Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450275 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #525 on: November 29, 2009, 12:26:51 AM »

Offline greg683x

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4097
  • Tommy Points: 585
To quote the Notorious BIG... "Can't we just all get along?"

I have a comment, but I won't make it =)

Please do, I'm interested.

just thinking the all getting along thing didn't go very well for Christopher Wallace...

lol in this case it's the statement, not the man.

i always thought that was rodney kings trademark quote anyway.
Greg

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #526 on: November 29, 2009, 01:53:03 PM »

Offline ManUp

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8509
  • Tommy Points: 285
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...
It's my opinion. I think a slight change would be welcomed by all.
You're always very non-specific, about what changes you want. Or even what you feel is wrong. I honestly do not understand what your overall dissatisfaction with this site is.

What would you even have us do? Ban posters who are down the Celtics? Shut down threads quicker? Moderate more aggressively? Or just let more things go? I really don't get it.

Yes, ban posters who are down on the Celtics. That would be great and would help make this place perfect. Also, we should be able to swear when we want and call each other names and be derogatory about the French football team and discuss drugs and violence.

Wow... Ban posters who are down on the Celtics? Sounds like you want to silence those who's opinions differ from yours. Surely you can see the problem with that... I hope.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #527 on: November 29, 2009, 02:09:51 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30897
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
It's my opinion. I think a slight change would be welcomed by all.
You're always very non-specific, about what changes you want. Or even what you feel is wrong. I honestly do not understand what your overall dissatisfaction with this site is.

What would you even have us do? Ban posters who are down the Celtics? Shut down threads quicker? Moderate more aggressively? Or just let more things go? I really don't get it.

Yes, ban posters who are down on the Celtics. That would be great and would help make this place perfect. Also, we should be able to swear when we want and call each other names and be derogatory about the French football team and discuss drugs and violence.

Wow... Ban posters who are down on the Celtics? Sounds like you want to silence those who's opinions differ from yours. Surely you can see the problem with that... I hope.

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic at that point.
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #528 on: January 15, 2010, 01:18:40 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I'm not always known as a rule guy but one rule I really like and appreciate here is the general threads must be labeled accurately rule.

You can't try to trick people with some thread that says PP was traded, and then people go there and see it's just a trade idea or something.

So I apologize for the time I labeled a thread something like "Most important poll ever" and it was about who your favorite Muppet is.

The reason I like it is I see this happening in the media all the frigin time.  (Sorry bakhu. Is that ok?)

I just clicked on the Arenas link and it says "Divorce could prove tough for Arenas"  so I read through the thing thinking "Whaaaatt? Is he getting divorced too?" But they just mean him being let go by the Wiz. I realize that's sort of a type of divorce, but still.

Good rule. Very good rule

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #529 on: March 18, 2010, 01:56:36 PM »

Offline SalmonAndMashedPotatoes

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 366
  • Tommy Points: 119
I don't think Nick (or anyone for that matter) should be disciplined or anything, but the interpretation and enforcement of the rules on this blog continues to be inconsistent at best.

What rule was enforced inconsistently, or was interpreted differently than its plain language?

I'm not here to hijack the thread, nor is this the place for these concerns (as you know), but yes, interpretations inconsistent with the letter of the rule create inconsistent enforcement of the rule. 

The rule states, plainly, "Only one account per person is permitted."  Yet, under IP's interpretation of the rule, you can switch back and forth between multiple aliases provided you contact the staff.  Okay, fine, what was "Only one account per person" now becomes "only one active account per person."

But, the rule also states, "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names.  If you would like to post under a different name, please contact the staff in order to close your old account, at which point you will be permitted to open a new account under a different screen name."

To me, that means if you really really want a new name, you can get one but you have to quit using your old name and you can't go back, since "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names."  What it doesn't mean is that you can switch back and forth on a whim, provided you don't have more than one active account at any one time.

