Questions/Discussion About the New Non-Baseball Forum Rules & Policies

[Boss-Hog]

You may use this thread for questions and discussion about the new rules (http://www.redszone.com/forums/announcement.php?f=8) we have put into place.

[Unassisted]

Looks good to me. Nice work, folks!

[Redsland]

You'd have to be an idiot not to like the new rules.

;) :thumbup:

[zombie-a-go-go]

Looks good to me. Nice work, folks!

Well, that's constructive. ;) :p:

[RFS62]

You'd have to be an idiot not to like the new rules.

;) :thumbup:



:MandJ: :MandJ: :MandJ:

[RedFanAlways1966]

Nice work by our mods. I think this is very clear and beyond fair. :thumbup:

[Puffy]

Nice work by our mods. I think this is very clear and beyond fair. :thumbup:

brown-noser.

:allovrjr:

[zombie-a-go-go]

brown-noser.

:allovrjr:

This is your warning, Puff. Wanna go for a ban? ;)

[TeamCasey]

This is your warning, Puff. Wanna go for a ban? ;)

:cry:

[RedFanAlways1966]

brown-noser.

:allovrjr:

:D

My cohorts here at work always say that to me too! I am not sure of the meaning, but it must be a good thing b/c I never do wrong! :devil:

I feel partly responsible for all of this, so I wasn't sure what to say (other than I am sorry!). Another one of my "hit the back button, not the post reply button" moments. If only I had a nickel for each one of those moments. Cha-ching!

[Johnny Footstool]

The rules are well-defined, clearly stated, and exceedingly fair. Nicely done.

[KronoRed]

Nice rules :)

[CougarQuest]

Let's face facts folks, this is the work of geniuses.

[Spring~Fields]

I think that you have done an excellent job, I am very impressed that you discerned that some of the threads were being used in a masked/closeted attempt to attack others who have different "ideals" and beliefs.

[GAC]

Let's face facts folks, this is the work of geniuses.

http://www.gmcs.com.au/personal/image/wileybig.gif

[Mutaman]

Them clothes got laundry numbers on 'em. You remember your number, and always wear the ones that has your number. Any man forgets his number spends a night in the box.
These here spoons you keep with ya. Any man loses his spoon spends a night in the box.

There's no playin' grab-ass or fightin' in the buildin'. You got a grudge against another man, you fight him Saturday afternoon. Any man playin' grab-ass or fightin' in the buildin' spends a night in the box.

First bell is at five minutes of eight, when you will get in your bunk. Last bell is at eight. Any man not in his bunk at eight spends a night in the box.

There is no smokin' in bed in the prone position. To smoke, you must have both legs over the side of your bunk. Any man caught smokin' in bed in the prone position spends a night in the box.

You get two sheets. Every Saturday, you put the clean sheet on the top, the top sheet on the bottom. The bottom sheet you turn in to the laundry boy. Any man turns in the wrong sheet spends a night in the box.

No one will sit on the bunks with dirty pants on. Any man with dirty pants on sittin' on the bunks spends a night in the box.

Any man don't bring back his empty pop bottle spends a night in the box.

Any man loud talkin' spends a night in the box.

You got questions, you come to me. I'm Carr, the floor-walker. I'm responsible order in here. Any man don't keep order spends a night in the box.

Carr, the floor-walker.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

webmaster@anti

[Boss-Hog]

Them clothes got laundry numbers on 'em. You remember your number, and always wear the ones that has your number. Any man forgets his number spends a night in the box.
These here spoons you keep with ya. Any man loses his spoon spends a night in the box.

There's no playin' grab-ass or fightin' in the buildin'. You got a grudge against another man, you fight him Saturday afternoon. Any man playin' grab-ass or fightin' in the buildin' spends a night in the box.

First bell is at five minutes of eight, when you will get in your bunk. Last bell is at eight. Any man not in his bunk at eight spends a night in the box.

There is no smokin' in bed in the prone position. To smoke, you must have both legs over the side of your bunk. Any man caught smokin' in bed in the prone position spends a night in the box.

You get two sheets. Every Saturday, you put the clean sheet on the top, the top sheet on the bottom. The bottom sheet you turn in to the laundry boy. Any man turns in the wrong sheet spends a night in the box.

No one will sit on the bunks with dirty pants on. Any man with dirty pants on sittin' on the bunks spends a night in the box.

Any man don't bring back his empty pop bottle spends a night in the box.

Any man loud talkin' spends a night in the box.

You got questions, you come to me. I'm Carr, the floor-walker. I'm responsible order in here. Any man don't keep order spends a night in the box.

Carr, the floor-walker.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

webmaster@anti
My feelings are so hurt.

[RFS62]

Cool Hand Luke was a great movie.

Thing is, he couldn't come and go as he pleased, like we do here.

If you don't like the rules here, you're always free to start your own site and set your own rules.

Box and all.

[CougarQuest]

We have a box!?

[Chip R]

I can eat 50 eggs.

[Mutaman]

Cool Hand Luke was a great movie.

Thing is, he couldn't come and go as he pleased, like we do here.

If you don't like the rules here, you're always free to start your own site and set your own rules.

Box and all.

You're right. And if I don't like the rules here I'm free to criticize them. Democracy, ain't it great.

[RFS62]

You're right. And if I don't like the rules here I'm free to criticize them. Democracy, ain't it great.



