Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 450042 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #540 on: March 18, 2010, 03:05:45 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
And also, I've said it a million times, and so has probably every other mod...but to those who think banning is anything but a last resort regarding members, you're wrong.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but it's the truth. You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You shouldn't either, because this is all done in private. We don't discuss other members in public. The 10 or so of us (Chris, Dons, Steve, Fafnir, me, Roy, wd, Redz, edgar, sorry if I'm leaving anyone out) discuss every single banning that goes on, and doubly so with longtime members.

It doesn't need to be a strict majority, but a general consensus needs to be reached and if one or a few of us has concerns about a decision, we discuss it.

People get warned, then they get another chance, then they get warned, then they get another chance..and on and on...there are discussions that have lasted hundreds of posts on what to do about members.

Even after people are banned, they can reapply. If you are banned permanently from the site, it is because it was literally the last resort.

Except spammers and trolls. Screw those guys.

"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 #541 on: March 18, 2010, 03:06:21 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642

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.


I think Roy addressed this pretty well, but I just wanted to make one point.  If we had a zero tolerance policy, there would be significantly fewer members on this site.  Not many people on here can honestly say they have never broken a rule.  We just do our best to work with every poster that does break a rule (including members of the staff) to correct their actions.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #542 on: March 18, 2010, 03:09:26 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
golden rule: treat each other with respect

everyone does that, everyone is happy

all the rest is words

Well said as always Jeff. 

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #543 on: March 18, 2010, 03:32:04 PM »

Offline BballTim

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

  FWIW, I read it that way, then decided in my mind that it's just as likely that celticsblog doesn't *physically* allow you to change usernames, the same way it doesn't "allow" you to modify your comments on the articles on the front page because it doesn't provide any means to do so.

  FWIW I then decided that I wasn't interested enough to try and see.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #544 on: March 18, 2010, 03:43:13 PM »

Offline SalmonAndMashedPotatoes

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

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.


I think Roy addressed this pretty well, but I just wanted to make one point.  If we had a zero tolerance policy, there would be significantly fewer members on this site.  Not many people on here can honestly say they have never broken a rule.  We just do our best to work with every poster that does break a rule (including members of the staff) to correct their actions.

Yeah, but you do have a strict zero tolerance policy in regards to the Current Events forum.

Quote
•Participation in the Current Events Forum is on a discretionary basis.  Posting privileges in the forum can be revoked at any time, for any reason.  There will be zero tolerance policy for rule-breaking in this forum.

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.

No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole 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.

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

I guess I'll have to trust you on that one...but in my personal experience the axe dropped rather quickly and it seemed to be motivated by a less-than-kind, rather strict interpretation of the rules, the animus of which I can only guess at...

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.

Do you know what an ombudsman does?  They mediate resolutions and provide the appearance of impartiality, provided they can remain seperated from the two parties involved.  An ombudsman could help this blog's favoritism perception, if that's something you're concerned about.

***

Listen, every mod out there does a ton of work on this site, and I don't mean to denegrate what you do.  You all should be praised for the service you provide to Celtic fans, much of which isn't even noticed by the majority of users on this site.  That said, I get the feeling that you neither care, nor take seriously the perception of favoritism on this site.  I respect the staff's opinion that they do a hell of a job metting out fair judgment, and even if that's true, you're still willfully ignoring your perception problem, something that will linger and fester until it's addressed.

If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd see I was addressing merely the perception of in-group, out-group favoritism and ways to improve that perception.  All the responses, which either misread, or misunderstood what I wrote (like the ones who thought I wanted Nick banned or a strict zero tolerance policy implemented), or mounted defenses of Celticblog's judgment process, missed my point completely.
Folly. Persist.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #545 on: March 18, 2010, 03:48:03 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642

Yeah, but you do have a strict zero tolerance policy in regards to the Current Events forum.



