Author Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions  (Read 256955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #960 on: June 14, 2017, 04:30:49 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24565
  • Tommy Points: 1107
  • What a Pub Should Be
Phew......I usually cringe when I see this thread trending in "Recent Topics".    :P


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #961 on: June 14, 2017, 07:42:10 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19288
  • Tommy Points: 2159
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Phew......I usually cringe when I see this thread trending in "Recent Topics".    :P

um this is an extremely serious issue. how else can I keep growing as a poster?

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #962 on: December 30, 2017, 12:57:17 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35342
  • Tommy Points: 5862
I'm a Smart hater and still am!

I think you guys are giving him way to much credit for those last 2 calls and instead should be giving it to the ref who finally had the courage to make the right calls against a guy that pushes off on every play!

I'll keep saying it Smart is a decent role player when he plays within his abilities. Unfortunately WAY to often he tries to play above his abilities which always hurts the team.

Traded at the trade deadline if anyone will pony up something of value for him.

Nonsense.  They teach all basketball players at the lowest levels on the need to sell offensive fouls.  How many charges are called when a defender stays standing?  Zero.

That is all defensive positioning, instinct, and his ability to foul/annoy people to the point that they elbow him to the ground.

No it's not. Watch next game Smart aka Stupid will foul a 3 point shooter at the end of the game and we will lose because of it. If you go back and watch all the games this year I bet you will easily see for every great play Stupid makes he makes a horrible one. Even worse what I have noticed is he compounds his Stupid plays. Meaning he will come down on the offensive end make a horrible turnover, realizing he screwed up he will race down and foul a jump shooter. Turning 30 seconds into a 4 point swing for the other team. He does this constantly, constantly!!!!
Calling Celtics such derogatory names is clear baiting. Do not continue this.

You guys are way to PC on this site it drives me crazy and it has destroyed most blogs. If you want this blog to fail keep up the PC crap I can assure you all you will have is a bunch of care bears on here. By bunch I mean 10 and there will be nobody else. I've been a member for many years and it's extremely disappointing to see you guys trend this way over the years!
hi dreamgreen. actually, this blog has been pretty consistent over the years, and i have been here even before the big big server shift in 2006. (yes, i do spend an excessive amount of my time here.) i dont see what you are referring to in your post.

civility is not the same being pc. cb has always been a civil place, populated by mods who do a pretty good job over all...though jeff should give them raises.  ;D

there are folks who have been around a lot for a long time, such as me. but i also see new names and posters popping up often. some stay. some don't.

for me, this place is civil and allows a good level of debate, but always polices abuse. i like that. i want posters here to provide thoughtful, humorous, and well researched posts. it makes reading here a whole lot better.

that is why i called out your lack of evidence and proof earlier. up your posting game and do better please. we would all benefit from that.

in contrast, i also post in SoSH, where i am a member. and there, it is not so nice and i have witnessed some really brutal take downs and pile ons there. there are zero language filters there. but SoSHers do this with a purpose. they wish to weed out weak posters, people who make assertions without the homework and research. quality of post trumps all there...that and talking about drinking.  ::)

they are good at keeping the quality of posts very high. but it is not nearly as welcoming as here. SoSH is anything and everything but pc.

so, go give SoSH a try. see how it goes for you.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #963 on: December 30, 2017, 01:19:50 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
  • Tommy Points: 1020
I'm a Smart hater and still am!

I think you guys are giving him way to much credit for those last 2 calls and instead should be giving it to the ref who finally had the courage to make the right calls against a guy that pushes off on every play!

I'll keep saying it Smart is a decent role player when he plays within his abilities. Unfortunately WAY to often he tries to play above his abilities which always hurts the team.

Traded at the trade deadline if anyone will pony up something of value for him.

Nonsense.  They teach all basketball players at the lowest levels on the need to sell offensive fouls.  How many charges are called when a defender stays standing?  Zero.

That is all defensive positioning, instinct, and his ability to foul/annoy people to the point that they elbow him to the ground.

No it's not. Watch next game Smart aka Stupid will foul a 3 point shooter at the end of the game and we will lose because of it. If you go back and watch all the games this year I bet you will easily see for every great play Stupid makes he makes a horrible one. Even worse what I have noticed is he compounds his Stupid plays. Meaning he will come down on the offensive end make a horrible turnover, realizing he screwed up he will race down and foul a jump shooter. Turning 30 seconds into a 4 point swing for the other team. He does this constantly, constantly!!!!
Calling Celtics such derogatory names is clear baiting. Do not continue this.

You guys are way to PC on this site it drives me crazy and it has destroyed most blogs. If you want this blog to fail keep up the PC crap I can assure you all you will have is a bunch of care bears on here. By bunch I mean 10 and there will be nobody else. I've been a member for many years and it's extremely disappointing to see you guys trend this way over the years!