Yep. The admins and mods even set up this thread so you could.

In that vein, it's hilarious that you'd compare "the box" dialogue in CHL to rules to stop posters from personal attacks. Just my opinion, of course.

[letsgojunior]

You're right. And if I don't like the rules here I'm free to criticize them. Democracy, ain't it great.

Why don't you actually list the rules you don't like then, and ways to improve them, rather than just trying to stir up trouble?

[Mutaman]

Why don't you actually list the rules you don't like then, and ways to improve them, rather than just trying to stir up trouble?

As long as I stay within the rules, I have the right to stir up trouble. In fact stirring up trouble is one of the great rights, and indeed benfits, of a democracy.
If George Washington didn't stir up trouble, we'd all be English. If Martin Luther King didn't stir up trouble, some people might not be able to vote.

That being said, since you asked, the rules give unlimited power to the moderators. There is no recourse for appeal. What if a moderator sanctions someone because he disagrees with what that person is saying, not because what is being said is inappropriate. Life is hard, free speach is hard, but I'd rather see a few overly sensitive people have their feelings hurt, than see power abused. Just one man's opinion.

[RFS62]

From my experience, the mods here bend over backwards to allow free speech.

But you seem to be under the assumption that this board is a democracy. It's not. It's private property, and the owners have the right to set any rules they want.

And we all have the freedom to live by the rules, or go elsewhere.

You don't see free speech trampled here. These rules are for one reason only.... to stop personal attacks.

And if the owner of the site says you can't engage in personal attacks on his property, that's his right, as a property owner.

[Larkin Fan]

This board is owned by Boss and GIK and they have a right to set whatever rules they see fit. They aren't abusing their "power" as you call it. They are just doing what it takes to continue to ensure that this board remains a friendly environment.

[Boss-Hog]

Oh, you might have a point if this board was some start up project that hadn't been run by primarily the same moderators/administrator for going on 5 years now. And guess what? We'll continue to run the board by making the same kind of judgement calls that have gotten us this far. Good thing not everyone feels like you do, or we never would have become (by far) the most visited Reds forum on the internet.




As long as I stay within the rules, I have the right to stir up trouble. In fact stirring up trouble is one of the great rights, and indeed benfits, of a democracy.
If George Washington didn't stir up trouble, we'd all be English. If Martin Luther King didn't stir up trouble, some people might not be able to vote.

That being said, since you asked, the rules give unlimited power to the moderators. There is no recourse for appeal. What if a moderator sanctions someone because he disagrees with what that person is saying, not because what is being said is inappropriate. Life is hard, free speach is hard, but I'd rather see a few overly sensitive people have their feelings hurt, than see power abused. Just one man's opinion.

[Chip R]

That being said, since you asked, the rules give unlimited power to the moderators. There is no recourse for appeal. What if a moderator sanctions someone because he disagrees with what that person is saying, not because what is being said is inappropriate. Life is hard, free speach is hard, but I'd rather see a few overly sensitive people have their feelings hurt, than see power abused. Just one man's opinion.

That being said, since you asked, the rules give unlimited power to the moderators. There is no recourse for appeal. What if a moderator sanctions someone because he disagrees with what that person is saying, not because what is being said is inappropriate. Life is hard, free speach is hard, but I'd rather see a few overly sensitive people have their feelings hurt, than see power abused. Just one man's opinion.
Actually, starting trouble is against the rules as well. As for the moderators having unlimited power, that's probably because this is a moderated board. If this wasn't a moderated board, we'd have no need for the moderators, no? This board was started because discussions from either an unmoderated board or a moderated board where the moderator(s) were asleep at the switch got out of hand. People wanted a place to go where they wouldn't be inundated by trolls and could participate in a reasonable discussion without the risk of getting flamed. That's why we have the rules here. If you have concerns about the moderaters, who would you want policing the board?

I would think if a moderator sanctioned someone because of a difference in opinions, they wouldn't be a moderator for very long after that. Since you have been a participant here for such a long while, though, I can see why you would ask that question. I'm all for freedom of speech too. But I think you misunderstand the 1st amendment. It doesn't give people unlimited freedom of speech. All it says is that the government shall not make any laws abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about private organizations - which RedsZone is one - making any rules against freedom of speech. It's the same way for schools. You can't go to school with obscenities on your T-Shirt.

If you are such a free speech advocate, perhaps this isn't the place for you. You may be happier on an unmoderated board. However, everyone who joins this board has to abide by the rules set down here. If you don't you will suffer the consequences. You are also more than welcome to hire an attorney and sue RedsZone for abridging your freedom of speech rights but I don't think you will be too successful finding one.

[zombie-a-go-go]

The Box ain't that bad, you know... if you're into that kind of thing. ;)

[zombie-a-go-go]

Damn, but Chip's eloquent. I just hit people with a stick when they get uppity. ;)

[Mutaman]

Boy you people are thin skinned. I was asked my opininion and I gave it. I don't know what Chip's response has do to with my statement. Yes its your board, yes you have all the power. Yes if I don't like it I can leave. But I'm not talking about legal rights, I'm talking about what I think is appropriate. And I suggest that you tip the balence in favor of spirited discussion even at the risk of hurt feelings, a suggestion which you are free to ignore (or free to get all defensive about).