Yes we do.  That was the compromise for bringing it back.  It was either no current events forum, or zero tolerance.  But that has nothing to do with the rest of the site.  This is a Celtics website, not a Current Events website.  If we had to ban everyone from the Current Events forum, because they couldn't follow the rules and be respectful, then I wouldn't bat an eye.  That forum is the bane of many of our existence, and has caused more trouble than its worth IMO.  However, we NEVER want to ban anyone from the main forums, and it is always a last resort. 

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #546 on: March 18, 2010, 03:55:46 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642


Listen, every mod out there does a ton of work on this site, and I don't mean to denegrate what you do.  You all should be praised for the service you provide to Celtic fans, much of which isn't even noticed by the majority of users on this site.  That said, I get the feeling that you neither care, nor take seriously the perception of favoritism on this site.  I respect the staff's opinion that they do a hell of a job metting out fair judgment, and even if that's true, you're still willfully ignoring your perception problem, something that will linger and fester until it's addressed.

If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd see I was addressing merely the perception of in-group, out-group favoritism and ways to improve that perception.  All the responses, which either misread, or misunderstood what I wrote (like the ones who thought I wanted Nick banned or a strict zero tolerance policy implemented), or mounted defenses of Celticblog's judgment process, missed my point completely.

There is clearly nothing we can do about the perception, but if you read this thread (or one of the numerous similar ones), you will see that we absolutely care about the perception.  We are constantly trying to explain our actions, but unfortunately, it clearly does not mean anything.

I understand that you cannot see it from our perspective, and I have accepted it.  But I guarantee you that we care about, and do whatever we can to protect the way we are percieved. 

Well, I shouldn't say its impossible.  I think we could change the perception, if we were to give specifics about certain actions regarding discipline.  However, we cannot do that.  So if you choose to believe that we are biased, that is your choice.  I don't like it, but I have expended more energy trying to defend myself and other mods than I should have already.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #547 on: March 18, 2010, 03:56:05 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42583
  • Tommy Points: 2756
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Listen, every mod out there does a ton of work on this site, and I don't mean to denegrate what you do.  You all should be praised for the service you provide to Celtic fans, much of which isn't even noticed by the majority of users on this site.  That said, I get the feeling that you neither care, nor take seriously the perception of favoritism on this site.  I respect the staff's opinion that they do a hell of a job metting out fair judgment, and even if that's true, you're still willfully ignoring your perception problem, something that will linger and fester until it's addressed.

If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd see I was addressing merely the perception of in-group, out-group favoritism and ways to improve that perception.  All the responses, which either misread, or misunderstood what I wrote (like the ones who thought I wanted Nick banned or a strict zero tolerance policy implemented), or mounted defenses of Celticblog's judgment process, missed my point completely.

Perception by whom? These kinds of blanket comments are frustrating to me, because you're never talking about you (the poster). If you in particular think the staff is biased, or plays favorites when dealing out punishment, then by all means I invite you to send me a detailed PM outlining your concerns. I can promise that I will address it as honestly as I am able within my role as moderator. I can also tell you that this offer is not exclusive to me. Every single moderator would do the same thing. We do care if we're seen as unfair, and we're more than willing to discuss it.

However, in most of these cases, people instead say things like 'the perception', or 'the feeling on the site', or the like, and when pressed they're unwilling to discuss what is bothering them as individuals. Maybe you guys just have a better ear to the proverbial street than I do, but I don't see it.

Saying 'I feel like you guys are not even handed' is not helpful unless we know why (which I know you're not saying, but I think you understand my point). So if you want to PM me and say "I think the way you guys handled Nick's situation is a prime example of the uneven moderating done on this site", I'd be more than happy to discuss it as much as I am able.