But what does one minor, trivial point about rule interpretation have to do with anything?  A lot.  Basically, by interpreting things differently than they're written, the C-Blog staff creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, where they have the option of following the lax interpretation of the rule (as they do in most cases), or following the letter of the law (which they do in a very small percentages of the cases), depending on how they feel.  What should be black and white rule enforcement now becomes grey and subjective fiat, something that feeds the perception of favoritism.

Personally, I'd rather the staff take a lax interpretation of the rules and I'm sure if we took a poll, most everybody would agree as well, since it makes for a more natural, less formal atmosphere, which most of us can appreciate.  The one problem with lax interpreation is when the staff reserves the right to
interpret by the letter of the law too, when they see fit.  That's where the inconsistency comes in, and that's where the perception of favoritism comes from--you can have one interpretion or the other, but you can't have both.  It's inherently unfair.


I respectfully disagree.  While a rule may have been broken here, it was addressed by the staff in the same way we address the vast majority of broken rules.  We address it with the poster, explain the situation, give them a warning if necessary, and if they are cooperative, and understand what they did wrong/agree that it won't happen again, we move on happily.

We are not here to punish people.  We are here to keep the site running smoothly, and trying to make it a place where everyone feels welcome.  That means being reasonable, and not overreacting when a poster owns up to their actions. 

While I agree with Chris that this is the ideal, it hinges on subjective determinations every step of the way, subjective determinations that are undoubtedly colored by the degree of good/bad relationship between mods and offending member.  Either you have a 'zero tolerance' policy (which ironically we do have, btw) that follows the letter of the law, or you have a lax interpretation policy which looks at banning and disciplinary measures as measures of last resort.  This middle ground just creates problems.

Just so we're clear: this isn't about getting anyone suspended or banned.  I'd rather nobody get banned or disciplined if possible, not only in this case but in every case.  This is simply an observation about how the perception of favoritism can be rooted out, once and for all.  And it's also a note to those who don't care about the perception of favoritism--it's precisely situations like these that ruin your credibility.
Folly. Persist.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #530 on: March 18, 2010, 02:04:53 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
I don't think Nick (or anyone for that matter) should be disciplined or anything, but the interpretation and enforcement of the rules on this blog continues to be inconsistent at best.

What rule was enforced inconsistently, or was interpreted differently than its plain language?

I'm not here to hijack the thread, nor is this the place for these concerns (as you know), but yes, interpretations inconsistent with the letter of the rule create inconsistent enforcement of the rule. 

The rule states, plainly, "Only one account per person is permitted."  Yet, under IP's interpretation of the rule, you can switch back and forth between multiple aliases provided you contact the staff.  Okay, fine, what was "Only one account per person" now becomes "only one active account per person."

But, the rule also states, "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names.  If you would like to post under a different name, please contact the staff in order to close your old account, at which point you will be permitted to open a new account under a different screen name."

To me, that means if you really really want a new name, you can get one but you have to quit using your old name and you can't go back, since "Celticsblog does not allow members to change screen names."  What it doesn't mean is that you can switch back and forth on a whim, provided you don't have more than one active account at any one time.

But what does one minor, trivial point about rule interpretation have to do with anything?  A lot.  Basically, by interpreting things differently than they're written, the C-Blog staff creates an atmosphere of uncertainty, where they have the option of following the lax interpretation of the rule (as they do in most cases), or following the letter of the law (which they do in a very small percentages of the cases), depending on how they feel.  What should be black and white rule enforcement now becomes grey and subjective fiat, something that feeds the perception of favoritism.

Personally, I'd rather the staff take a lax interpretation of the rules and I'm sure if we took a poll, most everybody would agree as well, since it makes for a more natural, less formal atmosphere, which most of us can appreciate.  The one problem with lax interpreation is when the staff reserves the right to
interpret by the letter of the law too, when they see fit.  That's where the inconsistency comes in, and that's where the perception of favoritism comes from--you can have one interpretion or the other, but you can't have both.  It's inherently unfair.


I respectfully disagree.  While a rule may have been broken here, it was addressed by the staff in the same way we address the vast majority of broken rules.  We address it with the poster, explain the situation, give them a warning if necessary, and if they are cooperative, and understand what they did wrong/agree that it won't happen again, we move on happily.