This has to be the weirdest definition of political correctness I've ever seen. How is this a political issue? Is the word "stupid" a trigger for one party or the other?

Because otherwise we are just talking about being polite to each other, and civil in how we discuss things. You can call that "PC" - but my mom would have just called it displaying good manners.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #964 on: September 04, 2018, 11:23:49 AM »

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • NCE
  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 991
  • Tommy Points: 104
Hey what gives? 

The "Is Gordon Hayward a Poor Man's Wally Szczerbiak?" thread was locked with no explanation.

Seems like a mistake.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #965 on: September 25, 2018, 02:39:16 PM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7365
  • Tommy Points: 1335
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #966 on: September 25, 2018, 03:18:50 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37461
  • Tommy Points: -27482
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #967 on: September 25, 2018, 03:22:58 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28780
  • Tommy Points: 3511
  • Feeling Stronger Every Day
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

2017 PAPOUG CHAMPION

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #968 on: September 25, 2018, 03:26:46 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37461
  • Tommy Points: -27482
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #969 on: September 25, 2018, 03:46:40 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28780
  • Tommy Points: 3511
  • Feeling Stronger Every Day
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

2017 PAPOUG CHAMPION

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #970 on: September 25, 2018, 03:49:21 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • Larry Bird
  • *****************************
  • Posts: 29265
  • Tommy Points: 227
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

Havenít we always been able to say hell? I feel like weíve had that ever since Iíve been here.
Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #971 on: September 25, 2018, 03:57:55 PM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7365
  • Tommy Points: 1335
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

What  about words derived  from [dang] such as [dang]ing, as in "[dang]ing indictment". I could be wrong, but in this use the word is not associated with Christian beliefs.

Is it possible to choose to filter [dang] but not filter [dang]ing? I'm asking bcs I imagine it should be possible in theory. If not, then my suggestion above is pointless.

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #972 on: September 25, 2018, 03:58:39 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28780
  • Tommy Points: 3511
  • Feeling Stronger Every Day
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

Havenít we always been able to say hell? I feel like weíve had that ever since Iíve been here.

I think we have.  Just somewhere along the way I got it in my head that we couldn't so I never used it.  Oh the missed opportunities.  If only I had a time machine.

2017 PAPOUG CHAMPION

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #973 on: September 25, 2018, 04:00:21 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28780
  • Tommy Points: 3511
  • Feeling Stronger Every Day
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

What  about words derived  from [dang] such as [dang]ing, as in "[dang]ing indictment". I could be wrong, but in this use the word is not associated with Christian beliefs.

Is it possible to choose to filter [dang] but not filter [dang]ing? I'm asking bcs I imagine it should be possible in theory. If not, then my suggestion above is pointless.

I don't believe there are negative filters.  Once you have the root word in there you're out of luck.  Hence, no ****take mushrooms or ****zu dogs etc...

2017 PAPOUG CHAMPION

Re: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions
« Reply #974 on: September 25, 2018, 04:03:39 PM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7365
  • Tommy Points: 1335
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Word filter: I am all for censorring the word d-a-m-n. But having having the word d-a-m-n-i-n-g turned into danging as well as d-a-m-n-e-d into danged feels a bit silly, it can actually distort the meaning in some situations.

Big333223 recently mentioned a similar problem with links: if a censored word appears in a link, the link becomes useless.

The swears in links thing is pretty hard to fix.  The filter replaces words automatically, and there's no option to not have that apply to the links.  If a swear word is filtered by the software, it will be filtered anywhere in the forum.

I think with Jeff no longer affiliated with the blog, there's some slight wiggle room to discuss our rules, although overall I like where they're at.

If we stick to the Carlin rules for profanities and other obvious sexual references I think we might be OK.

the aformentioned one and the place where sinners are rumored to go after they die seem ok to me, but I'm a potty mouth.

Yeah, I've already started saying "hell", when before I tried to use other words for Jeff's sake.

The harsher version of "dang" is a closer call for me, because I know to some Christian folk it's a pretty [dang] serious word.  And p--- is another one on the borderline.

What the hell?  I didn't even know we could say hell!

What  about words derived  from [dang] such as [dang]ing, as in "[dang]ing indictment". I could be wrong, but in this use the word is not associated with Christian beliefs.

Is it possible to choose to filter [dang] but not filter [dang]ing? I'm asking bcs I imagine it should be possible in theory. If not, then my suggestion above is pointless.

I don't believe there are negative filters.  Once you have the root word in there you're out of luck.  Hence, no ****take mushrooms or ****zu dogs etc...

Oh well, the hell with it then.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required