"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 #548 on: March 18, 2010, 03:58:49 PM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18699
  • Tommy Points: 1818
This is pretty simple, either follow the rules as they are planted, or risk whatever consequences come your way. If for some reason the staff doesn't like you, tough luck. If for some reason, you're beloved by the staff, well you just might be in luck and face no consequences. That's pretty much how the world works. Do good by yourself, and learn to play the game and all will be well, else, accept the consequences, whatever they may be. Rule of life.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #549 on: March 18, 2010, 04:04:19 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30893
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
Listen, every mod out there does a ton of work on this site, and I don't mean to denegrate what you do.  You all should be praised for the service you provide to Celtic fans, much of which isn't even noticed by the majority of users on this site.  That said, I get the feeling that you neither care, nor take seriously the perception of favoritism on this site.  I respect the staff's opinion that they do a hell of a job metting out fair judgment, and even if that's true, you're still willfully ignoring your perception problem, something that will linger and fester until it's addressed.

If you'd re-read what I wrote, you'd see I was addressing merely the perception of in-group, out-group favoritism and ways to improve that perception.  All the responses, which either misread, or misunderstood what I wrote (like the ones who thought I wanted Nick banned or a strict zero tolerance policy implemented), or mounted defenses of Celticblog's judgment process, missed my point completely.

Perception by whom? These kinds of blanket comments are frustrating to me, because you're never talking about you (the poster). If you in particular think the staff is biased, or plays favorites when dealing out punishment, then by all means I invite you to send me a detailed PM outlining your concerns. I can promise that I will address it as honestly as I am able within my role as moderator. I can also tell you that this offer is not exclusive to me. Every single moderator would do the same thing. We do care if we're seen as unfair, and we're more than willing to discuss it.

However, in most of these cases, people instead say things like 'the perception', or 'the feeling on the site', or the like, and when pressed they're unwilling to discuss what is bothering them as individuals. Maybe you guys just have a better ear to the proverbial street than I do, but I don't see it.

Saying 'I feel like you guys are not even handed' is not helpful unless we know why (which I know you're not saying, but I think you understand my point). So if you want to PM me and say "I think the way you guys handled Nick's situation is a prime example of the uneven moderating done on this site", I'd be more than happy to discuss it as much as I am able.

If by "perception" he means we read the complaints and realize they exist, I'd say yes, we're aware they exist.  To say we don't care about that perception is a tougher one to answer.  I'd say that none of us are so thick skinned that we absolutely don't care when someone is bent out of shape about the way things are being handled by us. 

I'd also say that the only thing I can say with absolute certainty about perception is that everyone's is different.
Yup

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #550 on: March 18, 2010, 04:33:36 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
Not to hijack the thread, but:

How about those Old Dominion Monarchs!!!!

But seriously..no Community is perfect..this one does its best, I think.

No Mod is perfect. The Mods here do their best, I think.

Have I been upset about a few things here? Sure - but no more or less than with my own family members.

IMO, some of the Stress here probably came from the fact that Boston have been less than World Beaters for some points of the season..I visit "Silver Screen and Roll" (Lakers) Blog every now and then, and they have/had issues, too..no more or less than us.

And I wonder what's at the heart of it all?

I'm still new to blogging (Oct 09) and haven't met anyone here personally, but the Blog here is straight, I think.

Perfect? No. Cliques? Seems so sometimes, but cliques are everywhere and again I've only been a member since Oct09.

I'd even say that the Cliques "Perception" sometimes comes from the fact that folks' Basketball or Celtics knowledge may differ from others, or some folks' perception about a player may differ from others.

I'd think it's human nature for certain members (say those with 10,000 plus Posts - just an Example) to have some sort of natural affinity to others with same amount of posts. I'd call it familiarity.

Just my two cents.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #551 on: March 18, 2010, 05:01:51 PM »

Offline SalmonAndMashedPotatoes

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

Yeah, but you do have a strict zero tolerance policy in regards to the Current Events forum.



