times here.

Regardless, if you find yourself repeatedly disagreeing with how I enforce the rules, perhaps another Celtics forum would be more to your liking.  You can find a list of other Celtics blogs and sites by looking to your left, or by clicking on the "links" menu in the overhead menu bar.


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 #258 on: January 30, 2008, 06:56:39 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
Quote
The hateing will never stop.

Quote
this is just blatent hating, and an opinion that won't be shaken.

Comments like the above need to stop, now.  I would suggest that everybody read our posting rules, which state:

Quote
Do not label fellow posters in a way that is likely to provoke a negative response.  Dependent upon context, examples include, but are not limited to, "fake fan", "bandwagon fan", "not a real fan", "hater", "koolaid drinker", etc.

It's unfortunate that so many here are unable to engage in legitimate debate -- whether through lazyness or inability -- so they instead attack, caricature, and tear down others, without even considering the validity of the opposing viewpoint.

Do not do it again.  The next person to use any derivative of the word "hater", "hating", etc. in this thread is getting suspended.


Last time I checked, saying "this post is hate" and "you are a hater" were two distinctly different things. Whereas the first one points out the characteristics of a specific opinion, the second one labels an individual. Just to clarify, you don't have to be a hater to deliver an opinion that's pure hate, just the same way you don't have to be stupid in general to make a stupid post.

Now the question is, why is this not the first occasion on which I have a problem with how Roy enforces forum regulations.

Not sure why you would have questions.

Roy interpretation of the rule seems right on. 


Instead of debating the point, the response labels the original point as the ramblings of a person who is biased based on some sort of 'hate' towards certain person. 

Saying someone is 'a hater' or stating this is 'just hating' is the same thing. 

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #259 on: January 30, 2008, 07:08:35 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
kozlodoev,

Use semantics all you want.  I was involved in drafting the rules, so I've got a pretty good idea what they do and what they don't mean.  I see no distinction whatsoever between "You're a hater" and "you're hating". 

Regardless, if you find yourself repeatedly disagreeing with how I enforce the rules, perhaps another Celtics forum would be more to your liking.  You can find a list of other Celtics blogs and sites by looking to your left, or by clicking on the "links" menu in the overhead menu bar.

I am not using semantics. I see a very substantial difference between addressing an opinion and addressing an individual. For example, the fact that I don't agree with some of your rulings in the forum doesn't mean that I find that you are an unjust person.

I understand that CB is, in effect, your forum, and taking part in it is not an unalienable human right. You're free to take this post as a friendly advise, food for thought or not to take it at all.

There, I'm off my soap box.

@wdleehi: Well, apparently it is just me who thinks that you the person are such and such and this particular opinion is such and such are two different things. Then again, not much I can do about the whole situation other than bring up the point. Cheers.

P.S. I haven't ever seen anyone being warned for referencing the 'kool aid' though I'm sure it's been all around the place since Day 1 of the forum...
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 07:14:50 PM by kozlodoev »
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #260 on: January 30, 2008, 07:18:09 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34023
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
kozlodoev,

Use semantics all you want.  I was involved in drafting the rules, so I've got a pretty good idea what they do and what they don't mean.  I see no distinction whatsoever between "You're a hater" and "you're hating". 

Regardless, if you find yourself repeatedly disagreeing with how I enforce the rules, perhaps another Celtics forum would be more to your liking.  You can find a list of other Celtics blogs and sites by looking to your left, or by clicking on the "links" menu in the overhead menu bar.

I am not using semantics. I see a very substantial difference between addressing an opinion and addressing an individual. For example, the fact that I don't agree with some of your rulings in the forum doesn't mean that I find that you are an unjust person.

I understand that CB is, in effect, your forum, and taking part in it is not an unalienable human right. You're free to take this post as a friendly advise, food for thought or not to take it at all.

There, I'm off my soap box.

@wdleehi: Well, apparently it is just me who thinks that you the person are such and such and this particular opinion is such and such are two different things. Then again, not much I can do about the whole situation other than bring up the point. Cheers.

P.S. I haven't ever seen anyone being warned for referencing the 'kool aid' though I'm sure it's been all around the place since Day 1 of the forum...


Put it this way, two of the 'official' of this site are making this call the exact same way.  And I am pretty sure the rest of the 'officials' are calling it the same way. 

Should make it easy for the rest of the 'players' to adjust to. 

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #261 on: January 30, 2008, 07:25:21 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Put it this way, two of the 'official' of this site are making this call the exact same way.  And I am pretty sure the rest of the 'officials' are calling it the same way. 

Should make it easy for the rest of the 'players' to adjust to. 
The last time I brought an issue was when the famous 'obtuse' incident happened with about the same success. 'Semantics' is an interesting, shifty concept. Always works against the players, it seems. And it doesn't seem to create a precenent either (see 'obtuse' incident, part 2).

Well, I guess all the players can do is swallow hard and keep posting.  ;D
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #262 on: January 30, 2008, 07:41:11 PM »

Offline WillyBeamin

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 438
  • Tommy Points: 31
  • Celtic Pride
Don't bother kozo, the rules that apply to posters don't apply to the moderators. Using the word "hater" to describe how Chris' opinion on TA will not change no matter what, is apparently more offensive then having Wdheeli or RH call my posts unintelligent (when in fact most people agreed with my argument) and classify me as someone who is "unable" to or to "lazy" to make a legitimate argument. When in reality I made plenty of valid arguments, and RH chose to pull one line from one of several posts.