As far as my knowledge of the first amendment, I have a passing knowledge, having been a practicing attorney for more than a few years and having litigated a few cases involving this issue, one of which made it to the New York Court of Appeals. And when I feel it is appropriate to commence an action on my behalf, I usually don't go looking for an attorney, I do it myself, and I'm usually successful. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand. Nuff said?

[pedro]

Boy you people are thin skinned. I was asked my opininion and I gave it. I don't know what Chip's response has do to with my statement. Yes its your board, yes you have all the power. Yes if I don't like it I can leave. But I'm not talking about legal rights, I'm talking about what I think is appropriate. And I suggest that you tip the balence in favor of spirited discussion even at the risk of hurt feelings, a suggestion which you are free to ignore (or free to get all defensive about).

As far as my knowledge of the first amendment, I have a passing knowledge, having been a practicing attorney for more than a few years and having litigated a few cases involving this issue, one of which made it to the New York Court of Appeals. And when I feel it is appropriate to commence an action on my behalf, I usually don't go looking for an attorney, I do it myself, and I'm usually successful. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand. Nuff said?


surely then you understand the hillarity of comparing "stirring up trouble" on a message board with MLK and the civil rights movement.

Fight the Power!

[TRF]

As long as I stay within the rules, I have the right to stir up trouble. In fact stirring up trouble is one of the great rights, and indeed benfits, of a democracy.
If George Washington didn't stir up trouble, we'd all be English. If Martin Luther King didn't stir up trouble, some people might not be able to vote.

That being said, since you asked, the rules give unlimited power to the moderators. There is no recourse for appeal. What if a moderator sanctions someone because he disagrees with what that person is saying, not because what is being said is inappropriate. Life is hard, free speach is hard, but I'd rather see a few overly sensitive people have their feelings hurt, than see power abused. Just one man's opinion.

What power? It's a message board!

one of probably a million. all with different rules/codes. Redszone started because a bunch or reds fans on the enquirer board couldn't communicate with each other because of trolls, flamers and people being offensive. I got to the point that if a kid was just trying to read a little about his favorite team, he'd be exposed to some of the crudest language that anyone with even a moderate sence of decency wouldn't utter to another person's face.

but it was tolerated/ignored there.

And a couple of guys decided enough was enough. I think their aim was small at first. just a place to dicuss the reds... no trolls allowed.

and then something happened. Redszone took off. The most knowledgeable posters in the country come here. Fans of teams from all over, both leagues. And a few trolls come to. for the most part the "community" deals with them without violating the rules. Some are dealt with by the Mods or admins.

And the baseball discussion resumed stronger by the absence of back-biting trolls seeking only to stir up trouble for troubles sake. Great debates raged over SABR, Griffey's health, The minor leagues and how hot AD is (for creek and the teamsters... personally i think my wife is hotter.)

And then someone said how a bout a forum for us that has nothing to do with baseball? So it was written.... blada blada.

But the same code/rules apply. but all of a sudden, those rules applied to the newbies only. We had gorown accustomed to each other, not necessarily like a family, but rather an extended family. "I can yell and demean you because we "know" each other!!!"

but the rules apply to all. this isn't a rally for freedom of speech. This is a club. with rules. we all get snippy at times. Over the last week everytime princeton posted something, i felt like baiting him. I have no idea why. BTW he's still wrong. ;)

but the rules apply to all. the reason the admins are asking for mods is that they cannot do it themselves. our schedules, our lives require that we leave the computer every so often. the more mods, the more likely one is on, keeping an eye, but not looking for trouble.

and why anyone would have a problem with this, and would still continue to post here is beyond my ability to understand. There are other outlets for venom, other boards that actually welcome flame wars. Feel free to leave at any time. your positive contributions will be missed, but the negative ones will cause the rest of the board to overlook them.

rant over.

[TeamCasey]

I think TRF nailed it as best as anyone can. (Good job). Redszone originated from the anarchy of cincy.com. It has a history. It's always wanted to be a place that anyone could enjoy at any age. It's remarkably succeeded.

We try to keep it clean. Does it get risque at times. Yes .... but within reason. Do people fight amongst themselves? Yes .... but within reason. The guys aren't trying to paint the joint lily white. They're simply trying to find "within reason". I think they try to be fair and objective. Do people tread out on a limb now and then .... yes. Normally a flag on the play or a head's up to the individual smooths things over.

I don't think people got too out of hand in their discussion of pretty controversial topics, but a rift certainly occurred. It probably could have gotten alot worse if allowed to fester.

They aren't squashing discussion. We just need to find what's "within reason" for this board. I think that's fair. I also think the guys will apply the new rules within reason.

I applaud them for giving us a non-baseball forum. It keeps both the fun, friendly, silly stuff and the debate stuff off the baseball side.

[Chip R]

As far as my knowledge of the first amendment, I have a passing knowledge, having been a practicing attorney for more than a few years and having litigated a few cases involving this issue, one of which made it to the New York Court of Appeals. And when I feel it is appropriate to commence an action on my behalf, I usually don't go looking for an attorney, I do it myself, and I'm usually successful. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand. Nuff said?
Well, as they say, practice makes perfect. :D

[DunnersGrl44]

I think that Boss and GIK and Chip and Coug and Zom all do a fantastic job.
This board is great. Keep up the good work boys.