We are not here to punish people.  We are here to keep the site running smoothly, and trying to make it a place where everyone feels welcome.  That means being reasonable, and not overreacting when a poster owns up to their actions. 

While I agree with Chris that this is the ideal, it hinges on subjective determinations every step of the way, subjective determinations that are undoubtedly colored by the degree of good/bad relationship between mods and offending member.  Either you have a 'zero tolerance' policy (which ironically we do have, btw) that follows the letter of the law, or you have a lax interpretation policy which looks at banning and disciplinary measures as measures of last resort.  This middle ground just creates problems.

Just so we're clear: this isn't about getting anyone suspended or banned.  I'd rather nobody get banned or disciplined if possible, not only in this case but in every case.  This is simply an observation about how the perception of favoritism can be rooted out, once and for all.  And it's also a note to those who don't care about the perception of favoritism--it's precisely situations like these that ruin your credibility.

Eh...  We don't interpret our rules strictly, or laxly.  Rather, we interpret them reasonably and fairly.  Also, *of course* a member's track record will effect how they're treated by the staff; repeat offenders will be treated more harshly than people who slip up for the first time.  I don't know of any system of rules that doesn't involve some level of subjective enforcement, and I don't really see much room for criticism in how the staff has treated this issue.

If it makes you feel better, though, I'll amend our rules to say only one "active" member account is permitted.  That should have been fairly obvious from reading the text and context of the rules, but I'll amend it.  Further, I don't see anywhere that says that we have a strict "zero tolerance" policy for any violation of our rules, or a one-time, innocuous violation of the "two accounts" rule.

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 #531 on: March 18, 2010, 02:35:20 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Why would someone have 2 accounts? Maybe to have someone support/agree with your pov during discussions/debates here on the blog? Its really confusing...... :-\

Not at all.

Nick just wanted a fresh start. He only made two posts from his old account while using his old one.

THis is what we're doing now in this thread:


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

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #532 on: March 18, 2010, 02:39:34 PM »

Offline barefacedmonk

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7221
  • Tommy Points: 1796
  • The Dude Abides
Why would someone have 2 accounts? Maybe to have someone support/agree with your pov during discussions/debates here on the blog? Its really confusing...... :-\

Not at all.

Nick just wanted a fresh start. He only made two posts from his old account while using his old one.

THis is what we're doing now in this thread:



Its all good with me...as long as someone doesn't have to respond to the same person twice. :)




"An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching." - M.K. Gandhi


Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #533 on: March 18, 2010, 02:40:43 PM »

Offline dark_lord

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8808
  • Tommy Points: 1126
I know certain members like to criticize the staff for just about everything, but these complaints seem ridiculous to me.  The staff enforced a rule, which precipitated this very thread, and yet certain members complain that the staff doesn't enforce its rules.  It's puzzling to me.

i know what ur saying roy.....but if its ok to add my two cents, i think it was a poor choice to create a thread drawing attention to it.  it leaves it up for scrutiny from posters who might not know whats been said/handled out of the public forums.  just my 2 cents, not trying to be problemtatic.


im no mod, but this thread should just be locked.  nothing good will come of it imo. 
« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 02:48:46 PM by dark_lord »

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #534 on: March 18, 2010, 02:47:37 PM »

Offline SalmonAndMashedPotatoes

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 366
  • Tommy Points: 119

Eh...  We don't interpret our rules strictly, or laxly.  Rather, we interpret them reasonably and fairly. 

And reasonable minds can differ, especially when two standards are available to one of those reasonable minds.


Also, *of course* a member's track record will effect how they're treated by the staff; repeat offenders will be treated more harshly than people who slip up for the first time. 

That's not what I had in mind.  I was thinking of the phenomenom where testy exchanges on the message board (not necessarily rule-breaking exchanges) tend to create a feeling of hostility which then tends to result in less-than-friendly 'interpretations' of the rules when and *if* rule-breaking behavior occurs down the line.

I don't know of any system of rules that doesn't involve some level of subjective enforcement, and I don't really see much room for criticism in how the staff has treated this issue.

Of course you don't, which I why I brought it up.  While you're right that most systems of rules have subjective enforcement, you forget that *most* systems of rules are continually looking for ways to root out or minimize that subjectiveness, or at least the perception of it.  Dismissing claims of intepretive bias by replying that bias is an inherent human trait doesn't exactly breed confidence that you're taking the concern seriously.  Like I said before, reserving the right to ban or discipline someone only as a measure of last resort would seem like a good step towards recognizing and possibility eliminating some of the subjectiveness, especially if it replaced the murky standard currently in place.  Appointing or supporting the election of an independent ombudsman who continually monitors and provides another voice for community interests (especially as they concern member/mod interaction) might be another good step in the right direction.

If it makes you feel better, though, I'll amend our rules to say only one "active" member account is permitted.  That should have been fairly obvious from reading the text and context of the rules, but I'll amend it.  Further, I don't see anywhere that says that we have a strict "zero tolerance" policy for any violation of our rules, or a one-time, innocuous violation of the "two accounts" rule.

Two things: it's not fairly obvious, as the rules in that section contradict themselves, a contradiction only furthered by the current 'interpretation' of those contradictions.  The addition of 'active' will perhaps serve to clear things up, as would the inclusion of the 'intention' of the rule as one of deterring member abuse (as explained by Redz).

Secondly, Celticsblog does indeed have a strict 'zero tolerance' policy in the violation of the rules in the off topics forum. 
Folly. Persist.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #535 on: March 18, 2010, 02:52:08 PM »

Offline Jeff

  • CelticsBlog CEO
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6672
  • Tommy Points: 301
  • ranter
golden rule: treat each other with respect

everyone does that, everyone is happy

all the rest is words
Faith and Sports - an essay by Jeff Clark

"Know what I pray for? The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin (Bill Watterson)

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #536 on: March 18, 2010, 02:55:23 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

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

That's not what I had in mind.  I was thinking of the phenomenom where testy exchanges on the message board (not necessarily rule-breaking exchanges) tend to create a feeling of hostility which then tends to result in less-than-friendly 'interpretations' of the rules when and *if* rule-breaking behavior occurs down the line.

All discipline is discussed with the mod staff as a whole.  This prevents a "rogue mod" from carrying out a personal vendetta.

Quote
Appointing or supporting the election of an independent ombudsman who continually monitors and provides another voice for community interests (especially as they concern member/mod interaction) might be another good step in the right direction.

I don't see why this ombudsman's interpretation would hold more validity than the staff's as a whole.

Quote
Secondly, Celticsblog does indeed have a strict 'zero tolerance' policy in the violation of the rules in the off topics forum. 

How does that contradict what I said?  We don't have a site-wide / rules-wide "zero tolerance" policy, which is what you suggested.  Also, the "zero tolerance" is related to the Current Events forum, rather than the Off Topic forum.

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 #537 on: March 18, 2010, 02:57:11 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Merged posts where they belonged. Sorry for any confusion

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

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #538 on: March 18, 2010, 03:00:33 PM »

Offline barefacedmonk

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7221
  • Tommy Points: 1796
  • The Dude Abides

im no mod, but this thread should just be locked.  nothing good will come of it imo. 

I agree 100%. He didn't have to tell us about the multiple accounts....yet he did. Let's just appreciate the honesty shown here and move on. This thread might leave some people with a bitter taste if it continues.
"An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching." - M.K. Gandhi


Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #539 on: March 18, 2010, 03:05:28 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
Simply put, we detected Nick's alter-ego relatively quickly and discussed it in detail. Without proof and as long as his "nicknagenta" account remained inactive we decided to let it play out. We have from time to time let other posters "start over" and if nick wanted to do the same that was fine with us.

Only once he posted again as Nick did it become a problem with the rules, which we addressed immediately.

Would you rather we banned Nick for what he did? Zero tolerance policies create more problems than they solve.