"whether through lazyness or inability -- so they instead attack, caricature, and tear down others, without even considering the validity of the opposing viewpoint."

did any one get the sense I was "tearing down" chris, or attacking him personally? we were having a debate, and I described his opinion of TA as that of a hater, or in my interpretation stubborn.
Take it to the hole, there's a dance involved

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #263 on: January 30, 2008, 07:42:14 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
P.S. I haven't ever seen anyone being warned for referencing the 'kool aid' though I'm sure it's been all around the place since Day 1 of the forum...

We revise the rules from time to time; this one has been in effect for several months, but not since the blog's inception.  Recently, the word hasn't been used as an attack -- and really, hasn't been used at all -- so there's been no reason to issue warnings.

Quote
I am not using semantics. I see a very substantial difference between addressing an opinion and addressing an individual. For example, the fact that I don't agree with some of your rulings in the forum doesn't mean that I find that you are an unjust person.

Let's use the example you gave above, regarding the use of the word "stupid".  Calling somebody "stupid", or calling their opinion "stupid" might be distinct, in terms of actual intent.  However, oftentimes the only message that comes across is that one poster is insulting another.  That's not respectful behavior, nor is the use of the words "hating", "hater", etc.  They caricature and insult one's arguments.

Also, I do want to note that the list of terms included in the rule is not exhaustive; note the text of the actual rule, which includes the following language: "examples include, but are not limited to," and "etc."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion; that's why we have this thread in the first place.  I'm sure it seems like very few of the complaints get anywhere, but I'd like to think that's because we try to act reasonably the first time around.  While I'm sure every member of this staff is fallible, we're trying to keep this place as clean as possible.  In this instance, nobody was suspended, banned, or even personally warned; quotations were given, but names were not referenced.  We were simply enforcing a rule, in as logical a manner as we could.  While I am sure many people disagree with a number of our rules, I do think that by and large those rules are enforced consistently and fairly.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 07:48:30 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 #264 on: January 30, 2008, 07:47:06 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
we were having a debate, and I described his opinion of TA as that of a hater, or in my interpretation stubborn.

Why, then, use the word that is against the rules?  The word "hater" is a loaded term.

I would re-emphasize that you were not called out by name, nor were you suspended or banned.  No fewer than two posters used the language, and after there was some discussion amongst the staff, a general warning was issued.  You are obviously taking this more personally than it was intended; if it had been the intent of the staff to single you out, you would have been sent a private message and/or been singled out by name.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 07:54:42 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 #265 on: January 30, 2008, 07:49:33 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Quote
I am not using semantics. I see a very substantial difference between addressing an opinion and addressing an individual. For example, the fact that I don't agree with some of your rulings in the forum doesn't mean that I find that you are an unjust person.

Let's use the example you gave above, regarding the use of the word "stupid".  Calling somebody "stupid", or calling their opinion "stupid" might be distinct, in terms of actual intent.  However, oftentimes the only message that comes across is that one poster is insulting another.  That's not respectful behavior, nor is the use of the words "hating", "hater", etc.  They caricature and insult one's arguments.

Also, I do want to note that the list of terms included in the rule is not exhaustive; note  your the text of the actual rule, which includes the following language: "examples include, but are not limited to," and "etc."

You're certainly entitled to your opinion; that's why we have this thread in the first place.  I'm sure it seems like very few of the complaints get anywhere, but I'd like to think that's because we try to act reasonably the first time around.  While I'm sure every member of this staff is fallible, we're trying to keep this place as clean as possible.  In this instance, nobody was suspended, banned, or even personally warned; quotations were given, but names were not referenced.  We were simply enforcing a rule, in as logical a manner as we could.  While I am sure many people disagree with a number of our rules, I do think that by and large those rules are enforced consistently and fairly.
You make a good point and I'll take it. Cheers.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #266 on: January 30, 2008, 09:01:37 PM »

Offline kenmaine

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 753
  • Tommy Points: 25
  • Boston 104, New York 59
Hi,
Infrequent poster here, but I really enjoy the site.
It's a good thing that the moderators are trying to keep things civil. I suppose I'd be upset too if I thought I'd been singled out unfairly, but without some oversight the level of discourse could deteriorate pretty rapidly. There's enough name-calling and foul language around. IMO this site is about enjoying the Celtics and basketball in general, should be fun.
Anyway, not being a saint myself, that's enough preaching- just felt like putting in my two cents.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #267 on: January 30, 2008, 09:07:15 PM »

Offline BASSTHUMPER

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2364
  • Tommy Points: 352
Roy Hobbs holdin it down again...much respect

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #268 on: May 01, 2008, 12:14:20 AM »

Offline TripleOT

  • Chat Moderator
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1993
  • Tommy Points: 213
The Mod's Creed;

"Don't Hate, Regulate"

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #269 on: May 01, 2008, 12:25:04 AM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
The Mod's Creed;

"Don't Hate, Regulate"

I have that tattooed on my forearm ;)
Yup