[GAC]

Actually, starting trouble is against the rules as well. As for the moderators having unlimited power, that's probably because this is a moderated board. If this wasn't a moderated board, we'd have no need for the moderators, no? This board was started because discussions from either an unmoderated board or a moderated board where the moderator(s) were asleep at the switch got out of hand. People wanted a place to go where they wouldn't be inundated by trolls and could participate in a reasonable discussion without the risk of getting flamed. That's why we have the rules here. If you have concerns about the moderaters, who would you want policing the board?

I would think if a moderator sanctioned someone because of a difference in opinions, they wouldn't be a moderator for very long after that. Since you have been a participant here for such a long while, though, I can see why you would ask that question. I'm all for freedom of speech too. But I think you misunderstand the 1st amendment. It doesn't give people unlimited freedom of speech. All it says is that the government shall not make any laws abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about private organizations - which RedsZone is one - making any rules against freedom of speech. It's the same way for schools. You can't go to school with obscenities on your T-Shirt.

If you are such a free speech advocate, perhaps this isn't the place for you. You may be happier on an unmoderated board. However, everyone who joins this board has to abide by the rules set down here. If you don't you will suffer the consequences. You are also more than welcome to hire an attorney and sue RedsZone for abridging your freedom of speech rights but I don't think you will be too successful finding one.


Very good Chip. I couldn't agree more. But what I want to know (since I know you).... who is your ghost writer? :allovrjr:

[Spring~Fields]

As far as my knowledge of the first amendment, I have a passing knowledge, having been a practicing attorney for more than a few years and having litigated a few cases involving this issue, one of which made it to the New York Court of Appeals. And when I feel it is appropriate to commence an action on my behalf, I usually don't go looking for an attorney, I do it myself, and I'm usually successful. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand. Nuff said?

Certainly then you should be able to make substantial contributions to the non-baseball side of the forum that brings growth, development and stimulated enlightenment to all of us. Though I am not one to be in awe of doctors or lawyers as professionals, I do like them as people.

The moderators and administrators do quite well considering the various age groups along with the different value and belief systems and personal constitutions that those ranges bring to the forum.

Escalation in commitment becomes a problem for some posters when the board allows the discourse and exchange to get too rigid or stimulated as in “spirited discussion” some of us regress to adolescent defensiveness when one does not agree with us, then there are many others here that can communicate very well such as yourself under various challenges.

How would you suggest that the moderators effectively deal with those that are having a “bad hair day” or are just trained and conditioned to respond with non-constructive remarks repeatedly?

[CougarQuest]

My hearts still all a-twitter over the fact we now have a BOX!!

[Mutaman]

How would you suggest that the moderators effectively deal with those that are having a “bad hair day” or are just trained and conditioned to respond with non-constructive remarks repeatedly?

Good question. Obviously the moderators should have wide discretion to enforce the new sanctions. My concern is that discretion should, to a limited extent, be reviewable. One who is sanctioned should have the right to appeal to the Boss or to a higher athority. If not, the danger exists that a less than professional moderator will sanction someone because of a personality dispute or because he doesn't agree with their politics, ect. Moderator's discretion should be broad but it shouldn't be unlimited.

[paintmered]

Good question. Obviously the moderators should have wide discretion to enforce the new sanctions. My concern is that discretion should, to a limited extent, be reviewable. One who is sanctioned should have the right to appeal to the Boss or to a higher athority. If not, the danger exists that a less than professional moderator will sanction someone because of a personality dispute or because he doesn't agree with their politics, ect. Moderator's discretion should be broad but it shouldn't be unlimited.


So you are going to appeal breaking a rule to the guy that made the rules? If we could do that, it would reduce the credibility of the rules in the first place. The rules are well defined, the consequences are well defined. This shouldn't be a problem.

[Spring~Fields]

My concern is that discretion should, to a limited extent, be reviewable. One who is sanctioned should have the right to appeal to the Boss or to a higher athority. If not, the danger exists that a less than professional moderator will sanction someone because of a personality dispute or because he doesn't agree with their politics, ect. Moderator's discretion should be broad but it shouldn't be unlimited.

I believe from my experience here that the review and flexibility that you refer to does exist on this forum. Without being specific because I don't want to inflame an old and closed issue that has been put to rest long ago, I know that some of us as a group have appealed to the owners, and I as an individual appealed to the owners and have had very reasonable responses and follow up. The moderators also shared in the discussions in another situation to resolve the contentions at one time.

There is a difference when it is written word vs. an act/violation of rules or standards committed verbally or physically that might or might not have been visible or audible to others to witness in normal life situations. Here the writings in an author’s own hand are electronically recorded and are readily available within a post from start to finish, which leaves little to doubt if one truly is violating their privileges here. A simple review through the reading of the thread and exchanges will disclose the offensive party or the party that is initiating the inflammatory and provocative behavior.

Though I am not saying that you are wrong selectively, as a type of halo effect can exist naturally between certain posters and moderators who have a long-standing relationship and have enjoyed one another’s written interaction. Which an example might be seen when one is defending himself/herself from what they inferred or perceived as an undue offensive personal attack by an offending or offensive party. Sometimes, but rarely, the one responding might get chastised or slapped on the wrist by the social group and/or moderator, which can seem a bit unfair or unjust when the one that fired the first shot, can be clearly seen in the writings, and it would seem to me that, that party should be the one getting chastised or rebuked by the moderators or social group over the responder first, and they do review such incidents. As with any social groups there is always some degree of "office politics".

[Mutaman]

So you are going to appeal breaking a rule to the guy that made the rules?

Its a basic procedure in administrative law.

[RedsBaron]

What power? It's a message board!

one of probably a million. all with different rules/codes. Redszone started because a bunch or reds fans on the enquirer board couldn't communicate with each other because of trolls, flamers and people being offensive. I got to the point that if a kid was just trying to read a little about his favorite team, he'd be exposed to some of the crudest language that anyone with even a moderate sence of decency wouldn't utter to another person's face.

but it was tolerated/ignored there.

And a couple of guys decided enough was enough. I think their aim was small at first. just a place to dicuss the reds... no trolls allowed.

and then something happened. Redszone took off. The most knowledgeable posters in the country come here. Fans of teams from all over, both leagues. And a few trolls come to. for the most part the "community" deals with them without violating the rules. Some are dealt with by the Mods or admins.

And the baseball discussion resumed stronger by the absence of back-biting trolls seeking only to stir up trouble for troubles sake. Great debates raged over SABR, Griffey's health, The minor leagues and how hot AD is (for creek and the teamsters... personally i think my wife is hotter.)

And then someone said how a bout a forum for us that has nothing to do with baseball? So it was written.... blada blada.

But the same code/rules apply. but all of a sudden, those rules applied to the newbies only. We had gorown accustomed to each other, not necessarily like a family, but rather an extended family. "I can yell and demean you because we "know" each other!!!"

but the rules apply to all. this isn't a rally for freedom of speech. This is a club. with rules. we all get snippy at times. Over the last week everytime princeton posted something, i felt like baiting him. I have no idea why. BTW he's still wrong. ;)

but the rules apply to all. the reason the admins are asking for mods is that they cannot do it themselves. our schedules, our lives require that we leave the computer every so often. the more mods, the more likely one is on, keeping an eye, but not looking for trouble.

and why anyone would have a problem with this, and would still continue to post here is beyond my ability to understand. There are other outlets for venom, other boards that actually welcome flame wars. Feel free to leave at any time. your positive contributions will be missed, but the negative ones will cause the rest of the board to overlook them.

rant over.
Well said. :thumbup:
Incidentally, I believe that we have quite a few lawyers or people attending law school on this board. None of them have summarized the need for a moderator quite so well IMO.

[CougarQuest]

Its a basic procedure in administrative law.
And a lawyer should know that doesn't apply here.

[TRF]

Well said. :thumbup:
Incidentally, I believe that we have quite a few lawyers or people attending law school on this board. None of them have summarized the need for a moderator quite so well IMO.

i wrote that, and turned right around and broke the rules on the baseball side.

i'm really having a crappy year.

[Mutaman]

And a lawyer should know that doesn't apply here.

Why not? If a moderator sanctions someone, that person could have the right to request that the Boss overturn the sanction. This guards against an abuse of discretion by an individual moderator. It can apply here.

[CougarQuest]

Why not? If a moderator sanctions someone, that person could have the right to request that the Boss overturn the sanction. This guards against an abuse of discretion by an individual moderator. It can apply here.
So sue me the next time I enforce the rules. I won't even get a lawyer. But more importantly, lets talk about these new boxes we're getting!

[Boss-Hog]

You're welcome to request an "appeal" but if it's determined that the alleged violator clearly broke the stated rules, he/she probably won't have the punishment reduced anytime soon.

[Mutaman]

You're welcome to request an "appeal" but if it's determined that the alleged violator clearly broke the stated rules, he/she probably won't have the punishment reduced anytime soon.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[REDREAD]

. One who is sanctioned should have the right to appeal to the Boss or to a higher athority. .

Boss and the mods here are EXTREMELY leinent. Heck, even under the new policy, you have to violate the rules FIVE times before getting banned.

There is no higher authority than Boss. :MandJ:

[RFS62]

There is no higher authority than Boss. :MandJ:


In Boss we trust.

[Unassisted]

A question for Boss and the mods...

Are these helping the climate? I'm not so sure.

I've seen 3 threads that I've started lately get diverted in some incendiary tangent. From there, the discussion degenerated into a pissing match and the thread got locked.

I have no idea whether mod-alerting does any good, since no action appears to be the result of mod alerts that I submit when things are smoldering. The hammer usually falls a few hours later after the fists have started flying.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Well, I ignore mod alerts, personally.

;)

Honestly, though, they get sent to my home email and, when I can't access my home email (such as when I'm at the office), I don't see them until a 'few hours later.'

[Unassisted]

Boss's link to the rules is invalid now. Are the January 2005 non-BB rules still in effect? If so, is there a new link?

[GAC]

Its a basic procedure in administrative law.

You're using the same type of reasoning that that one college girl tried to use on that teacher over the term paper (and she was wrong)....she knew the guidelines - the teacher/school has the right to set forth those guidelines. Our responsibility? Obey and stay within them. If not, then we (just like her) get what they deserve.

It's the same on here. And I have come to find that Boss/GIK and the mods have been more then lenient and tolerant.

Personally - I've changed my mind and have come to the conclusion that if they banned all political and religious discussions on here it would be fine with me. Why? Too much baiting and taunting going on due to the deep ideological divisions in this country. They just end up closing them anyway.

Save the ban space. ;)

[Reds4Life]

Boss's link to the rules is invalid now. Are the January 2005 non-BB rules still in effect? If so, is there a new link?

I updated the link, it should be working now. Yes, the rules still apply.

[Mutaman]

You're using the same type of reasoning that that one college girl tried to use on that teacher over the term paper (and she was wrong)....she knew the guidelines - the teacher/school has the right to set forth those guidelines. Our responsibility? Obey and stay within them. If not, then we (just like her) get what they deserve.

It's the same on here. And I have come to find that Boss/GIK and the mods have been more then lenient and tolerant.

Personally - I've changed my mind and have come to the conclusion that if they banned all political and religious discussions on here it would be fine with me. Why? Too much baiting and taunting going on due to the deep ideological divisions in this country. They just end up closing them anyway.

Save the ban space. ;)


Now I have to defend something I wrote 7 months ago? Isn't there some limitation period in effect here?

Actually GAC, I suspect you're for closing down this post because you have run out of excuses for the Bush administration. Even you can no longer defend their conduct. ( I think the Terry Schiavo situation was the straw that broke the camel's back). Morover, its clear that a lot of Red's fans are actually becoming a bit progressive and are winning most debates here. Nobody complained when the rightwingers were in the majority here. A good sign for the country as a whole.

Anyhow, whats wrong with a little baiting and taunting? Good clean baiting and taunting never hurt anybody.

PS. I missed the story about that college girl. What did she get that she deserved? Would telling us violate the guidelines?

************************************************** ******
This post was not intended to bait or taunt under any circumstances.

[RFS62]

Anyhow, whats wrong with a little baiting and taunting? Good clean baiting and taunting never hurt anybody.

************************************************** ******
This post was not intended to bait or taunt under any circumstances.



I think the mods are just sick and tired of having to deal with it on a baseball site. This isn't a first ammendment issue, it comes down to what the guys who get the call to clean up Aisle 4 are willing to put up with.

[paintmered]

I think the mods are just sick and tired of having to deal with it on a baseball site. This isn't a first ammendment issue, it comes down to what the guys who get the call to clean up Aisle 4 are willing to put up with.

Baiting and taunting when emotions are running high is akin to lighting a match next to a leaking propane tank. Since we don't want to remove the propane tank, we choose to limit the baiting and taunting.

[WVRed]

Baiting and taunting when emotions are running high is akin to lighting a match next to a leaking propane tank. Since we don't want to remove the propane tank, we choose to limit the baiting and taunting.

Funny you use that analogy.

Its also like lighting a match next to a propane tank in that if something happens, the result isnt very pretty.

[GAC]

Actually GAC, I suspect you're for closing down this post because you have run out of excuses for the Bush administration.

This thread is not closed. ;)

The only reason a mod uses discretion and closes a thread down is when someone starts name calling and using derogatory language on others. Take a good hard look at the first thread started on Rove, and why it was closed. If I'm the reason for threads being closed then why haven't I ever been warned or received a banning? It's not because the mods are politically partisan. They are pretty objective IMO. I can defend myself and disagree/argue without name calling.


(I think the Terry Schiavo situation was the straw that broke the camel's back).

If you will do your research you'll find that an overwhelming majority of conservatives vehemently disagreed with the government intrusion into this situation. That was even shown on here during that discussion. Less government intrusion -that's core theme to true conservatism - not that they are becoming more progressive. And it is one issue that alot of conservatives are upset with Bush over. Neither political party believes in less government.


Anyhow, whats wrong with a little baiting and taunting? Good clean baiting and taunting never hurt anybody.

You think using derogatory names and labels on people is good, clean fun? Calling others Fascists, Nazis, or making fun of/mocking someone because of ideological differences NEVER leads to anything productive, and usually sends any type of discussion right into the gutter.

I love a good, sharp discussion. I fully understand there are disagreements. We can do so and keep it on a civil tone. If you, or anyone from either side, feels they have to mock and name call in order to get their point across, then IMO you've already lost the argument. ;)

Go back and look at how many threads, either political or religious that I, or any other conservative, has started? Really won't find any will you? You'll have to look awfully hard, and go back a bit. And believe me, if we wanted, we could scour the 'net and find plenty. It's pointless. Take a good hard look at who/what threads are currently being started, and the intent. Done sorely for bitter partisan purposes IMO.

And I don't think the board has become more progressive no more then I thought at one time it was more conservative. Just because you got a handful of people, and usually the same 2-3 (a minority), flooding the board with political threads doesn't not mean it has gone progressive. It just means that an awful lot of people are sick and tired of the partisan fighting and degeneration of the discussion on here, beating their headsd against the wall, and therefore are no longer participating.

They're the smart ones (I'm not some times ;) ).

[QUOTE]PS. I missed the story about that college girl. What did she get that she deserved? Would telling us violate the guidelines?]/QUOTE]

Enjoy ;)

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37092



Go back and look at how many threads, either political or religious that I, or any other conservative, has started? Really won't find any will you? You'll have to look awfully hard, and go back a bit.

And I don't think the board has become more progressive no more then I thought at one time it was more conservative. Just because you got a handful of people, and usually the same 2-3 (a minority), flooding the board with political threads doesn't not mean it has gone progressive. It just means that an awful lot of people are sick and tired of the partisan fighting and degeneration of the discussion on here, beating their headsd against the wall, and therefore are no longer participating.

They're the smart ones (I'm not some times ;) ).

[Falls City Beer]

Since this is a thread to discuss rules and such, I'd like to say that I was suspended for 24 hours the other day for a comment regarded as "snide" by a moderator.

But just yesterday another poster insulted me personally with a personal attack and nothing, not even a warning, became of it.

Neg me if you wish (I know that's the new "justice" around here to neg people who report offensive behavior), but I thought I should point out that rules are being applied unequally.

Thanks,

FCB

[RFS62]

Since this is a thread to discuss rules and such, I'd like to say that I was suspended for 24 hours the other day for a comment regarded as "snide" by a moderator.



Yeah, yours was probably a lifetime achievement award.

Kidding, just kidding. Thank you very much, I'll be here all week. Tip the waitresses.

[Chip R]

But just yesterday another poster insulted me personally with a personal attack and nothing, not even a warning, became of it.
The post in question, I believe, said something about if Karl Rove went to prison that you could help him out. IIRC, you said that you worked with people getting out of prison or something like that. How is that a personal attack? :confused:

[RBA]

This thread is not closed. ;)

Go back and look at how many threads, either political or religious that I, or any other conservative, has started? Really won't find any will you? You'll have to look awfully hard, and go back a bit. And believe me, if we wanted, we could scour the 'net and find plenty. It's pointless. Take a good hard look at who/what threads are currently being started, and the intent. Done sorely for bitter partisan purposes IMO.

And I don't think the board has become more progressive no more then I thought at one time it was more conservative. Just because you got a handful of people, and usually the same 2-3 (a minority), flooding the board with political threads doesn't not mean it has gone progressive. It just means that an awful lot of people are sick and tired of the partisan fighting and degeneration of the discussion on here, beating their headsd against the wall, and therefore are no longer participating.



That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. You and other conservates attempts on here to marginlize almost all political debate that is harsh on the current administration by calling it solely for bitter partisan does not help matters and is use as an easy out far too often.

The fact of the matters is that the conservatives are currently in power and if they can't stand the heat they need to get out of the kitchen.

Do you really think if Kerry or Gore were elected President that the Non-Baseball Forum discussion area would be free of politcal discussion?

I see yours and others attempts to marginlized posters a "personalized attack" against those who post relevant political discussions that you and others have a hard time justifying the current administrations positions. It's an easy out and frankly not a productive one.

[Falls City Beer]

The post in question, I believe, said something about if Karl Rove went to prison that you could help him out. IIRC, you said that you worked with people getting out of prison or something like that. How is that a personal attack? :confused:


First, it was uninstigated. I said nothing to RFA in that thread, responded to no post.

Second, he felt it necessary to make light of what I do. I wasn't deeply offended and don't feel the need for an apology, but when I'm suspended after one warning for what I felt was simply a little sarcasm pointing to the conservative pro-life argument, I begin to wonder that a double-standard isn't in place around here. That's all.

My comment was "baiting"--to which I say, fine, it's baiting if that's how you see it. I accept my punishment. But when another poster calls me out, singles me out in a post like RFA did (not in response to earlier post of mine or anything), I feel that's "baiting" as well.

I just want to see the law applied equally, that's all. (Or next time don't suspend ME for sarcasm--it's not as though my post was a personal attack or anything). It seems unjust to have it both ways.

[Chip R]

First, it was uninstigated. I said nothing to RFA in that thread, responded to no post.

Second, he felt it necessary to make light of what I do. I wasn't deeply offended and don't feel the need for an apology, but when I'm suspended after one warning for what I felt was simply a little sarcasm pointing to the conservative pro-life argument, I begin to wonder that a double-standard isn't in place around here. That's all.

My comment was "baiting"--to which I say, fine, it's baiting if that's how you see it. I accept my punishment. But when another poster calls me out, singles me out in a post like RFA did (not in response to earlier post of mine or anything), I feel that's "baiting" as well.

I just want to see the law applied equally, that's all. (Or next time don't suspend ME for sarcasm--it's not as though my post was a personal attack or anything). It seems unjust to have it both ways.Still not seeing the personal attack. All he was doing is being ironic in a joking manner. You work with people who have been in jail and Rove may go to jail.

I think you're just making a mountain out of a molehill because you're sore you were suspended. So you make something out of nothing and are trying to get him suspended as well. You can deny it but that's what it looks like to me.

[RBA]

FCB, there maybe some biases in the current moderators and they may be less lenient on certain members on the board, but I have to agree with the majority so far as to say it was meant as an ironic joke.

[RosieRed]

In any case, what is the point of baiting and taunting, and of name-calling, and mocking someone else, and all the other nonsense? It accomplishes nothing, except creating animosity, headaches for mods, and getting threads closed.

So what's the point? Aren't we all grown up enough to accept that other people have different views, and that we are capable of discussing such views like intelligent people, and can't we leave it at that? Why does it have to be taken to the next step, where the insults and accusations and whatnot start flying? It's like a virtual pissing match. If that's the kind of discussion someone here wants to participate in, there are many other message boards on the Internet where you're free to do so.

We have had discussions on here, on very delicate topics, that did not evolve into nonsense. So I assume we're capable of it. All I can figure is it's much harder to put forward an intelligent opinion on an issue, whereas it's much easier to fall back on stereotypes and insults. Which is sad, and rather pointless.