Yes we do.  That was the compromise for bringing it back.  It was either no current events forum, or zero tolerance.  But that has nothing to do with the rest of the site.  This is a Celtics website, not a Current Events website.  If we had to ban everyone from the Current Events forum, because they couldn't follow the rules and be respectful, then I wouldn't bat an eye.  That forum is the bane of many of our existence, and has caused more trouble than its worth IMO.  However, we NEVER want to ban anyone from the main forums, and it is always a last resort. 

I appreciate the explanation, Chris.  It makes sense.


I understand that you cannot see it from our perspective, and I have accepted it.  But I guarantee you that we care about, and do whatever we can to protect the way we are percieved. 

Well, I shouldn't say its impossible.  I think we could change the perception, if we were to give specifics about certain actions regarding discipline.  However, we cannot do that.  So if you choose to believe that we are biased, that is your choice.  I don't like it, but I have expended more energy trying to defend myself and other mods than I should have already.

Ahem--this whole topic hasn't been about me and what I think, it's been about the perception of bias, and what to do with that perception.  I don't think you guys are biased on the whole (if I had to pick a side), though I definitely think you do seem biased because certain parts of your decision making process is necessarily hidden from me and the general public (as you noted above), as well those unavoidable personality clashes that come about in the forums (the ultimate consequence of which nobody really knows), as well as the fact that it's impossible to monitor EVERYTHING and therefore some things fall through the cracks if they aren't reported.  Short of complete transperancy and being everywhere at once, an ombudsman--as intermediary between member and mod--is the perfect work-around, IMO.  Plenty of places employ ombudsman for precisely that reason--to improve their perception. 


Perception by whom? These kinds of blanket comments are frustrating to me, because you're never talking about you (the poster). If you in particular think the staff is biased, or plays favorites when dealing out punishment, then by all means I invite you to send me a detailed PM outlining your concerns. I can promise that I will address it as honestly as I am able within my role as moderator. I can also tell you that this offer is not exclusive to me. Every single moderator would do the same thing. We do care if we're seen as unfair, and we're more than willing to discuss it.

However, in most of these cases, people instead say things like 'the perception', or 'the feeling on the site', or the like, and when pressed they're unwilling to discuss what is bothering them as individuals. Maybe you guys just have a better ear to the proverbial street than I do, but I don't see it.

Saying 'I feel like you guys are not even handed' is not helpful unless we know why (which I know you're not saying, but I think you understand my point). So if you want to PM me and say "I think the way you guys handled Nick's situation is a prime example of the uneven moderating done on this site", I'd be more than happy to discuss it as much as I am able.

I've been on a number of other C-related sites in my time (and I'm currently on 4 others other than this one), and I can assure you you do have a perception problem, mainly one that perceives an in-group, out-group bias and favoritism that leads to certain members getting an elevated status and cache that upsets other, more outspoken members.  And, as you know, almost every melodramatic 'I'm leaving and I'm never coming back' list of complaints includes the favoritism, in-group, out-group criticism.  It's out there and I'm definitely not the first one to raise the issue.
Folly. Persist.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #552 on: March 18, 2010, 05:33:37 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
No, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I explicitly said that I didn't want Nick banned, nor do I like to see anyone banned for that matter. 

And, no, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I actually argued for 'ban-at-last-resort' rule, and not a zero tolerance rule.  Zero tolerance rules are worst rules of all, because they just lead to the perception of a double standard, the thing I've been arguing against this whole time.
So is this about Nick, or is this about your issues with the Mod staff, specifically the Current Event forums?

You talk a lot about perception, but what is the perception? People complain about favoritism and things feeling wrong, but never show any real examples.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #553 on: March 18, 2010, 05:41:52 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327

Yeah, but you do have a strict zero tolerance policy in regards to the Current Events forum.



Yes we do.  That was the compromise for bringing it back.  It was either no current events forum, or zero tolerance.  But that has nothing to do with the rest of the site.  This is a Celtics website, not a Current Events website.  If we had to ban everyone from the Current Events forum, because they couldn't follow the rules and be respectful, then I wouldn't bat an eye.  That forum is the bane of many of our existence, and has caused more trouble than its worth IMO.  However, we NEVER want to ban anyone from the main forums, and it is always a last resort. 