We all know I've gotten into some heated discussions on non-BB topics on here (hi GAC and traderumor! :wave: ), but I hope I've never been insulting or demeaning. I've certainly never tried to be either, because I don't think my throwing insults around does anything except make me look silly.

[Falls City Beer]

Still not seeing the personal attack. All he was doing is being ironic in a joking manner. You work with people who have been in jail and Rove may go to jail.

I think you're just making a mountain out of a molehill because you're sore you were suspended. So you make something out of nothing and are trying to get him suspended as well. You can deny it but that's what it looks like to me.

Whatever. Believe what you wish. Just give me a rationale next time instead of paintmered's "I've got an itchy trigger finger"--and the fact that I used sarcasm to assail a religious position. You can deny THAT all you want as well. But that's exactly why I was suspended. If I had used sarcasm to attack Rove or Bush I wouldn't be here in this argument, but because I take issue with a hidebound and absurd religious argument I get banned. So ban me all you want, this is my last word on the issue.

In the interest of clarity, this is the post that got me booted for 24 hours (I guess some white males got their feelings hurt):

"Riiight. The "rights" that matter to white males, eh? Pretend you just got knocked up by your brother. Now pretend there's nothing you can do about it but have the baby.

Fun. (Cuz Gawd says ev'ry life is a precious meer-cul from Gawd)"

Now tell me I didn't get busted for challenging Johnny Wheatabix Protestant.

[Jaycint]

Nevermind. Pointless anyway.

[RedsBaron]

In any case, what is the point of baiting and taunting, and of name-calling, and mocking someone else, and all the other nonsense? It accomplishes nothing, except creating animosity, headaches for mods, and getting threads closed.

So what's the point? Aren't we all grown up enough to accept that other people have different views, and that we are capable of discussing such views like intelligent people, and can't we leave it at that? Why does it have to be taken to the next step, where the insults and accusations and whatnot start flying? It's like a virtual pissing match. If that's the kind of discussion someone here wants to participate in, there are many other message boards on the Internet where you're free to do so.

We have had discussions on here, on very delicate topics, that did not evolve into nonsense. So I assume we're capable of it. All I can figure is it's much harder to put forward an intelligent opinion on an issue, whereas it's much easier to fall back on stereotypes and insults. Which is sad, and rather pointless.

We all know I've gotten into some heated discussions on non-BB topics on here (hi GAC and traderumor! :wave: ), but I hope I've never been insulting or demeaning. I've certainly never tried to be either, because I don't think my throwing insults around does anything except make me look silly.
:clap: Excellent post. If someone wants to persuade someone else to reconsider a position and take into consideration another point of view, a reasoned argument is much more effective than stereotypes and insults. I sure wouldn't try, or get away with, some of the taunts and personal attacks used here if I tried those tactics in my line of work.

[RFS62]

The thing that really gets to me about all this is what a tremendous resource we're wasting here.

Such intelligent people on every side of every issue. Viewpoints that educate and enlighten will be silenced if we can't rise above the rancor and partisanship.

People are passionate about their beliefs. That's not a bad thing. It's a good thing. I don't want to hear a wishy-washy argument. I want to hear someone with the courage of their convictions make an intelligent argument, even if I totally disagree with their point of view.

But if your position is well thought out, why would anyone have to resort to childish insults? Is the art form of bickering more important than putting your views out there?

If fighting is more important than making your point, then this forum won't be around much longer. What a shame that would be.

I've modified a lot of my opinions, based entirely on what I've read here. I'll bet a lot of other people have too, and never say anything about it. When you make a compelling case, intelligent people will be affected by it, even if they don't change their positions. When all you do is insult and fight, your message is lost in the static.

[savafan]

Go back and look at how many threads, either political or religious that I, or any other conservative, has started? Really won't find any will you? You'll have to look awfully hard, and go back a bit. And believe me, if we wanted, we could scour the 'net and find plenty. It's pointless. Take a good hard look at who/what threads are currently being started, and the intent. Done sorely for bitter partisan purposes IMO.

Not sure if you consider me a conservative or a liberal, as I don't feel that I fit into either category since I'm split on different issues, but I do start a few political and religous topics on here. I don't do it for baiting though. Any time I start a topic it is because I find it interesting, and I'm interested in other peoples' perspectives. I'm probably in the minority, but some of you have been able to convince me to change my mind on some things from time to time.

[Sean_CaseyRules]

They are great, good job.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Bzzap!

Thread Necromancy.

http://www.headinjurytheater.com/zombie%20pick%20up%20line%20jared%20hindman.jpg

[Betterread]

How does one give out points or "nick" someone - I don't know how to use my "power points".

[RBA]

How does one give out points or "nick" someone - I don't know how to use my "power points".

Click on this character. http://www.redszone.com/forums/skins/RedsZone/buttons/reputation.gif (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37295#) out to the left side. And than you give me good points.

[Betterread]

Click on this character. http://www.redszone.com/forums/skins/RedsZone/buttons/reputation.gif (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37295#) out to the left side. And than you give me good points.

I tried to do this, but did not succeed.

[pedro]

I tried to do this, but did not succeed.

did you do it on someone else's post?

If you do it on your own post then you you just see who's rated you on that post.