I appreciate the explanation, Chris.  It makes sense.


I understand that you cannot see it from our perspective, and I have accepted it.  But I guarantee you that we care about, and do whatever we can to protect the way we are percieved. 

Well, I shouldn't say its impossible.  I think we could change the perception, if we were to give specifics about certain actions regarding discipline.  However, we cannot do that.  So if you choose to believe that we are biased, that is your choice.  I don't like it, but I have expended more energy trying to defend myself and other mods than I should have already.

Ahem--this whole topic hasn't been about me and what I think, it's been about the perception of bias, and what to do with that perception.  I don't think you guys are biased on the whole (if I had to pick a side), though I definitely think you do seem biased because certain parts of your decision making process is necessarily hidden from me and the general public (as you noted above), as well those unavoidable personality clashes that come about in the forums (the ultimate consequence of which nobody really knows), as well as the fact that it's impossible to monitor EVERYTHING and therefore some things fall through the cracks if they aren't reported.  Short of complete transperancy and being everywhere at once, an ombudsman--as intermediary between member and mod--is the perfect work-around, IMO.  Plenty of places employ ombudsman for precisely that reason--to improve their perception. 


Perception by whom? These kinds of blanket comments are frustrating to me, because you're never talking about you (the poster). If you in particular think the staff is biased, or plays favorites when dealing out punishment, then by all means I invite you to send me a detailed PM outlining your concerns. I can promise that I will address it as honestly as I am able within my role as moderator. I can also tell you that this offer is not exclusive to me. Every single moderator would do the same thing. We do care if we're seen as unfair, and we're more than willing to discuss it.

However, in most of these cases, people instead say things like 'the perception', or 'the feeling on the site', or the like, and when pressed they're unwilling to discuss what is bothering them as individuals. Maybe you guys just have a better ear to the proverbial street than I do, but I don't see it.

Saying 'I feel like you guys are not even handed' is not helpful unless we know why (which I know you're not saying, but I think you understand my point). So if you want to PM me and say "I think the way you guys handled Nick's situation is a prime example of the uneven moderating done on this site", I'd be more than happy to discuss it as much as I am able.

I've been on a number of other C-related sites in my time (and I'm currently on 4 others other than this one), and I can assure you you do have a perception problem, mainly one that perceives an in-group, out-group bias and favoritism that leads to certain members getting an elevated status and cache that upsets other, more outspoken members.  And, as you know, almost every melodramatic 'I'm leaving and I'm never coming back' list of complaints includes the favoritism, in-group, out-group criticism.  It's out there and I'm definitely not the first one to raise the issue.
So you don't have a problem with how things are run? Its other people's perceptions?

*shrug*

Then the other people should really PM us. Many posters have done so and usually we're pretty good about getting back quickly. (I still owe one person just such a PM though...  :-[)

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #554 on: March 18, 2010, 06:14:05 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 the majority of people have a negative perception of either the Celticsblog membership or staff. 

Among those that do, there are certain members who have an agenda, there are others who disagree philosophically with certain rules (i.e., no profanity, etc.), and there are others who find this site just isn't their cup of tea, for whatever reason.

I think the number of members we *could* make happy, but don't because of our application of the rules, is practically nil.  To that very small minority, I'd recommend PMing the staff.  I feel that we're all remarkably accessible, although certain members of the staff may take awhile in getting back to you due to having other stuff going on.

I've heard that Celticsblog has a reputation of being too strict, but I really haven't seen too many complaints about an "in crowd".  The ironic thing is that some of the folks people presumably perceive as being "staff favorites" have been disciplined in the past, whereas many of those who aren't necessarily seen as being in any sort of "group" are universally respected by the staff.

I think if you randomly took 20 different posters and asked them who the "in" and "out" groups were, you'd get wildly divergent answers.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions