PDA

View Full Version : Town Hall Discussion: Does BroncosForum need a positive only forum? Meaning no player/coach (former or current) bashing or other negative posts



Pages : [1] 2

Tned
09-09-2010, 11:05 PM
In the Forums Request thread in the Town Hall it has been suggested that we should have a positive only forum. I am posting this here, rather than in Town Hall, because I want to make sure we get maximum feedback.

The forum would be along the lines of the Orange Colored Glasses forum on Broncos Country. This would be a forum where ONLY positive things about the Broncos, games, players, etc. can be discussed.

That means no basing of Coach McDaniels, no bashing of players, no bashing of former player or former coaches. No criticizing team moves (personnel, contract, etc.). None of the bickering, baiting and attacks among posters that goes on in the main Broncos Talk forum. No calling current or former coaches or players any derogatory names -- including any that have been used in the past to bait other posters.

Because this will increase the load on the mods, and because some posters think they are cute and can circumvent rules with some "parsing" of the rules, posters that don't honor the spirit of this forum will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Most likely receiving an immediate short bans for violating the spirit of this forum (possibly being given ONE warning, and then forum wide -- all of BroncosForums -- bans after that warning. This will be discussed among mods).

On Broncos Country, they put this description on the Orange Colored Glasses forum, which can help you understand what is being proposed, along with my description above.


This forum is a negativity-free zone for those needing a respite from debates; only positive comments are allowed. Please take this in the spirit in which it is intended, as the moderator staff will be watching things in here closely.

I am not putting a poll up. If you think we should have it or not have it and you want your voice counted, then you need to post in this thread.

Also, tell us if you think it should be a single stickied thread or a separate forum, and why.

Thanks

T

BroncoWave
09-09-2010, 11:08 PM
I would be fine either way but I'm not against it. If it is going to be put in, though, I think it should be a separate forum instead of a stickied thread. Stickied threads tend to be ignored.

I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be added though. I probably won't post much if at all in it but I see the appeal.

Softskull
09-09-2010, 11:11 PM
I dont want there to be any place free of my negativity.

Overtime
09-09-2010, 11:11 PM
no. what good are opinions if they are to be censored as to their content? whether positive or negative.

you might as well change the logo to

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics Denver Broncos Forums.

:coffee:

oh wait, pardon me...I'm being negative....oh no, oh no.... :eek:

god forbid...TNED...be merciful please... :behindsofa:

slim
09-09-2010, 11:13 PM
I am in favor, but only if it brings down whitey.

Northman
09-09-2010, 11:14 PM
I dont care as i wont be in there anyway. I like getting differing opinions.

TXBRONC
09-09-2010, 11:14 PM
I'm fine either way. I'll say this it's nice to get way from the negativity.

TXBRONC
09-09-2010, 11:16 PM
I am in favor, but only if it brings down whitey.

Isn't whitey your brother?

slim
09-09-2010, 11:23 PM
Isn't whitey your brother?

Oh no. I am not white.

:hopestopreservemembershiphere:

topscribe
09-09-2010, 11:23 PM
Don't care. Probably will seldom go in there, if at all.

Were I a mod, I wouldn't be too excited about it, however . . .

-----

honz
09-09-2010, 11:26 PM
As a big time homer and Broncos apologist, I doubt I would ever visit that forum.

jhildebrand
09-09-2010, 11:26 PM
I would frequent it here and there when I am flush with eternal optimism.

Northman
09-09-2010, 11:27 PM
Were I a mod, I wouldn't be too excited about it, however . . .

-----

Why is that? Shouldnt be much to keep up really.

frauschieze
09-09-2010, 11:31 PM
A question: Does positive only mean no skepticism? Does it mean there can be no doubt?

For example: I am happy with the way that Brandon Lloyd played in the preseason, but am skeptical he'll bring the same performance to the regular season given his track record. I hope that my doubts are misplaced.

That statement is not "negative" but it's also not really "positive" either. Would that break the spirit of OCG? I'm not familiar with how it was run at Mania.

Northman
09-09-2010, 11:32 PM
A question: Does positive only mean no skepticism? Does it mean there can be no doubt?

For example: I am happy with the way that Brandon Lloyd played in the preseason, but am skeptical he'll bring the same performance to the regular season given his track record. I hope that my doubts are misplaced.

That statement is not "negative" but it's also not really "positive" either. Would that break the spirit of OCG? I'm not familiar with how it was run at Mania.

I actually consider that negative. Ive done that in a LOT of posts and i get called a negative nancy over it.

TXBRONC
09-09-2010, 11:32 PM
Oh no. I am not white.

:hopestopreservemembershiphere:

I know that, I can see you in your avatar with jaundice complexion of yours. :D

slim
09-09-2010, 11:36 PM
I think the term "positive only" includes racial overtones. I mean "negative" implies the absence of light (i.e. non white humans).

I really think BF should be available to all people, regardless of their skin color. Of course, that is just my opinion.

BroncoWave
09-09-2010, 11:37 PM
no. what good are opinions if they are to be censored as to their content? whether positive or negative.

you might as well change the logo to

Union of Soviet Socialists Republics Denver Broncos Forums.

:coffee:

oh wait, pardon me...I'm being negative....oh no, oh no.... :eek:

god forbid...TNED...be merciful please... :behindsofa:

It's only one sub-forum. You would still be free to post your negative BS in the rest of the forums! :beer:

BroncoWave
09-09-2010, 11:38 PM
I think the term "positive only" includes racial overtones. I mean "negative" implies the absence of light (i.e. non white humans).

I really think BF should be available to all people, regardless of their skin color. Of course, that is just my opinion.

You people...

TXBRONC
09-09-2010, 11:41 PM
I think the term "positive only" includes racial overtones. I mean "negative" implies the absence of light (i.e. non white humans).

I really think BF should be available to all people, regardless of their skin color. Of course, that is just my opinion.

That is true but that rightly excludes people who are fat, bald, and yellow in skin tone.

slim
09-09-2010, 11:45 PM
That is true but that rightly excludes people who are fat, bald, and yellow in skin tone.

I was watching NFLN yesterday...I think Marshall Faulk has jaundice...his eyes are a freaky color.

jhildebrand
09-09-2010, 11:50 PM
I actually consider that negative. Ive done that in a LOT of posts and i get called a negative nancy over it.

But that's because you're nothing but a blind hater :rolleyes:

:cool:

Ravage!!!
09-09-2010, 11:59 PM
Im stumped how anyone could be opposed. If you don't like the forum, stay out of it. How hard is that? Why is it that you insist on wanting to push your views on someone if its supposed to be a haven?

slim
09-10-2010, 12:01 AM
Im stumped how anyone could be opposed. If you don't like the forum, stay out of it. How hard is that? Why is it that you insist on wanting to push your views on someone if its supposed to be a haven?

Take it easy, Rav. Unless you skin color is darker than maple, you have no voice here.

turftoad
09-10-2010, 12:08 AM
As to the thread title. No.

I've never seen something like that before. How are people going to debate if everyone is sitting around singing kumba ya.

Makes no sense to me.

People just need to learn how to act is all.

Tned
09-10-2010, 12:22 AM
A question: Does positive only mean no skepticism? Does it mean there can be no doubt?

For example: I am happy with the way that Brandon Lloyd played in the preseason, but am skeptical he'll bring the same performance to the regular season given his track record. I hope that my doubts are misplaced.

That statement is not "negative" but it's also not really "positive" either. Would that break the spirit of OCG? I'm not familiar with how it was run at Mania.

Which is why it will be a moderating nightmare (maybe LT can chime in with some input about how they handle it on BC/Mania).

It's a fine line between:


Lloyd looks a little off today.
Lloyd is really struggling today
McDaniels needs to yank Lloyd, he's dropped three passes.
Lloyd looks like crap today
There's no way Lloyd should be a starter on this team, or any team.


Which are negative, or 'too' negative?


Then we have things like:
Lloyd is really looking good today.
Look at that, Lloyd is just as good, without the whining of the other guy.
Poor Miami fans, we have just as much production without the drama.
We're 6-0, I wonder if #15 regrets whining his way out of town
lol, at least Lloyd doesn't punt the ball when he drops a pass


Obviously, I could post many more examples, but if you don't make it a pure kumbaya forum, I don't know how you make it work. The fact is that different people see things differently. Some people see nothing wrong with bashing former players and coaches, because they believe it is a 'fact' and therefore can't be considered negative (never figured that one out myself). Some think saying, "Orton has a noodle arm and shooting be starting" is a fact, and not just a negative rant.

So, I personally don't know where that line is other than believing if we try and straddle the fence, allowing 'some' posts that 'some' people might consider negative, then it will likely turn into a cluster and the mods will get a ton of "why did you nuke my post about Orton, when this guy is clearly taking a dig at Cutler" or something like that.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:24 AM
Which is why it will be a moderating nightmare (maybe LT can chime in with some input about how they handle it on BC/Mania).

It's a fine line between:


Lloyd looks a little off today.
Lloyd is really struggling today
McDaniels needs to yank Lloyd, he's dropped three passes.
Lloyd looks like crap today
There's no way Lloyd should be a starter on this team, or any team.


Which are negative, or 'too' negative?


Then we have things like:
Lloyd is really looking good today.
Look at that, Lloyd is just as good, without the whining of the other guy.
Poor Miami fans, we have just as much production without the drama.
We're 6-0, I wonder if #15 regrets whining his way out of town
lol, at least Lloyd doesn't punt the ball when he drops a pass


Obviously, I could post many more examples, but if you don't make it a pure kumbaya forum, I don't know how you make it work. The fact is that different people see things differently. Some people see nothing wrong with bashing former players and coaches, because they believe it is a 'fact' and therefore can't be considered negative (never figured that one out myself). Some think saying, "Orton has a noodle arm and shooting be starting" is a fact, and not just a negative rant.

So, I personally don't know where that line is other than believing if we try and straddle the fence, allowing 'some' posts that 'some' people might consider negative, then it will likely turn into a cluster and the mods will get a ton of "why did you nuke my post about Orton, when this guy is clearly taking a dig at Cutler" or something like that.

It would probably mean that any of your analogies would be out of line . . .

-----

turftoad
09-10-2010, 12:25 AM
It really would be a modding nightmare. Not only that but, how many forums does one site need. We have plenty already.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:26 AM
As to the thread title. No.

I've never seen something like that before. How are people going to debate if everyone is sitting around singing kumba ya.

Makes no sense to me.

People just need to learn how to act is all.

A forum like that was created in Mania before I left there for this board. Never
bothered me much because I never took part in it, but I never really saw much
sense to it . . .

----

Tned
09-10-2010, 12:29 AM
It really would be a modding nightmare. Not only that but, how many forums does one site need. We have plenty already.

I agree, which is also why I say if we do it, because enough people want it, then those that post there are going to have to understand that there won't be any gimmes, you try and parse the rules/spirit of the forum, you get a short FORUM WIDE (all of BF) ban. Meaning, no saying "hey, I didn't call him an idiot, I said anyone that believed that was an idiot", too bad, you're gone. You say, "glad we don't have a whiner at QB anymore", you're gone. You say, "I don't think we should have paid a midget, one-trick pony that much money", you're gone.

If it is not that black and white, any negative posts result in bans, then it will be a nightmare for the mods, constantly having to delete posts and clean up threads and send warning PMs that are ignored.

Northman
09-10-2010, 12:33 AM
A forum like that was created in Mania before I left there for this board. Never
bothered me much because I never took part in it, but I never really saw much
sense to it . . .

----

Did you find that the people who posted in there still posted as much in the other forums? I just wonder how much those who are clamoring for this will be posting in the more objective areas. I mean, i could sure use a break from certain individuals but if they are going to still be posting as much in the other forums there may not be a real purpose for this.

Tned
09-10-2010, 12:33 AM
A forum like that was created in Mania before I left there for this board. Never
bothered me much because I never took part in it, but I never really saw much
sense to it . . .

----

I never went into Orange Colored Glasses on Mania, and don't think we should have to have a positive only forum. However, that's also based on how people 'should' act, not how they are 'acting'.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I all but walked away from BF two times since January for 1+ months (mostly just checked mod areas for problems and such), because it made me sick to read Broncos Talk threads that were nothing but people throwing barbs at each other, and turning them into bash fests, whether about current or former players/coaches. Someone makes a comment about Orton, and someone else feels it's his 'duty' to start bashing Cutler, etc.

So, while I would likely not spend much, or any, time in that forum, I understand why some are asking for it.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:58 AM
Did you find that the people who posted in there still posted as much in the other forums? I just wonder how much those who are clamoring for this will be posting in the more objective areas. I mean, i could sure use a break from certain individuals but if they are going to still be posting as much in the other forums there may not be a real purpose for this.

Honestly, I don't really know who all posted in there . . .

-----

atwater27
09-10-2010, 01:15 AM
I don't think there needs to be a separate forum. I got no problem with people posting negatively or positively, if they like or dislike a player, if they think a coach is good or bad. What I think should be changed is simple. We can't call each other names. I don't think we should call the players names. And even if we called them names, there should be some that are off limits, and are off limits on alot of sites anyways. How bout just getting rid of cursewords? Or at least adding douche, douchebag, bitch and nuthugger etc... onto the list of asterisked words. We don't need a new forum, just a little class.

Tned
09-10-2010, 01:20 AM
I don't think there needs to be a separate forum. I got no problem with people posting negatively or positively, if they like or dislike a player, if they think a coach is good or bad. What I think should be changed is simple. We can't call each other names. I don't think we should call the players names. And even if we called them names, there should be some that are off limits, and are off limits on alot of sites anyways. How bout just getting rid of cursewords? Or at least adding douche, douchebag, bitch and nuthugger etc... onto the list of asterisked words. We don't need a new forum, just a little class.

We can certainly revisit those words in another Town Hall discussion. We have had multiple discussions on how much censorship should take place in terms of words/curses/etc., and we are attempting to honor the results of those conclusions. Based on my memory, nuthugger and douche weren't discussed (bitch was), so it may be time to have another "what language is acceptable" Town Hall discussion.

Timmy!
09-10-2010, 01:28 AM
I would rarely frequent it, but I'm not against it.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea and would be a complete pain to mod.

Tempus Fugit
09-10-2010, 01:34 AM
No. While an anti-bashing period would have served a purpose in the offseason, the time for reigning in the attacks has passed. The season is now here. People will become more or less negative depending upon how the team plays. People can always use the ignore function if needed. That's what it's there for.


Just my $.02


P.S. in case it ever comes up, I'm opposed to censorship of any words or phrases.

Elevation inc
09-10-2010, 02:05 AM
i am neither for or against it, but i really dont think its worth the hassle........these boards still rock just fine with out it.......

Midnight Blue
09-10-2010, 03:30 AM
I agree, which is also why I say if we do it, because enough people want it, then those that post there are going to have to understand that there won't be any gimmes, you try and parse the rules/spirit of the forum, you get a short FORUM WIDE (all of BF) ban. Meaning, no saying "hey, I didn't call him an idiot, I said anyone that believed that was an idiot", too bad, you're gone. You say, "glad we don't have a whiner at QB anymore", you're gone. You say, "I don't think we should have paid a midget, one-trick pony that much money", you're gone.

If it is not that black and white, any negative posts result in bans, then it will be a nightmare for the mods, constantly having to delete posts and clean up threads and send warning PMs that are ignored.

The bolded line would be (to me) sufficient cause to never even open what will essentially be a "far stricter rules" subforum... lest I might be tempted to make a post expressing an opinion there (one that would be totally OK in any other area of the BroncosForums message board) resulting in a site-wide ban.

Looking at the issue from the perspective of a moderator, I can see where this could definitely open the door for the possibility of not only a greatly increased workload but also huge headaches and possible controversy if some don't agree that their post was "negative enough"... ("intentionally and clearly broke the rules") to warrant being banned. It's a very fine line the mods would be expected to walk, I think.

Jaws
09-10-2010, 03:57 AM
I'd make it an opt-in forum if this goes ahead.
I don't think I'd post there much,but if there are some members who really want it, then that's fine by me.

Buff
09-10-2010, 04:34 AM
I think it makes more sense as a thread.

It's not like the positive only gameday threads were overflowing with posters last year.

Plus, in theory, if people like pn and carol are taking their positivity to another less-populated forum then you're actually detracting from BT and watering down the quality of the forums as a whole IMO. We're a small enough community that it doesn't make sense to over-segment the place... I'm a member at a larger poker forum where there are tens of thousands of members and it makes more sense to segment by interest because it really does get tough to wade through all of the content... Here, I don't think that's an issue.

Dirk
09-10-2010, 05:20 AM
I agree with Buff on this one. (wow, did I really write that?)

I think it would take away from the rest of the forums. I am one of the more positive posters on here. I hardly say anything negative at all (in the football part of the forums ;) ).

As a "positive poster" for the Broncos and the regime/players, I would never go in there. That's just my opinion.

Midnight Blue
09-10-2010, 05:50 AM
I'd make it an opt-in forum if this goes ahead.
I don't think I'd post there much,but if there are some members who really want it, then that's fine by me.

I agree with this... opt-in and perhaps offenders merely lose access to that particular opt-in forum rather than the entirety of BroncosForums....

sneakers
09-10-2010, 06:03 AM
We should have a neutral thread, where only emotionless robots can respond with well-computed rational posts

sneakers
09-10-2010, 06:05 AM
I think it makes more sense as a thread.

It's not like the positive only gameday threads were overflowing with posters last year.

Plus, in theory, if people like pn and carol are taking their positivity to another less-populated forum then you're actually detracting from BT and watering down the quality of the forums as a whole IMO. We're a small enough community that it doesn't make sense to over-segment the place... I'm a member at a larger poker forum where there are tens of thousands of members and it makes more sense to segment by interest because it really does get tough to wade through all of the content... Here, I don't think that's an issue.

Yes, the Anti-Mcdaniels posters have long been banned, gotten used to it, or killed themselves by now. This forum should not be needed.

TXBRONC
09-10-2010, 06:07 AM
Which is why it will be a moderating nightmare (maybe LT can chime in with some input about how they handle it on BC/Mania).

It's a fine line between:


Lloyd looks a little off today.
Lloyd is really struggling today
McDaniels needs to yank Lloyd, he's dropped three passes.
Lloyd looks like crap today
There's no way Lloyd should be a starter on this team, or any team.


Which are negative, or 'too' negative?


Then we have things like:
Lloyd is really looking good today.
Look at that, Lloyd is just as good, without the whining of the other guy.
Poor Miami fans, we have just as much production without the drama.
We're 6-0, I wonder if #15 regrets whining his way out of town
lol, at least Lloyd doesn't punt the ball when he drops a pass


Obviously, I could post many more examples, but if you don't make it a pure kumbaya forum, I don't know how you make it work. The fact is that different people see things differently. Some people see nothing wrong with bashing former players and coaches, because they believe it is a 'fact' and therefore can't be considered negative (never figured that one out myself). Some think saying, "Orton has a noodle arm and shooting be starting" is a fact, and not just a negative rant.

So, I personally don't know where that line is other than believing if we try and straddle the fence, allowing 'some' posts that 'some' people might consider negative, then it will likely turn into a cluster and the mods will get a ton of "why did you nuke my post about Orton, when this guy is clearly taking a dig at Cutler" or something like that.

If it's going to be that much of a moderating nightmare then it sounds like this isn't something you guys should have to deal with. I don't have problem with one exsisting but if we don't have one that's ok too.

Dean
09-10-2010, 06:21 AM
I am not sure that a mutual admiration society is necassary. I would not be opposed if those thin skinned enough to need it had a forum of that nature. They may feel they need shelter from opposing view points. :confused:

I can't see that I would ever go there. :coffee:

MileHighCrew
09-10-2010, 06:42 AM
I really don't think that is a good idea. One of the things I love about these sites is people can express their opinions and learn from eachother (granted in the McD era there has been less learning and more stubborn fighting) but in a positive only forum you wont learn from eachother because before someone can share a different way to look at things they will be shut down for being negative.
I am not for shooting off my mouth and causing problems but I also don't see the world as always full of sunshine.
Some will ask what is the problem if you feel different post in the other areas, but then you are limiting debate, learning and sharing.
I know people are growing tired of the Shanny and Cutler talk, and honestly I love both of them but it is time to accept and move on IMO but it is a hot button with fans and it could last for some time. Even still I don't think that is a reason to seperate the people in this forum into two group which I believe will happen with this.
You will have the happy I love McD people in one group and the anti (or negative) McD people in the other because the rules say the anti people are not allowed to post where all the I love McD people will create threads to avoid the "dark side"

roomemp
09-10-2010, 06:51 AM
No we are all Broncos fans in the end. Some have different takes on different situations but in the end the Broncos are all that matters.

claymore
09-10-2010, 06:58 AM
I say we leave it in McDaniels hands. If he does his job we will all be happy anywho.

Nomad
09-10-2010, 07:08 AM
Im stumped how anyone could be opposed. If you don't like the forum, stay out of it. How hard is that? Why is it that you insist on wanting to push your views on someone if its supposed to be a haven?

Well said Ravage!! What's it going to hurt people if they can only say positive things about their BRONCOS!! I mean look at some of the forums we have here that are worthless and it someone wants to spout of how they love the BRONCOS with their Orange Colored Glasses. BRONCO Talk will still be here for people to debate and complain.

Give the forum a chance before shooting it down!

Nomad
09-10-2010, 07:27 AM
If it's going to be that much of a moderating nightmare then it sounds like this isn't something you guys should have to deal with. I don't have problem with one exsisting but if we don't have one that's ok too.

LT would be a person to ask that question because BM has one and if any MB it would be a moderating nightmare, it would be there! I believe people are overreacting to this simple concept, if you don;t have anything positive to say then don't post in it!! :lol:Who can't decipher between positive and negative and people will know their intent before stepping foot in the forum!

Mike
09-10-2010, 07:42 AM
No need for another forum, IMO. We have enough as it is. Create a positive gameday thread and leave it at that.

Besides they did this at BM and there was never really all that much traffic. Most people just want to argue.

turftoad
09-10-2010, 08:40 AM
If we do this, are we going to have a bunch of other forums also.



Fire McD forum
Orton sucks forum

Etc.... etc.....

I mean, we already 38 forums. How many more do we need?

TXBRONC
09-10-2010, 08:56 AM
LT would be a person to ask that question because BM has one and if any MB it would be a moderating nightmare, it would be there! I believe people are overreacting to this simple concept, if you don;t have anything positive to say then don't post in it!! :lol:Who can't decipher between positive and negative and people will know their intent before stepping foot in the forum!

LT is a really good person to bounce the idea off of but if our moderating staff feels like it would be to burdensome for then I'm ok with not having it. At the end of day if we had on I would be fine and I would probably peak in there every so often however, if we don't have one I can live with that too.

Slick
09-10-2010, 08:58 AM
I don't think we need it. With the season starting the general mood of the board goes as the team goes. Some days we'll be pissed, other days we'll be happy. The highs and lows of the season are part of the fun. We need to go through them together.

EastCoastBronco
09-10-2010, 09:13 AM
No.
It's great the way it is.
Let it ride.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 09:48 AM
If we do this, are we going to have a bunch of other forums also.



Fire McD forum
Orton sucks forum

Etc.... etc.....

I mean, we already 38 forums. How many more do we need?

Please, DO NOT let Clay have his Orton Sucks forum . . .

-----

Elevation inc
09-10-2010, 09:53 AM
No need for another forum, IMO. We have enough as it is. Create a positive gameday thread and leave it at that.

Besides they did this at BM and there was never really all that much traffic. Most people just want to argue.

exactly much more people than here at the mania and the Orange glasses forum has like 3 threads right now all with under like 30 posts.....Waste of time, seriously.....a complete waste of time....

plus no one wants to posts threads or articles in a forum where the minority would be(what so 5 people can glance at it)......people want there opinions heard loud and clear......voicing a positive opinion will be more greatly noticed in BT than a positive forum.....and thats probally why there is barely any participation in such forums.....

i think people could probally be more respectful at this site as of late, but honestly if you cant take any heat on a message board when you post opposing views then perhaps its better to just read then post.....

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 09:59 AM
I'm curious, because I TRULY don't understand. What am I missing?

Tned's post about the mos having problems is the only negative that makes sense. But How is it that adding another forum is in the way of the rest??? :confused: I don't get it. If there is a forum that you are not interested in entering, then how does it bother you that its there for others to enjoy if thats something THEY want to go into? I just want someone to explain to me (other than being a mod nightmare) how putting a forum up somehow disturbs some of you??? Please?

I hope its something more than "its not fair that they get a positive one and we don't get a negative one" reason.

Am I wrong in feeling this could be an "Opt-In" forum.... so that the poster understands when entering that the purpose for the forum is positive talk ONLY... and if they can't show that they understand this... don't opt-in. Then take away that priv if they adhere the rules? I don't know, just thought that might be a better way. :whoknows:

When people go out bar-hopping. Does it matter if some people are in the jazz club when you want to go to the hip-hop? Does those that want to listen to jazz keep you from going to the hip-hop club, or do you just go where you want to go, and let them go where they want to go (and not talking about your group). Plus, in this situation... all the clubs are connected. SO they could listen to jazz, pop back in and listen to hop.. and go back to jazz.... or stay in hop.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 10:14 AM
Im stumped how anyone could be opposed. If you don't like the forum, stay out of it. How hard is that? Why is it that you insist on wanting to push your views on someone if its supposed to be a haven?

I totally agree with you. The Lounge was created because it was felt that an area was necessary where posters could post things which are not allowed in the COC in the general forums.

So, why the opposition for an area where members, who choose, can post, without all of the negative stuff that we see - I could not tell you how many articles I have posted, where as my favorite expression applies - "the thread ends up in the toilet".

camdisco24
09-10-2010, 10:14 AM
I rarely post negative stuff and I can honestly say even I wouldn't use a positive only forum. I dont mind the small "positive" sticky on gameday, but most of the time I like to read other opinions.

That just my $.02

topscribe
09-10-2010, 10:19 AM
I'm curious, because I TRULY don't understand. What am I missing?

Tned's post about the mos having problems is the only negative that makes sense. But How is it that adding another forum is in the way of the rest??? :confused: I don't get it. If there is a forum that you are not interested in entering, then how does it bother you that its there for others to enjoy if thats something THEY want to go into? I just want someone to explain to me (other than being a mod nightmare) how putting a forum up somehow disturbs some of you??? Please?

I hope its something more than "its not fair that they get a positive one and we don't get a negative one" reason.

Am I wrong in feeling this could be an "Opt-In" forum.... so that the poster understands when entering that the purpose for the forum is positive talk ONLY... and if they can't show that they understand this... don't opt-in. Then take away that priv if they adhere the rules? I don't know, just thought that might be a better way. :whoknows:

When people go out bar-hopping. Does it matter if some people are in the jazz club when you want to go to the hip-hop? Does those that want to listen to jazz keep you from going to the hip-hop club, or do you just go where you want to go, and let them go where they want to go (and not talking about your group). Plus, in this situation... all the clubs are connected. SO they could listen to jazz, pop back in and listen to hop.. and go back to jazz.... or stay in hop.

Been to all those places. But the most fun I've ever had was at square dances . . . :dancing:

-----

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 10:25 AM
Been to all those places. But the most fun I've ever had was at square dances . . . :dancing:

-----

Really? a square dance? or are you just saying that because there was a smiley for it? :eek:

topscribe
09-10-2010, 10:27 AM
Really? a square dance? or are you just saying that because there was a smiley for it? :eek:

I grew up on a Colorado farm & ranch, city boy . . .

-----

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 10:28 AM
In reading "I don't think we need it", in regards to a "positive forum", when I was a mod, at first, I did NOT think we needed The Lounge area - WHY - the COC was posted, and I felt that posters needed to adhere to the COC. It was decided if there was not an area where posters could be more free with what they post, there was the possibility of them leaving BF - therefore, The Lounge was created.

Based on the above, if we gave those posters an area, WHY can't we give the posters an area where they can post, without having to sift thru what they have to now, and with the same possibility that some of these posters may leave BF.

turftoad
09-10-2010, 10:32 AM
In reading "I don't think we need it", in regards to a "positive forum", when I was a mod, at first, I did NOT think we needed The Lounge area - WHY - the COC was posted, and I felt that posters needed to adhere to the COC. It was decided if there was not an area where posters could be more free with what they post, there was the possibility of them leaving BF - therefore, The Lounge was created.

Based on the above, if we gave those posters an area, WHY can't we give the posters an area where they can post, without having to sift thru what they have to now, and with the same possibility that some of these posters may leave BF.

As a former mod, you know the majority rules Carol. That is why this is being discussed in the town hall.

Tned
09-10-2010, 10:34 AM
In reading "I don't think we need it", in regards to a "positive forum", when I was a mod, at first, I did NOT think we needed The Lounge area - WHY - the COC was posted, and I felt that posters needed to adhere to the COC. It was decided if there was not an area where posters could be more free with what they post, there was the possibility of them leaving BF - therefore, The Lounge was created.

Based on the above, if we gave those posters an area, WHY can't we give the posters an area where they can post, without having to sift thru what they have to now, and with the same possibility that some of these posters may leave BF.

Just for clarification on the Lounge, we had a thread like this (just in Town Hall) where we got input just like, and then a decision was made. So the process is exactly the same.

If it is clear that enough people want it and we don't have too overwhelming an outcry (with reasons) against it, then we will do something.

Just like the discussion we had regarding the military only forum, where many people (including some that want the positive only forum) were against that forum, so we didn't put it in place.

The process is the same for all of these decisions, and based on the input we get from members of our community, we make a decision.

tomjonesrocks
09-10-2010, 10:38 AM
What's the downside? I don't see one other than things could get negative anyway requiring a lot of moderation. Those that want to participate there could and those that don't can ignore it.

Whether it's really *needed* would be a matter of opinion...

Tned
09-10-2010, 10:39 AM
Also, my thought on making it opt-in and only denying rights to that opt-in forum if the spirit of the forum/thread is broken.

The reason I am opposed to this, rather than much more severe, board wide bans, is because this forum is going to be a pain in the butt for mods. Some of the worst offenders in terms of turning good threads to crap, are also guys that like to parse the letter of the law. "I didn't say he was an idiot, I said he acted like an idiot", "I didn't say he was a moron, I said anyone that believes ______ is a moron" and other crap like that.

The mods already dedicated a LOT of time to this place, and I don't think it's fair to have them try and enforce a positive only forum, where some of the worst offenders in terms of negativity, bashing, baiting, etc. have stated they want it and will post in it. If it was only Carol and Pn posting in it, and people that acted as civil as them, we wouldn't even need to mod it. However, that's not the reality.

If we go through the hassle of creating and moderating a positive only forum, and someone ignores the spirit of what that forum is for, then I believe they HAVE to be given a short ban (possibly with ONE warning first).

Nomad
09-10-2010, 10:48 AM
Just for clarification on the Lounge, we had a thread like this (just in Town Hall) where we got input just like, and then a decision was made. So the process is exactly the same.

If it is clear that enough people want it and we don't have too overwhelming an outcry (with reasons) against it, then we will do something.

Just like the discussion we had regarding the military only forum, where many people (including some that want the positive only forum) were against that forum, so we didn't put it in place.

The process is the same for all of these decisions, and based on the input we get from members of our community, we make a decision.

I, for one, wasn't against a military forum and was for it but I disagreed that it should be exclusively for 'military' only and excluded the majority of the community because I felt the community could learn from active, retired, and prior military through their experiences and I questioned the validity of how one would/could prove they are/were military!! And the ones advocating wanted a 'military' opt in only!

You have so many forums here that get rarely used which could be lumped in the Chit chat forum or other sports because they get rarely used by the community or it's the handful of people that use them! I'm about like TXBRONC on this, I'll opt in to a positive forum but I'm not going to use it daily. But what baffles me is you can have a forum like the Black Hole which is worthless and it gets used by a few ( i noticed it's opt in now) but it's a big fuss to have a OCG sub forum! I'm not the most positive guy and I'm critical of this team but again I fail to see the burden of it! Zero tolerance for offenders....sounds simple to me!!

Northman
09-10-2010, 10:50 AM
I'm curious, because I TRULY don't understand. What am I missing?

Tned's post about the mos having problems is the only negative that makes sense. But How is it that adding another forum is in the way of the rest??? :confused: I don't get it. If there is a forum that you are not interested in entering, then how does it bother you that its there for others to enjoy if thats something THEY want to go into? I just want someone to explain to me (other than being a mod nightmare) how putting a forum up somehow disturbs some of you??? Please?

I hope its something more than "its not fair that they get a positive one and we don't get a negative one" reason.

Am I wrong in feeling this could be an "Opt-In" forum.... so that the poster understands when entering that the purpose for the forum is positive talk ONLY... and if they can't show that they understand this... don't opt-in. Then take away that priv if they adhere the rules? I don't know, just thought that might be a better way. :whoknows:

When people go out bar-hopping. Does it matter if some people are in the jazz club when you want to go to the hip-hop? Does those that want to listen to jazz keep you from going to the hip-hop club, or do you just go where you want to go, and let them go where they want to go (and not talking about your group). Plus, in this situation... all the clubs are connected. SO they could listen to jazz, pop back in and listen to hop.. and go back to jazz.... or stay in hop.


I can see how it might be construed like that. I mean, if we are being honest there are other ways to simply deal with the negativity. One of course is what PN eluded to with the ignore feature. Now, im not sure where her problem comes in with that as she says its not working which baffles me but maybe she can clarify. But to tell you the truth, im kind of glad most of the responses are not in favor of it. I just think if you have to run away from an opposing view than you really cant handle the discussions as is. My suggestion is too either keep putting people on ignore or step away from the site for a while. Go enjoy the outdoors with your family and friends. Really, the basic problem here is just the attacks and thread derails which falls on the mods shoulders. If PN is upset about the attacks, she can report them. If she is upset about the negativity of the team, she should probably grow a thicker skin. The negativity will always be there and has been for years. I say if the forum itself is bringing you down than step away for a while and do something else. In the end i dont care if they get one but like most have stated it think its pretty pointless to cater to people who have thin skin. IMO

Tned
09-10-2010, 10:56 AM
I, for one, wasn't against a military forum and was for it but I disagreed that it should be exclusively for 'military' only and excluded the majority of the community because I felt the community could learn from active, retired, and prior military through their experiences and I questioned the validity of how one would/could prove they are/were military!! And the ones advocating wanted a 'military' opt in only!

That's why we have the Town Hall discussions (even though this one is in BT), so that everyone can chime in and hopefully the decision reflects what the community at large wants.


You have so many forums here that get rarely used which could be lumped in the Chit chat forum or other sports because they get rarely used by the community or it's the handful of people that use them! I'm about like TXBRONC on this, I'll opt in to a positive forum but I'm not going to use it daily. But what baffles me is you can have a forum like the Black Hole which is worthless and it gets used by a few ( i noticed it's opt in now) but it's a big fuss to have a OCG sub forum! I'm not the most positive guy and I'm critical of this team but again I fail to see the burden of it! Zero tolerance for offenders....sounds simple to me!!

Two separate issues, really. The Black Hole forum is a way to get threads that have gone into the toilet, but haven't necessarily reached the point of needing to be deleted, out of the main forum. Other online communities have used that approach and we had a TH discussion on it. As to it's use, ideally, it would see almost no use. A thread is moved there, maybe there are a few comments as people realize it is a 'toilet' thread, and then move on. Some communities label that forum as "where threads go to die". Also, it's only been up for a week or so.

A stark difference with this forum, which I am not opposed to having, is that this will need to be the most highly/tightly moderated forum that we have. Hence the reason that I have said that if we have it, we need to meter out harsh penalties to those that don't honor the spirit of the forum.

As to too many forums, I agree. I have added forums as there has been demand for them, but always cautioning that it detracts from our community as a whole. The more forums you have, the more confusing it is to new people. The more forums you have, the more you are going to have forums with almost no activity, which can give the sense of a low-activity community when new people come, and often can result in them leaving.

In the next week or so, I'll put a thread up listing all of the forums, and get some input on doing some consolidation, which I would love to see.

Lonestar
09-10-2010, 10:57 AM
Well my thoughts are it is needed as a refuge from all the negativity that is spawned by those that are anti current regime/players.

Now I know that some think I bring past players or coaches into EVERY thread JUST for the fun of it. Neither is the first being EVERY thread nor the FUN of it are true.

If there was a place I did not have to listen or see the mcdouche comments from the haters. Then I would not be compelled to REMIND those that mikey was as bad or worse.

That said I know how this process workes.

UNLESS there is a clear and compelling reason to bring this about it will not happen.

Reading the posts from admin and mods yesterday proves to me that they are against it and are determined in the posts they made to make sure it does not happen. IMHO.(Since I was trying to post this last night when the forum went down I'm not sure of any of the repsonses are today)


In the past mods were not to post their ideas on proposals as to not influence the "will of the forum" I'm guessing that dictum has changed.

So those are my thoughts.

Count me as a firm YES we need it.

Although I will bet it will not happen.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

topscribe
09-10-2010, 10:58 AM
Also, my thought on making it opt-in and only denying rights to that opt-in forum if the spirit of the forum/thread is broken.

The reason I am opposed to this, rather than much more severe, board wide bans, is because this forum is going to be a pain in the butt for mods. Some of the worst offenders in terms of turning good threads to crap, are also guys that like to parse the letter of the law. "I didn't say he was an idiot, I said he acted like an idiot", "I didn't say he was a moron, I said anyone that believes ______ is a moron" and other crap like that.

The mods already dedicated a LOT of time to this place, and I don't think it's fair to have them try and enforce a positive only forum, where some of the worst offenders in terms of negativity, bashing, baiting, etc. have stated they want it and will post in it. If it was only Carol and Pn posting in it, and people that acted as civil as them, we wouldn't even need to mod it. However, that's not the reality.

If we go through the hassle of creating and moderating a positive only forum, and someone ignores the spirit of what that forum is for, then I believe they HAVE to be given a short ban (possibly with ONE warning first).

This serves as my explanation as to why I would not like the idea of such a
forum, as a mod. Disciplinary measures WILL happen. Not only will it be an
additional headache for the mods, but bans, and even the "Concerning Your
Post" messages, tend to create bad feelings toward mods and even the board.
Mods work hard to keep the necessity of such actions to a minimum. This
would serve to defeat that purpose, IMO . . .

-----

Tned
09-10-2010, 11:00 AM
I can see how it might be construed like that. I mean, if we are being honest there are other ways to simply deal with the negativity. One of course is what PN eluded to with the ignore feature. Now, im not sure where her problem comes in with that as she says its not working which baffles me but maybe she can clarify.

I'm guessing the part about the ignore not working well has to do with the number of people she would have to put on ignore. As it stands now, probably half of the active posters would have to be put on ignore if you tried to avoid all of the bashing, attacks and bickering.

broncogirl7
09-10-2010, 11:01 AM
I'm against it as I feel it's unnecessary and if you don't like that opinion just don't respond and ignore the comments.

That being said, if you do have a positive only section there should be zero tolerance. It would be pretty easy to figure out who is making negative comments as their previous non-positive comments are a dead give away. Also no tolerance for the folks that like to 'twist' the words around and argue they weren't being negative by manipulating the way they organized the words...no tolerance.

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:01 AM
Reading the posts from admin and mods yesterday proves to me that they are against it and are determined in the posts they made to make sure it does not happen. IMHO.(Since I was trying to post this last night when the forum went down I'm not sure of any of the repsonses are today)





Nice cheap shot.

However, ive read many posts in this thread where people who dont like the negativity still dont want the forum so that kind of blows your theory there.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 11:01 AM
I can see how it might be construed like that. I mean, if we are being honest there are other ways to simply deal with the negativity. One of course is what PN eluded to with the ignore feature. Now, im not sure where her problem comes in with that as she says its not working which baffles me but maybe she can clarify. But to tell you the truth, im kind of glad most of the responses are not in favor of it. I just think if you have to run away from an opposing view than you really cant handle the discussions as is. My suggestion is too either keep putting people on ignore or step away from the site for a while. Go enjoy the outdoors with your family and friends. Really, the basic problem here is just the attacks and thread derails which falls on the mods shoulders. If PN is upset about the attacks, she can report them. If she is upset about the negativity of the team, she should probably grow a thicker skin. The negativity will always be there and has been for years. I say if the forum itself is bringing you down than step away for a while and do something else. In the end i dont care if they get one but like most have stated it think its pretty pointless to cater to people who have thin skin. IMO

I can not speak for PN, but possibly the ignore feature is not working for her, as she can not see the initial post that the poster she has on ignore made, but more than likely, the initial post is being quoted.

Also, it confuses me, why people who prefer to be positive, rather than negative, are labeled as having "THIN SKIN"

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:04 AM
I'm guessing the part about the ignore not working well has to do with the number of people she would have to put on ignore. As it stands now, probably half of the active posters would have to be put on ignore if you tried to avoid all of the bashing, attacks and bickering.

Then thats where i would suggest she take a break if its getting to her. I mean, is she really going to be THAT giddy to post in a forum where there is only 2-3 members posting? I just cant justify having a forum like that for a select few posters. If they dont like it here and BN has more to offer with a forum like that why not go there? I hate to be blunt but i never understood the constant ripping on this site by people who have other options on the net. :confused:

Nomad
09-10-2010, 11:04 AM
Tned, everyone knows this place is great because you can discuss issues like this. You and others don't have to keep reminding! I just fail to comprehend shooting it down before it's tried, especially by moderators!!

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:04 AM
Also, it confuses me, why people who prefer to be positive, rather than negative, are labeled as having "THIN SKIN"


I can clear that up, you dont see people who have skepticism clamoring for their own forum.

broncogirl7
09-10-2010, 11:04 AM
Well my thoughts are it is needed as a refuge from all the negativity that is spawned by those that are anti current regime/players.

Now I know that some think I bring past players or coaches into EVERY thread JUST for the fun of it. Neither is the first being EVERY thread nor the FUN of it are true.

If there was a place I did not have to listen or see the mcdouche comments from the haters. Then I would not be compelled to REMIND those that mikey was as bad or worse.

That said I know how this process workes.

UNLESS there is a clear and compelling reason to bring this about it will not happen.

Reading the posts from admin and mods yesterday proves to me that they are against it and are determined in the posts they made to make sure it does not happen. IMHO.(Since I was trying to post this last night when the forum went down I'm not sure of any of the repsonses are today)


In the past mods were not to post their ideas on proposals as to not influence the "will of the forum" I'm guessing that dictum has changed.

So those are my thoughts.

Count me as a firm YES we need it.

Although I will bet it will not happen.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

IMHO, they (mods and Tned) are the one's that ultimately have to deal with it and we can voice our opinions but should also take into consideration that it is more work for them as people like to push the envelope with the rules and will undoubtedly do the same with a positive only forum.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 11:05 AM
Well my thoughts are it is needed as a refuge from all the negativity that is spawned by those that are anti current regime/players.

Now I know that some think I bring past players or coaches into EVERY thread JUST for the fun of it. Neither is the first being EVERY thread nor the FUN of it are true.

If there was a place I did not have to listen or see the mcdouche comments from the haters. Then I would not be compelled to REMIND those that mikey was as bad or worse.

That said I know how this process workes.

UNLESS there is a clear and compelling reason to bring this about it will not happen.

Reading the posts from admin and mods yesterday proves to me that they are against it and are determined in the posts they made to make sure it does not happen. IMHO.(Since I was trying to post this last night when the forum went down I'm not sure of any of the repsonses are today)


In the past mods were not to post their ideas on proposals as to not influence the "will of the forum" I'm guessing that dictum has changed.

So those are my thoughts.

Count me as a firm YES we need it.

Although I will bet it will not happen.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Yes, I noticed mods are discussing it freely, and I do remember when we were
not to. I still believe in the old policy of minimal input from the mods in such
discussions. In this case, however, I believe it is good for the board to see
what the mods will be up against in such a case since that should concern all
of us . . .

-----

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:05 AM
Tned, everyone knows this place is great because you can discuss issues like this. You and others don't have to keep reminding! I just fail to comprehend shooting it down before it's tried, especially by moderators!!

Because they are the ones who have to deal with it?

Tned
09-10-2010, 11:06 AM
Well my thoughts are it is needed as a refuge from all the negativity that is spawned by those that are anti current regime/players.

Now I know that some think I bring past players or coaches into EVERY thread JUST for the fun of it. Neither is the first being EVERY thread nor the FUN of it are true.

If there was a place I did not have to listen or see the mcdouche comments from the haters. Then I would not be compelled to REMIND those that mikey was as bad or worse.

That said I know how this process workes.

UNLESS there is a clear and compelling reason to bring this about it will not happen.

Reading the posts from admin and mods yesterday proves to me that they are against it and are determined in the posts they made to make sure it does not happen. IMHO.(Since I was trying to post this last night when the forum went down I'm not sure of any of the repsonses are today)


In the past mods were not to post their ideas on proposals as to not influence the "will of the forum" I'm guessing that dictum has changed.

So those are my thoughts.

Count me as a firm YES we need it.

Although I will bet it will not happen.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Jr, if you have a problem with how the forum has been run since you were fired as a mod, please create a Town Hall discussion on THAT topic, and stop introducing it into so many other Town Hall and even BT discussions. Enough is enough, we all realize you don't like me, the current mod team or how things are run.

As to your "opinion" that the mod team doesn't want it and is leading it in that direction, that is not true. The "mod team" has no official position on it, and we haven't talked about it out of this thread.

I have pointed out the reality, which is it will be difficult to moderate, so therefore there should be severe punishment for anyone that breaks the rules, whether they are bashing former players and coaches, or other posters, like you routinely do, or if they are bashing McDaniels and current players, as some other posters tend to do.

If you guys (you know who you are) would all accept that it's OK to have different opinions, and it isn't a cause to attack fellow Broncos fans, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:06 AM
Mods are members too, they should have their say especially when its something that will involve them directly.

Tned
09-10-2010, 11:08 AM
Yes, I noticed mods are discussing it freely, and I do remember when we were
not to. I still believe in the old policy of minimal input from the mods in such
discussions. In this case, however, I believe it is good for the board to see
what the mods will be up against in such a case since that should concern all
of us . . .

-----

And you will also remember, and can look back at old threads that you guys participated in, that while I encouraged that stance, it was something that I could never get compliance with, because you mods would often feel you needed to defend something, or more likely, felt as a poster also, you had a right to put your opinion forward.

However, as I told Jr, we can certainly have a TH discussion on how the forum should be run, or how Town Hall discussion should be run.

In the meantime, please :focus:

Nomad
09-10-2010, 11:09 AM
Because they are the ones who have to deal with it?

Give it a week and let's see!! Again I fail to see what the difficulty is, it's a MB for pete's sake!! It's not like they live in LA policing the streets!!

Mike
09-10-2010, 11:11 AM
Just for claritys sake...my opinion is that of a member of this board. How it effects the duties as a mod plays no role in it.

I guess I should post a disclaimer in all my posts from now on. "This views in this post are not endorsed by Broncos Forums Mod Staff."

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:12 AM
Give it a week and let's see!! Again I fail to see what the difficulty is, it's a MB for pete's sake!! It's not like they live in LA policing the streets!!

All i can say Nomad is if the majority wants it, then you will get it. So far it doesnt look that way but simply whining about it isnt the way to go. Its up for discussion and let the majority decide what they want and then move on.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 11:12 AM
And you will also remember, and can look back at old threads that you guys participated in, that while I encouraged that stance, it was something that I could never get compliance with, because you mods would often feel you needed to defend something, or more likely, felt as a poster also, you had a right to put your opinion forward.

However, as I told Jr, we can certainly have a TH discussion on how the forum should be run, or how Town Hall discussion should be run.

In the meantime, please :focus:

I was on topic. My response was well thought out. I agreed the mods should
have input in this issue. I don't know how I could have been more reasonable
in my comment. I don't understand what this shit about the conduct of mods
back then has anything to do with the topic, either. :tsk:

-----

Tned
09-10-2010, 11:15 AM
Tned, everyone knows this place is great because you can discuss issues like this. You and others don't have to keep reminding! I just fail to comprehend shooting it down before it's tried, especially by moderators!!

I only remind it when responding to posts of "well if you gave this group _____, then why not give this group _____" or "if you don't allow this word, you shouldn't allow that word."

Contrary to what some bitter community members will try and lead you to believe, I have not and WILL NOT make decisions in that way. Rules and policies are defined by these discussions. If you (not you, the general you) feel strongly about something, make a TH thread and make a compelling enough case that it's clear that the community at large agrees with you (the bar can be somewhat lower than "community at large" if it's something that doesn't affect the entire community).

topscribe
09-10-2010, 11:15 AM
Just for claritys sake...my opinion is that of a member of this board. How it effects the duties as a mod plays no role in it.

I guess I should post a disclaimer in all my posts from now on. "This views in this post are not endorsed by Broncos Forums Mod Staff."

I know you speak from sarcasm, but something like that might be a good idea -
at least perhaps reminding the readers you are speaking as a poster and not as
a mod. Just an idea . . .

-----

Nomad
09-10-2010, 11:16 AM
All i can say Nomad is if the majority wants it, then you will get it. So far it doesnt look that way but simply whining about it isnt the way to go. Its up for discussion and let the majority decide what they want and then move on.

I am not whining and if I am then you are whining just as much as me because you would have said your piece and moved on!! You're right about the majority but I'm speaking out to mods who seem to want to turn it down before trying because as Ravage said I'm trying to understand their mindset!

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 11:16 AM
Tned, everyone knows this place is great because you can discuss issues like this. You and others don't have to keep reminding! I just fail to comprehend shooting it down before it's tried, especially by moderators!!

Great post - thanks:salute:

Lonestar
09-10-2010, 11:16 AM
Btw I said the above all the while having placed 8-9 members on iggy because they are the worst of the worst so unless someone quotes them I rarely see those posts.

Some have encouraged me to go else where IF I do not like it here.

But Y'all see I was part of the rebel forces that spawned this place. Most of the rest that folowed are not invested like the original 4 are.

So do as Y'all think you need to do. But remember it takes TWO to Tango.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

weazel
09-10-2010, 11:17 AM
we should have a rainbows and butterflies forum as well! this world is so pussified...

broncogirl7
09-10-2010, 11:17 AM
I was on topic. My response was well thought out. I agreed the mods should
have input in this issue. I don't know how I could have been more reasonable
in my comment. I don't understand what this shit about the conduct of mods
back then has anything to do with the topic, either. :tsk:

-----

The animosity between ex-mods and Tned is becoming tiresome and insulting. If you guys want to make snide comments about Tned or current mods please do it in a PM so that we can discuss the topic at hand. Comments like these are becoming more prevalent and are very distracting to our board.

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:18 AM
Just for claritys sake...my opinion is that of a member of this board. How it effects the duties as a mod plays no role in it.

I guess I should post a disclaimer in all my posts from now on. "This views in this post are not endorsed by Broncos Forums Mod Staff."


Ive got you now. I dont want to see you or the mods posting ever again on this board without this disclaimer. YOU ARE NOT ONE OF US.



*ok, /sarcasm* :lol:

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:20 AM
I am not whining and if I am then you are whining just as much as me because you would have said your piece and moved on!! You're right about the majority but I'm speaking out to mods who seem to want to turn it down before trying because as Ravage said I'm trying to understand their mindset!

Having been a mod myself i know the work put into it. So i know exactly where they come from.

Mike
09-10-2010, 11:21 AM
Ive got you now. I dont want to see you or the mods posting ever again on this board without this disclaimer. YOU ARE NOT ONE OF US.



*ok, /sarcasm* :lol:

Done.

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:21 AM
Btw I said the above all the while having placed 8-9 members on iggy because they are the worst of the worst so unless someone quotes them I rarely see those posts.

Some have encouraged me to go else where IF I do not like it here.

But Y'all see I was part of the rebel forces that spawned this place. Most of the rest that folowed are not invested like the original 4 are.

So do as Y'all think you need to do. But remember it takes TWO to Tango.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

How ironic that 2 of the 4 have become the biggest problems on the site. :lol:

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:23 AM
The animosity between ex-mods and Tned is becoming tiresome and insulting. If you guys want to make snide comments about Tned or current mods please do it in a PM so that we can discuss the topic at hand. Comments like these are becoming more prevalent and are very distracting to our board.

THANK YOU. :salute:

Tned
09-10-2010, 11:23 AM
Ok, this thread is becoming a prime example of WHY Pn asked for a positive only forum.

The topic isn't other members or their views on this topic or how they are expressing them. The topic isn't the mod team, or me for that matter.

The topic is whether or not we should have a positive only forum, or permanent sticky, and why you feel that way. You shouldn't be focused on pointing out why other's opinions on this subject are wrong, but instead just make your opinion clear.

:focus:

Thanks

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:24 AM
I dont think its necessary.


This message is approved by Northman.

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 11:27 AM
we should have a rainbows and butterflies forum as well! this world is so pussified...

Its not.. but thats the point, isn't it?

Some go home, turn off the phone, turn off the tv, send the kids to the grandparents to just "get away" from it all.

Now.. you can say that they can "turn off the computer" if they don't want to 'read the negativity'....but if thats your stance, can't you look at those words and see how absurd that is? Why not be able to come to a place and talk about Broncoss and CHOOSE to go into a forum that is PURELY for the Happy Happy Joy Joy posts? THe PURPOSE of an "Orange GLasses" forum is not to be realistic. Its not to be "even" in its thought process or have a pro-con debate.

The Purpose of a forum like is to get outside the "real world" and just to get away.

Remember...I'm posting this as someone that absolutely has NOOOO intention of going in there. I would never be THAT kind of guy. We ALL know that I don't have a problem posting something that is opposite of everyone else. So its not like I'm "fighting" for the forum for my personal gain.

What I don't understand, is the opposition to it. This entire site is named "Broncos Forums." Yet, we have forums about baseball??? I effing HATE baseball! Hockey? Who the FREAK watches hockey anymore?? But they have their forums. Guess what? I don't go in there and it doesn't change a single iota as to how I enjoy the Broncos Forums of which I DO want to discuss. I simply don't go in. I simply don't participate. Thats pretty easy, right?

NOT to click on a thread is easier than moving your mouse and clicking on it.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 11:29 AM
The animosity between ex-mods and Tned is becoming tiresome and insulting. If you guys want to make snide comments about Tned or current mods please do it in a PM so that we can discuss the topic at hand. Comments like these are becoming more prevalent and are very distracting to our board.

It would be best you stay entirely out of it. The fact you interpreted my
comment as animosity reinforces that. If you cannot read my comments as I
write them, then put me on Ignore. Otherwise, try to keep up.

Just for the record, Tned and I go waaayyyyy back in our friendship, and we
have been very cordial lately, both on and off the board. So, if we have a little
spat, stay out of it. But don't accuse my responses as animosity when you
don't know what you are talking about . . .

-----

Nomad
09-10-2010, 11:31 AM
My last word on it...make it opt in , give it these next two weeks and if the mods can't handle the workload then so be it!! Then you can tell the sunnyside fans it was given a try!!

KCL
09-10-2010, 11:32 AM
wow I can't believe reading through this what it has become..I feel like I am an outsider looking in.

IMO It sounds like it would be more of a hassle than what it's worth.Excuse me for saying that for the people who do want it.

I think we're lucky to have this board as I posted at Mania for many years and this site is not as strict..of course that is the official Broncos site.

Why not have a positive thread on game days like last season? Did that work out well? I am only in them when the Chiefs and Broncos are playing and that's usually after the game is over.I cannot post and watch the game at the same time.

Quit giving Tned a headache..I do that enough to him in PMs...sorry Tned.

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:32 AM
Its not.. but thats the point, isn't it?

Some go home, turn off the phone, turn off the tv, send the kids to the grandparents to just "get away" from it all.

Now.. you can say that they can "turn off the computer" if they don't want to 'read the negativity'....but if thats your stance, can't you look at those words and see how absurd that is? Why not be able to come to a place and talk about Broncoss and CHOOSE to go into a forum that is PURELY for the Happy Happy Joy Joy posts? THe PURPOSE of an "Orange GLasses" forum is not to be realistic. Its not to be "even" in its thought process or have a pro-con debate.

The Purpose of a forum like is to get outside the "real world" and just to get away.

Remember...I'm posting this as someone that absolutely has NOOOO intention of going in there. I would never be THAT kind of guy. We ALL know that I don't have a problem posting something that is opposite of everyone else. So its not like I'm "fighting" for the forum for my personal gain.

What I don't understand, is the opposition to it. This entire site is named "Broncos Forums." Yet, we have forums about baseball??? I effing HATE baseball! Hockey? Who the FREAK watches hockey anymore?? But they have their forums. Guess what? I don't go in there and it doesn't change a single iota as to how I enjoy the Broncos Forums of which I DO want to discuss. I simply don't go in. I simply don't participate. Thats pretty easy, right? NOT to click on a thread is easier than moving your mouse and clicking on it.

By the same token they can simply enter and leave threads that dont sing happy joy joy moments either. I mean, if its all about choice than the choice is still there for them to make when it comes to regular football talk no? And again for me, ive been a mod so i know how this board operates when it comes to crap like this. It wont be long before (as someone else pointed out) someone goes into that forum and tries to work around the purpose of it and then defend it as not "negative". I personally just dont see the purpose of it and since its not a another sport alltogether makes it even more baffling. The other forums are there because they deal with other subject matters. This one would essentially be the same one only there wouldnt be any differing opinions.

Tned
09-10-2010, 11:33 AM
For those that missed this post:


Ok, this thread is becoming a prime example of WHY Pn asked for a positive only forum.

The topic isn't other members or their views on this topic or how they are expressing them. The topic isn't the mod team, or me for that matter.

The topic is whether or not we should have a positive only forum, or permanent sticky, and why you feel that way. You shouldn't be focused on pointing out why other's opinions on this subject are wrong, but instead just make your opinion clear.

:focus:

Thanks

:focus:

Thanks

Nomad
09-10-2010, 11:37 AM
wow I can't believe reading through this what it has become..I feel like I am an outsider looking in.

IMO It sounds like it would be more of a hassle than what it's worth.Excuse me for saying that for the people who do want it.

I think we're lucky to have this board as I posted at Mania for many years and this site is not as strict..of course that is the official Broncos site.

Why not have a positive thread on game days like last season? Did that work out well? I am only in them when the Chiefs and Broncos are playing and that's usually after the game is over.I cannot post and watch the game at the same time.

Quit giving Tned a headache..I do that enough to him in PMs...sorry Tned.

Gotta fight for the minority, though a person may not be one!!:D

LTC Pain
09-10-2010, 11:39 AM
I don't think it's needed either. It will open the door for other varioius specialty threads. If you don't like the negative side of a discussion then 1) log out or 2) use the ignore user function. If the dicsussion is going to be called civil then the the name calling has got to go. It will be interesting to see how the mods will adjudicate the "gray areas" in such a thread. I think it will be impossible because "negativity" is subjective to someone's opinion.

broncogirl7
09-10-2010, 11:42 AM
It would be best you stay entirely out of it. The fact you interpreted my
comment as animosity reinforces that. If you cannot read my comments as I
write them, then put me on Ignore. Otherwise, try to keep up.

Just for the record, Tned and I go waaayyyyy back in our friendship, and we
have been very cordial lately, both on and off the board. So, if we have a little
spat, stay out of it. But don't accuse my responses as animosity when you
don't know what you are talking about . . .

-----

My comments are from an outsiders view and what others are seeing and it's not only you by the way. Glad you and Tn go way back, I am speaking as a member outside your circle and how this appears to others in my position and have every right to express how the comments are affecting outsiders on this board.

That being said, my views have been expressed on the subject of a seperate forum.

Tned
09-10-2010, 11:42 AM
I don't think it's needed either. It will open the door for other varioius specialty threads. If you don't like the negative side of a discussion then 1) log out or 2) use the ignore user function. If the dicsussion is going to be call civil then the the name calling has got to go. It will be interesting to see how the mods would adjudicate the "gray areas" in such a thread.

IMO, having not talked to the mod team about it, the gray areas are going to have to be deemed black and off limits. If it's not full blown Kumbaya, then I have no idea how the mods can fairly moderate it.

KCL
09-10-2010, 11:45 AM
Gotta fight for the minority, though a person may not be one!!:D

I understand that but can Tned or someone answer this question?

How did the "positive" game threads work out? Did they make more or any work for the mods? Why not just go that route? Not everyone is always going to agree on the same things...so how about 2 threads on game day?

topscribe
09-10-2010, 11:46 AM
My comments are from an outsiders view and what others are seeing and it's not only you by the way. Glad you and Tn go way back, I am speaking as a member outside your circle and how this appears to others in my position and have every right to express how the comments are affecting outsiders on this board.

That being said, my views have been expressed on the subject of a seperate forum.

:focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus:

-----

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 11:46 AM
By the same token they can simply enter and leave threads that dont sing happy joy joy moments either. I mean, if its all about choice than the choice is still there for them to make when it comes to regular football talk no? And again for me, ive been a mod so i know how this board operates when it comes to crap like this. It wont be long before (as someone else pointed out) someone goes into that forum and tries to work around the purpose of it and then defend it as not "negative". I personally just dont see the purpose of it and since its not a another sport alltogether makes it even more baffling. The other forums are there because they deal with other subject matters. This one would essentially be the same one only there wouldnt be any differing opinions.

Like I said. If it's because of the modding problem I get it. As for the other opposition, it doesn't make any sense because it wouldn't effect anyone that didn't want to enter.

There are NO threads that sing happy happy joy joy and thats the point. But I know I'm not going to go into a thread/forum (hell, forums are easier to avoid than threads) that is purely for happy thoughts, but I don't see how that effects me if there is.

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 11:48 AM
I understand that but can Tned or someone answer this question?

How did the "positive" game threads work out? Did they make more or any work for the mods? Why not just go that route? Not everyone is always going to agree on the same things...so how about 2 threads on game day?

I think that was talked about early on and I believe that the plan is to continue such a thread.

Tned
09-10-2010, 11:48 AM
I understand that but can Tned or someone answer this question?

How did the "positive" game threads work out? Did they make more or any work for the mods? Why not just go that route? Not everyone is always going to agree on the same things...so how about 2 threads on game day?

I would have to go back and look, I was out of town for some games, but my recollection is that some weeks there were virtually no posts other than people saying, "Oh, the sky is lovely today -- is that positive enough" and stuff like that.

I'm not sure if towards the end of the season when things started really getting bad with the team if they had more use. If I get a chance later (I'm about to have to hit the road) I will look at them, or if someone else wants to, just do an advanced search on "Positive" in the subject/thread title only, and that should pull up all the Positive only gameday threads from last year.

LTC Pain
09-10-2010, 11:49 AM
IMO, having not talked to the mod team about it, the gray areas are going to have to be deemed black and off limits. If it's not full blown Kumbaya, then I have no idea how the mods can fairly moderate it.


Posters are smart and the gray areas will rise to the surface quickly. Especially when it's a Kumbaya/be nice type thread. Some will always be more interested or focused on walking that line than actually being involved in the positive discussion. I as well have been a mod on a gaming forum and no matter how black and white you lay it out there will be folks troubleshooting you. I don't envy you or the other mods in doing this task. It's like the cell phone guy saying "can you hear me now", only in this case it will be "can I say this".

Nomad
09-10-2010, 11:50 AM
I understand that but can Tned or someone answer this question?

How did the "positive" game threads work out? Did they make more or any work for the mods? Why not just go that route? Not everyone is always going to agree on the same things...so how about 2 threads on game day?

You saw how BM worked!! I believe people would want an area to post multiple threads singing 'as Tned stated' Kumbaya about the BRONCOS without getting the wise cracks and such!!

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:50 AM
I understand that but can Tned or someone answer this question?

How did the "positive" game threads work out? Did they make more or any work for the mods? Why not just go that route? Not everyone is always going to agree on the same things...so how about 2 threads on game day?

From my point of view i stayed out of them and to my knowledge they worked out well on gamedays.

MileHighCrew
09-10-2010, 11:51 AM
I really don't understand the point of a conversation where you are not allowed to have an opposing point of view?
Really I am not trying to be ignorant I just don't get it. Can someone who supports this idea or asked for it please explain how it will work to me.
I can agree the constant bickering and negatives can be frustrating but if you have to ALWAYS share the same POV then what is the point. I am already right in my own head all the time and if no one is allowed to disagree with me then I will never learn and grow as a person. I know this is just one place but I don't get the point of it.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 11:52 AM
You saw how BM worked!! I believe people would want an area to post multiple threads singing 'as Tned stated' Kumbaya about the BRONCOS without getting the wise cracks and such!!

I can see that. I can also see, as a former mod, however, why Tned and the
mods are not excited about it. Personally, as I mentioned, I don't care. I'm just
concerned about what it means from a moderating perspective . . .

-----

KCL
09-10-2010, 11:54 AM
You saw how BM worked!! I believe people would want an area to post multiple threads singing 'as Tned stated' Kumbaya about the BRONCOS without getting the wise cracks and such!!

You know sad as it may seem...some people are idiots and you just need to ignore them..esp if someone is known for being negative and I think you guys know which ones are.

2 games day threads...positive and negative....problem solved...case closed..:D

MileHighCrew
09-10-2010, 11:54 AM
You saw how BM worked!! I believe people would want an area to post multiple threads singing 'as Tned stated' Kumbaya about the BRONCOS without getting the wise cracks and such!!

So if Orton threw his 4th INT of the day, my post would have to read "Well he sure tried hard today." ???

What do you do in a positive only game day thread if the team plays horrible?

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 11:55 AM
Posters are smart and the gray areas will rise to the surface quickly. Especially when it's a Kumbaya/be nice type thread. Some will always be more interested or focused on walking that line than actually being involved in the positive discussion. I as well have been a mod on a gaming forum and no matter how black and white you lay it out there will be folks troubleshooting you. I don't envy you or the other mods in doing this task. It's like the cell phone guy saying "can you hear me now", only in this case it will be "can I say this".

yeah.. I can see the modding being a headache. Thats the only negative I can see, but its a pretty good sized one. SOmeone will get upset if there is a compliment to McD when we lost a game (as an example) and won't be able to hold their tongue (fingers) and make a back-handed compliment so that it's attacking while complimenting and thus pushing the problems.

sanluis
09-10-2010, 11:58 AM
single stickied thread

Because I am sure it will be sticky sweet... :D

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:58 AM
So if Orton threw his 4th INT of the day, my post would have to read "Well he sure tried hard today." ???

What do you do in a positive only game day thread if the team plays horrible?

Yea, i was thinking about something like that too. I mean, if the Broncos are doing well and we are winning im a happy camper just like the next guy. But if we are losing im not and its been a while since this team has looked like a true contender. So while i may not be like Top and throw my monitor out the window like i would when i was a teen i still dont like it and love to express my displeasure about it. If we go 2-14 i just dont see how anyone can celebrate that. Doesnt make sense to me.

sanluis
09-10-2010, 11:59 AM
So if Orton threw his 4th INT of the day, my post would have to read "Well he sure tried hard today." ???

What do you do in a positive only game day thread if the team plays horrible?

Drink..... :beer:

LTC Pain
09-10-2010, 11:59 AM
I can see that. I can also see, as a former mod, however, why Tned and the
mods are not excited about it. Personally, as I mentioned, I don't care. I'm just
concerned about what it means from a moderating perspective . . .

-----

I agree. This will be walking a minefield at best. Too much room for interpretation based on opinion. So, if Orton throws for 175 yards and a couple of interceptions and I say "Orton played terrible today" is that going to get me kicked off this forum for violating the rules of the "we can only talk positive thread"???

Northman
09-10-2010, 11:59 AM
single stickied thread

Because I am sure it will be sticky sweet... :D

Listen dolt boy, dont start messin. :D

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 12:00 PM
I agree. This will be walking a minefield at best. Too much room for interpretation based on opinion. So, if Orton throws for 175 yards and a couple of interceptions and I say "Orton played terrible today" is that going to get me kicked off this forum for violating the rules of the "we can only talk positive thread"???

yes :D

dogfish
09-10-2010, 12:00 PM
man, this place baffles me sometimes. . . i truly can't understand why anyone would be opposed to this. . . what does it matter? why would you deny someone something they want when it's no skin off your nose either way?

just seems petty to me, like denying the military opt-in. . . it doesn't cost anything, and is no detriment to the way anyone else wants to post. . . if it makes people like carol and PN more comfortable, let them have it. . . by all means!

it should be a thread, though, not a forum. . . there simply won't be enough traffic to support a forum, and while having more forums is never an issue IMO, it does clutter site navigation a bit. . .

i apologize for the off-topic, but that kinda brings up a related point. . . it's time to get rid of the "suggestion box," "issues to be discussed," and the "proposals for comment/discussion" sub-forums that haven't been used in years and probably never will be again. . . let's streamline a bit, and perhaps it'll make a few people less opposed to adding more "stuff". . .




IMO, having not talked to the mod team about it, the gray areas are going to have to be deemed black and off limits. If it's not full blown Kumbaya, then I have no idea how the mods can fairly moderate it.

i don't see why it would be a problem for the mods. . . the OCG area is a clearly marked jackass free zone, and if somebody wants to get froggy with it just ban their ass and have done. . . if people want to act like children, treat them that way. . .

KCL
09-10-2010, 12:02 PM
What do you do in a positive only game day thread if the team plays horrible?

Don't post...;)

I guess you could pick out the positives like if a specific players did well...maybe talk about how the team can learn from the mistakes they made in the game...stuff like that.

turftoad
09-10-2010, 12:03 PM
Well my thoughts are it is needed as a refuge from all the negativity that is spawned by those that are anti current regime/players.

Now I know that some think I bring past players or coaches into EVERY thread JUST for the fun of it. Neither is the first being EVERY thread nor the FUN of it are true.

If there was a place I did not have to listen or see the mcdouche comments from the haters. Then I would not be compelled to REMIND those that mikey was as bad or worse.

That said I know how this process workes.

UNLESS there is a clear and compelling reason to bring this about it will not happen.

Reading the posts from admin and mods yesterday proves to me that they are against it and are determined in the posts they made to make sure it does not happen. IMHO.(Since I was trying to post this last night when the forum went down I'm not sure of any of the repsonses are today)


In the past mods were not to post their ideas on proposals as to not influence the "will of the forum" I'm guessing that dictum has changed.

So those are my thoughts.

Count me as a firm YES we need it.

Although I will bet it will not happen.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

So if I go in there and post how great I think Shanny, Cutler and Marshall are, I'm not going to get back any negative feedback from anyone??

LTC Pain
09-10-2010, 12:05 PM
yes :D

ROFLMAO! I suppose the better year the Broncos have the thicker the Kumbaya thread will be and vice versa!

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:06 PM
I agree. This will be walking a minefield at best. Too much room for interpretation based on opinion. So, if Orton throws for 175 yards and a couple of interceptions and I say "Orton played terrible today" is that going to get me kicked off this forum for violating the rules of the "we can only talk positive thread"???

Well, of course, that would not be the place to do it. But there are those who
will do it. And they will get suspended, under the present suggestions. We have
posters here who just cannot help but to bash certain players/coaches, but
otherwise are good posters. So, they wander into this kumbaya thread, and they
forget what thread they're in (it's happened to me). So . . . WHAM! . . . now
they can't log in.

That's just one of many scenarios I can think of. I'm not against the posters,
who want it, having their haven. I'm just considering what may follow. We can
bring up Mania, yes . . . but let's remember we are not Mania, and nowhere
close to Mania . . .

-----

G_Money
09-10-2010, 12:06 PM
I never went into Orange Colored Glasses on Mania, and don't think we should have to have a positive only forum. However, that's also based on how people 'should' act, not how they are 'acting'.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I all but walked away from BF two times since January for 1+ months (mostly just checked mod areas for problems and such), because it made me sick to read Broncos Talk threads that were nothing but people throwing barbs at each other, and turning them into bash fests, whether about current or former players/coaches. Someone makes a comment about Orton, and someone else feels it's his 'duty' to start bashing Cutler, etc.

So, while I would likely not spend much, or any, time in that forum, I understand why some are asking for it.

I've been busy with life and writing (not as much writing recently... :tsk:) but this is one reason why it's not worth my time to hang out here in the offseason. Nothing is changing, all we had was 6 months of more polarizing conversations and drawing lines in the sand.

So I come back, browse threads for a day, see nothing's different and move on.

I don't know that this rosy board will help. What'll help is winning. It won't make everything better (see: complaints about Shanahan when we were having 10-6 seasons and early playoff exits) unless we win BIG, but putting up positive signs toward a return to glory will help sway opinion and marginalize negative opinions. This comes from someone who would probably be considered to have a negative opinion of the way the Broncos have operated in the McDaniels era so far.

Until then, if you have the "positive" posters move off to their own board, that just leaves the "negative" posters to their own devices, and you further polarize the board because now the two sides don't even have to attempt to co-exist. I put the terms in quotes because "positive" viewers are just as likely to bait and spill bile as "negative" ones - it's only the target of their ire that's different.

Those who are in favor of McDaniels and those who are skeptical of his direction CAN actually talk to each other and about the Broncos. I know - I remember it happening. But somewhere along the line it became uncool to converse and more fun to bait and mock, and those willing to converse civilly were drowned out.

Or gave up. I'm a quitter, I guess. I just wasn't a fan of the noise-to-signal ratio once we had to go all Hatfield and McCoy by picking sides and fighting to the death.

Making a positive-comment-only forum may make those who are unable to get a word in without mockery of their position feel more willing to converse. Maybe that's a good thing. But I don't know that it solves the board's problem of being too generous to baiters, and I don't know how you re-integrate the board after having moved those who like the current direction of the team into a corner.

I'd almost rather see a venting forum for those who just can't stand what's going on to release bile in a safe way. Maybe that would help rational discourse (or even emotional discourse) on the main boards more than removing the happy and optimistic Broncos fans to their own forum.

I've seen boards with toxic waste dump forums and the like, and those have seemed to be more productive than rainbow-positive forums.

But I don't know that either option is a solution, just a temporary workaround. In the end, the Broncos will need to win, or go another direction. And we need to figure out how to be civilized to opposing viewpoints in the meantime so there's still a worthwhile board here when they do either.

JMO. 'Scuse me while I go back to lurking. :salute:

~G

Nomad
09-10-2010, 12:06 PM
So if Orton threw his 4th INT of the day, my post would have to read "Well he sure tried hard today." ???

What do you do in a positive only game day thread if the team plays horrible?

I don't know what the sunshine pumpers would think!

Pretty easy....stay out of it!!


I'm making my argument from the example at BM! I rarely go in there but there are many fans that do/did and the same ones ventured over here. I just don't see the harm in giving it a try. If you aren't a BRONCO sunshine pumper then I would assume why opt in the forum!!

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 12:06 PM
So if I say that Clay doesn't sweat much for a fat guy.... is that a compliment?

Northman
09-10-2010, 12:07 PM
So if I go in there and post how great I think Shanny, Cutler and Marshall are, I'm not going to get back any negative feedback from anyone??

:lol:

"Good Luck"- Taken

Northman
09-10-2010, 12:10 PM
I don't know that this rosy board will help. What'll help is winning. It won't make everything better (see: complaints about Shanahan when we were having 10-6 seasons and early playoff exits) unless we win BIG, but putting up positive signs toward a return to glory will help sway opinion and marginalize negative opinions. This comes from someone who would probably be considered to have a negative opinion of the way the Broncos have operated in the McDaniels era so far.

Until then, if you have the "positive" posters move off to their own board, that just leaves the "negative" posters to their own devices, and you further polarize the board because now the two sides don't even have to attempt to co-exist. I put the terms in quotes because "positive" viewers are just as likely to bait and spill bile as "negative" ones - it's only the target of their ire that's different.



~G

Man, you are like the BF Ghandi. Well said.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:10 PM
So if Orton threw his 4th INT of the day, my post would have to read "Well he sure tried hard today." ???

What do you do in a positive only game day thread if the team plays horrible?

You can control yourself from posting in one single thread, can't you, MHC? The
forum is loaded with threads in which you can do that.

Which, BTW, as someone suggested a while back, if we had something like that,
I would be more for a thread rather than a forum. We have puh-lenty of forums
now . . .

-----

claymore
09-10-2010, 12:11 PM
So if I say that Clay doesn't sweat much for a fat guy.... is that a compliment?
Yes. But I sweat like a pig.

LTC Pain
09-10-2010, 12:11 PM
Well, of course, that would not be the place to do it. But there are those who
will do it. And they will get suspended, under the present suggestions. We have
posters here who just cannot help but to bash certain players/coaches, but
otherwise are good posters. So, they wander into this kumbaya thread, and they
forget what thread they're in (it's happened to me). So . . . WHAM! . . . now
they can't log in.

That's just one of many scenarios I can think of. I'm not against the posters,
who want it, having their haven. I'm just considering what may follow. We can
bring up Mania, yes . . . but let's remember we are not Mania, and nowhere
close to Mania . . .

-----


I would suggest locking posters just out of the Kumbaya thread if they can't follow the "nothing but positive comments" rule of that thread. Kicking them offthe entire forum seems a bit much. My gut tells me most of the violations will be sorta trivial, in the gray area, so why the guillotine? If some wnat that kind of thread then fine. I personally just don't see the usefullness of it.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:14 PM
I would suggest locking posters just out of the Kumbaya thread if they can't follow the "nothing but positive comments" rule of that thread. Kicking them offthe entire forum seems a bit much. My gut tells me most of the violations will be sorta trivial, in the gray area, so why the guillotine? If some wnat that kind of thread then fine. I personally just don't see the usefullness of it.

But then, you're getting back into the gray area again, which, as Tned suggested,
they really want to avoid. I can't tell you how much I hated those "gray area"
issues as a mod!--Especially when it involved possible disciplinary action . . . :tsk:

-----

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 12:17 PM
I would suggest locking posters just out of the Kumbaya thread if they can't follow the "nothing but positive comments" rule of that thread. Kicking them offthe entire forum seems a bit much. My gut tells me most of the violations will be sorta trivial, in the gray area, so why the guillotine? If some wnat that kind of thread then fine. I personally just don't see the usefullness of it.

Exactly why I thought the opt-in was the best option.

I know there is this opt-in for posting pics of hot men, or something like that...... I never opted in. Is it ever used? (I was too embarrassed to go in there and find pictures of me in bathing suits posted everywhere)

turftoad
09-10-2010, 12:17 PM
But then, you're getting back into the gray area again, which, as Tned suggested,
they really want to avoid. I can't tell you how much I hated those "gray area"
issues as a mod!--Especially when it involved possible disciplinary action . . . :tsk:

-----

Yep. And..... everyone differs on opinion what a/the gray area may be.

People won't be able to help themselves but to go in there and say "you have got to be effing kidding me" bla, bla, bla.

Tned
09-10-2010, 12:18 PM
i don't see why it would be a problem for the mods. . . the OCG area is a clearly marked jackass free zone, and if somebody wants to get froggy with it just ban their ass and have done. . . if people want to act like children, treat them that way. . .

As long as the mods wield a MUCH stronger hammer in that forum than any other place on the forum, it won't be a major problem.

For instance, for someone to be banned, they have to be warned multiple times, typically be given a final warning and maybe another final warning. Completely blow off the mod directives, or only improve for a brief period of time and go back to bad behavior. THEN, the mods will have a discussion, and a majority of mods has to agree a ban is in order and on the time frame.

You can imagine in a thread/forum that we are trying to keep positive that that approach will be a nightmare, because while we are going through that long, deliberative, benefit of the doubt, approach the forum is polluted, or the mods are having to constantly delete threads while deciding if action is going to be taken.

IMO, in this forum, the short, forum wide bans would need to be able to be made by a single mod (the authority they have to make an emergency ban if a poster is out of control and not following any direction and spamming the board with rules violations), or at most two mods.

If we do this, the onus has to fall on the poster to honor the spirit of the forum, and if not, suffer the consequences. Posters that aren't capable of that level of self control, shouldn't post in that forum.

Northman
09-10-2010, 12:18 PM
Exactly why I thought the opt-in was the best option.

I know there is this opt-in for posting pics of hot men, or something like that...... I never opted in. Is it ever used? (I was too embarrassed to go in there and find pictures of me in bathing suits posted everywhere)

You wouldnt like it, there are a lot of pics of me in my hermione Granger attire.

MileHighCrew
09-10-2010, 12:19 PM
I don't know what the sunshine pumpers would think!

Pretty easy....stay out of it!!


I'm making my argument from the example at BM! I rarely go in there but there are many fans that do/did and the same ones ventured over here. I just don't see the harm in giving it a try. If you aren't a BRONCO sunshine pumper then I would assume why opt in the forum!!

I am not saying I would post, I am asking what people who post in that forum would write in that situation?
I was against the idea because I don't understand it, not because I just want to be against it. So I am asking what the point is, how it would work and what can be gained or learned from having it.
Either way I am not going to lose any sleep, but from where I stand now it takes away from the site as it is now and doesn't add anything. I am asking the supporters to change my POV

claymore
09-10-2010, 12:19 PM
Yep. And..... everyone differs on opinion what a/the gray area may be.

People won't be able to help themselves but to go in there and say "you have got to be effing kidding me" bla, bla, bla.

Thats my issue. When people say, "Well at least Orton didnt throw any interceptions in the 38-16 loss". Imma be like... "you have got to be effing kidding me".

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 12:19 PM
Yep. And..... everyone differs on opinion what a/the gray area may be.

People won't be able to help themselves but to go in there and say "you have got to be effing kidding me" bla, bla, bla.

well I know one thing... "blah blah blah" should NOT be allowed!!! Thats just inflammatory!!

dogfish
09-10-2010, 12:20 PM
I would suggest locking posters just out of the Kumbaya thread if they can't follow the "nothing but positive comments" rule of that thread. Kicking them offthe entire forum seems a bit much. My gut tells me most of the violations will be sorta trivial, in the gray area, so why the guillotine? If some wnat that kind of thread then fine. I personally just don't see the usefullness of it.

because anyone who's being negative in the OCG thread is being intentionally disruptive, and such behavior should result in a ban. . . seriously, why should there ever be more than zero tolerance for people who act like idiots?

i can see one warning if the mods truly believe the person didn't realize what thread they were in, but that excuse doesn't hold up more than once. . .

claymore
09-10-2010, 12:21 PM
Exactly why I thought the opt-in was the best option.

I know there is this opt-in for posting pics of hot men, or something like that...... I never opted in. Is it ever used? (I was too embarrassed to go in there and find pictures of me in bathing suits posted everywhere)

Its my escape from the bickering of the forums. You can tell you treat your body like a temple.

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 12:21 PM
Thats my issue. When people say, "Well at least Orton didnt throw any interceptions in the 38-16 loss". Imma be like... "you have got to be effing kidding me".

:lol: :lol:

Then I would have to come back and say... "Cutler would have thrown 2 INTs and we would have lost 41-16!!!"

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:21 PM
well I know one thing... "blah blah blah" should NOT be allowed!!! Thats just inflammatory!!

Ban Chop? :shocked:

-----

MileHighCrew
09-10-2010, 12:21 PM
You can control yourself from posting in one single thread, can't you, MHC? The
forum is loaded with threads in which you can do that.

Which, BTW, as someone suggested a while back, if we had something like that,
I would be more for a thread rather than a forum. We have puh-lenty of forums
now . . .

-----

Please look at everything I wrote before you come at me. I am not attacking I am asking question and trying to understand the purpose. I clearly can control myself

turftoad
09-10-2010, 12:22 PM
As long as the mods wield a MUCH stronger hammer in that forum than any other place on the forum, it won't be a major problem.

For instance, for someone to be banned, they have to be warned multiple times, typically be given a final warning and maybe another final warning. Completely blow off the mod directives, or only improve for a brief period of time and go back to bad behavior. THEN, the mods will have a discussion, and a majority of mods has to agree a ban is in order and on the time frame.

You can imagine in a thread/forum that we are trying to keep positive that that approach will be a nightmare, because while we are going through that long, deliberative, benefit of the doubt, approach the forum is polluted, or the mods are having to constantly delete threads while deciding if action is going to be taken.

IMO, in this forum, the short, forum wide bans would need to be able to be made by a single mod (the authority they have to make an emergency ban if a poster is out of control and not following any direction and spamming the board with rules violations), or at most two mods.

If we do this, the onus has to fall on the poster to honor the spirit of the forum, and if not, suffer the consequences. Posters that aren't capable of that level of self control, shouldn't post in that forum.

People that would go in there to post negatives are not capable of self control. Then, no one likes to take personal responsablity for the consiquences. It's gonna happen. Human nature if you will.

Not to mention, a mod has to aprove every opt in request, then mod the forum and every thread within the forum.

Sheesh...... we would have to at least double the mod team.

Northman
09-10-2010, 12:23 PM
because anyone who's being negative in the OCG thread is being intentionally disruptive, and such behavior should result in a ban. . . seriously, why should there ever be more than zero tolerance for people who act like idiots?

i can see one warning if the mods truly believe the person didn't realize what thread they were in, but that excuse doesn't hold up more than once. . .

As long as im banned with the girl in your avy i can live with it. :D

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 12:24 PM
Its my escape from the bickering of the forums. You can tell you treat your body like a temple.

if you consider chinese buffet to be a temple, then yeah :salute:

CoachChaz
09-10-2010, 12:25 PM
It's unnecessary. People have their opinions of anything and everything. Seems like more people here have a negative opinion of this team, but there is a difference in saying "I think the defense is inept as it stands and it could be a long season because of it" is a lot different from "McDaniels is a dumbass and it's all his fault that Williams missed the tackle and that Doom got hurt".

No matter what the thread is...mods dhould beable to control that level of negativity no matter what. A separate thread isn't going to stop those people from being that way regardless.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:26 PM
:lol: :lol:

Then I would have to come back and say... "Cutler would have thrown 2 INTs and we would have lost 41-16!!!"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Nuclear_fireball.jpg/250px-Nuclear_fireball.jpg

-----

claymore
09-10-2010, 12:26 PM
:lol: :lol:

Then I would have to come back and say... "Cutler would have thrown 2 INTs and we would have lost 41-16!!!"

Oh you SOB!

dogfish
09-10-2010, 12:26 PM
Yep. And..... everyone differs on opinion what a/the gray area may be.

People won't be able to help themselves but to go in there and say "you have got to be effing kidding me" bla, bla, bla.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2530/cmonman.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/i/cmonman.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

people can't help themselves? yes they can-- they're adults, they're absolutely capable of controlling themselves. . . if they can't, then they shouldn't be here. . .

i don't believe that YOU would troll threads here like that, and i don't see why anyone else would want to. . . can't they post "you gotta be f'n kidding me?" in all the rest of the threads and be satisfied?



As long as the mods wield a MUCH stronger hammer in that forum than any other place on the forum, it won't be a major problem.

For instance, for someone to be banned, they have to be warned multiple times, typically be given a final warning and maybe another final warning. Completely blow off the mod directives, or only improve for a brief period of time and go back to bad behavior. THEN, the mods will have a discussion, and a majority of mods has to agree a ban is in order and on the time frame.

You can imagine in a thread/forum that we are trying to keep positive that that approach will be a nightmare, because while we are going through that long, deliberative, benefit of the doubt, approach the forum is polluted, or the mods are having to constantly delete threads while deciding if action is going to be taken.

IMO, in this forum, the short, forum wide bans would need to be able to be made by a single mod (the authority they have to make an emergency ban if a poster is out of control and not following any direction and spamming the board with rules violations), or at most two mods.

If we do this, the onus has to fall on the poster to honor the spirit of the forum, and if not, suffer the consequences. Posters that aren't capable of that level of self control, shouldn't post in that forum.

absolutely. . . i agree entirely-- if someone is that incapable of controlling themselves, then the mods should control them by the easiest and most convenient means, with zero compunctions. . .

LTC Pain
09-10-2010, 12:28 PM
because anyone who's being negative in the OCG thread is being intentionally disruptive, and such behavior should result in a ban. . . seriously, why should there ever be more than zero tolerance for people who act like idiots?

i can see one warning if the mods truly believe the person didn't realize what thread they were in, but that excuse doesn't hold up more than once. . .

Because my experience with "gray areas" is the rule book (opinion book) that makes it all clear will be as thick as a Catholic Bible and takes time for posters to develop a sense of what they can and cannot say. Those that act openly like idiots are easy to spot and eject, no problem. My concern is with those who want to post in a Kumbaya type thread but inadvertantly misstep. It will be too easy for a mod to interpret a comment as negative when the poster may have been trying to be positive or even benign!

Nomad
09-10-2010, 12:29 PM
I am not saying I would post, I am asking what people who post in that forum would write in that situation?
I was against the idea because I don't understand it, not because I just want to be against it. So I am asking what the point is, how it would work and what can be gained or learned from having it.
Either way I am not going to lose any sleep, but from where I stand now it takes away from the site as it is now and doesn't add anything. I am asking the supporters to change my POV

Hell, I don't know man!:lol: I would be in the BT area criticizing him more than likely! Someone would have to be hard up to lose sleep over this, but I fail to see what the harm is in giving it a try for people who want to sing Kumbaya about everything that is BRONCOS...I'm not that person though I may say a good thing or two every now and then!

I guess I can see your POV because when you advocated for the military forum, I never heard a good enough reason to have an exclusive 'military' only and exclude the rest of the community!!

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:30 PM
Please look at everything I wrote before you come at me. I am not attacking I am asking question and trying to understand the purpose. I clearly can control myself

I didn't mean anything by that, MHC. Sorry I said it in the wrong way. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thnervous.gif

I know you can control yourself. I was trying to relate it in more generic terms.
Sorry for my fail . . .

-----

turftoad
09-10-2010, 12:31 PM
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2530/cmonman.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/i/cmonman.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

people can't help themselves? yes they can-- they're adults, they're absolutely capable of controlling themselves. . . if they can't, then they shouldn't be here. . .

.

Dog, I've been a mod for 10 years on the Freak and here. You have been on the forums for a long time.

Yes, most are adults. That said, you know as well as I do they don't always act like it all the time. It's gonna happen.

claymore
09-10-2010, 12:32 PM
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2530/cmonman.jpg (http://img138.imageshack.us/i/cmonman.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

people can't help themselves? yes they can-- they're adults, they're absolutely capable of controlling themselves. . . if they can't, then they shouldn't be here. . .

i don't believe that YOU would troll threads here like that, and i don't see why anyone else would want to. . . can't they post "you gotta be f'n kidding me?" in all the rest of the threads and be satisfied?




absolutely. . . i agree entirely-- if someone is that incapable of controlling themselves, then the mods should control them by the easiest and most convenient means, with zero compunctions. . .

I couldnt handle Jrwiz going unchecked. It would be like a dog watching the neighborhood cat taunting him thru his own window.

Northman
09-10-2010, 12:32 PM
I couldnt handle Jrwiz going unchecked. It would be like a dog watching the neighborhood cat taunting him thru his own window.


:lol::lol::lol:

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/ gXHCYeGR0jGhUYHy8gIycpLCwsFR8xNTAqNSYrLCkBCQoKDgwO Gg8PGiwkHyQpKSksKSwsLCksKSwsLCwsKSwsLCksLCwpLCwsLC wpKSwpLCwpKSksLCwpLCwsKSwsKf/AABEIALcBEwMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAACAgMBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAEBQMGAAECBwj/xAA/EAABAwIEAwUFBwIFBQEBAAABAgMRACEEBRIxBkFREyJhcYEyka Gx8AcUI1LB0eFC8RVicpKyQ1OCosLDM//EABoBAAMBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQABQb/xAAlEQACAgICAgMAAgMAAAAAAAAAAQIRAyESMQRBEyJRMnEUYa H/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/ALLhct0iQCCRJipkhRlMgWtUrOIKXFJcOkEbfKlr+L0nWkmLC/SfGvNnFVdl0DryPS5KzIO5rnMGiCEhWpER5U4xz4v0sBSJ9ekq STuJTTpPltj/AOxP/hukiLXN6dYTGKBgJ1RubVAjDOL0kpkDmKnwYA7QCQqfhSycZaQ zHOX4wFtWsgeFv1qr8RgqQSkQNp60/wApQE6grmOdKc9Z1MkIuEm9KmoUILMubU5CUG4G5q44bFFLOlw 96OdVHAO9gNcapEWo/GY5aTqVER7qWT+1DdhuZ4VI0LJt8qDx2PKyYIKYANab/GZI17XT5VFqA0o0woxMc+taXH0TZYcIyUBAEJMc+c/rSrEYY9t3jqvNqYZg+FJCSqQjnzpThMUVODSdutRSVvfRy6Gjx AgplI5A2rnHYlK1J1b1DxJmaPu6lf1JgAC0qJj4b0qbUvuqUJQ RvU3ik5fJYUy24PBoWSoqlMbcprvLsIFuEJVHIT76QMZ4GSUJa JmDqJJkxewiLyOfkakVjDiknS2prRcuGC1bq4I0f+QFUS1X/AOLCc0GklNlXi1dfdQhIKRc70rZxrUgJcSTsZ1pHopaQn486J0 vCe4SBb+fEUz10ck0tkmOzwSmAFeFTZXi1qmDAj6FBLaSmJRfc npXeXrC16UXgVJ/UNFlQ6goBIBoD7wnXAtQ2G1SpIHxpJmGIUhRJtflS22gxiP30h QiZpS7hSVEAbVNlmaTcxO/nXZStThIBvSttKzVSJMvx6gDq59bnpTbCv8A5OW5qvZbi/xilZjzp+WkFpRSYMxI+ulXxbVmRqhTxg0l9hTaE9+JSbTqA6+8 eteWoEcuX19eFexuYPSNRvAt415dmmC7J1xInfUmd7gEekyK0Y pK6ITWxO2qVSeabenOim5Ikkx8DtXGNMaSOh93MfKisM1+HJO4 mtADSFdwxbl+5pZi7EHpz8qPDKo6eXvoXFI7one8/OnYCFQm/wC9bqNAtWUAWj6DcxDUfiAa1Gwv6UgzrDCJQbE7eIqDOnFOshw EdyJSP3oJTgLWlCipRMpHOTWFptGiI5zFoQkiNUCQKS5mS64gp AhNjUMuIMKnURBmuAoNm6pI5eNJT7LUW1DJbCVSkpUNulDnAo1 Emx3tQGVv61JSu0c6a4h1KBME8rXqLyxi6ojsjU2lSVJVvFiKQ 4hzSw4gCbUeVq0qIME9flS7BZ0yvDPsvWcAJSrr5HqDUceOWRv Z1ivLnlIuoakkUxDhCTICgq8dB61Wxj1FtI5TFqOQ9CwCCDprZ wt2x7s0o6FAJ9w+VFPYjvJgkkkT1HlQWXAodUoi14mpFYkFxF4 OqSabYl2xo8paFBUQki886ky/CknWkVmcpUv2R3ANzsfKuXeKkZeylSh2jy0y22T3Up5LX+g508 Ic20Buhpm3CCHGh2znZBZBCQJUdMmL2EzvfahVcPO4dgaXG1MG SNbiULT/AKdRhQ8Aa8uzHiV597tXVlSpm5sPADkK4zHPnnlS4tSrACTNbO Ea4kuez1LCYmdKkQoj+oEH30izHKlplTZbWlRJ0tqClNncCAfq Kp+SPKKiNcDneP71c8nxnYJXiFnUop0soNwq91LPJII8yZFZni 47RbHIWF5yIjl0v86N4d4mXhlgGVtndBP/ABP9J+FLG1lxSlKJUsklSusmSfjRiMMAmedL/ZV2z0TNFofZ7RkFZjbZXpyVHQVWMueU2dYFpuNiPD+9ImOIsQw ChCykHwBNvy6pA8xT/LeLUYg9k4YcNgVgAqPISmxnaDt1NQla2FQTJ382vqkifq9LMer UBpOqd/Ch83w60OXBCa4y/NQApGmZ2pGn2FNdDrBMgmYgAAe+n+FCtREiIEGqbhXyVBIO/wAas+EacSYSdQA7wP1auUeWhpSoiwGXJU+rtCYB3G3qaNxWESy n8JerWRY+E0S04gMlSTCibp6X/a9LOIcahBbUCLHarU4oy3saOqPZI13JA28udULjNmMSlRFloSP CU6gT8vfVjfzoFKSi56dKQ8cgqbZcBMiQR531D1gHyFPCuWhG7 Ko+nVAkSNQtta452sK5wrh0gHYkx1G3P1obFIAVrHUSPr6vTHD sS4DuCCa1CGluwSBPj40Li7p8v4FFupGojnQGJQeto+U0xwMlw 8prKjisrqFs9rzZ1trCFlsytSpNjsf0gCk2T5Y4FakAq0ifKmO cYlPaBXLsx76kOe6Gg20LqEqI3rJ26NKOM2xIWJ0wUi5pJhWip warg86JxpUqTy50XkGNaSQXh3b+PK1It6KO6NsYUtyUqB/QUwXifwyoxFJ8VjUKBCAdKlGD4SY2qBAuGzOk8+n8Vjy429IXs gxebEjs4uTv0FA5nkZ0KcBmKnxLn4hHdITsabOMoOEWouAWM3+ H11q8ajVHRQqyVbTSJUNSokTXYxKFr7RyyuQG1JsZmSSlBQmCB RmKdU7hkQgJI59d/wB60xEcr6MexBcUSPZoLEtGU33NHYUoQ2e1Om1byTN21PoHZ67 7Hp1NqEcbm9Cckux0c0LOBLryRoT3UT/1FckjqLSfCa8pzHHLecU4s6lKMn9AOgFgB4V63xNw/wDfXAtxagAISgeykdEjlQGC4GYbMxqPU1ujj4ojKdnn2DyF0oL mkwBQuEyp15RCEkxEnpeK9lThUpEACKHbwCUeykCeg59aEtASP IsfgVMOaVbiL9auGUYhLmFJWoKUly0yNxcfAH1qy4rIUPkBaQr pP6fXKoM7yNpltpto2SiVbe2omSQPICf8sWvU5PRbGnZXQkJcB kx536H5+NT9r3Y+rfxQ2OBB8voVyh33f3/Qisjs1okQxqVel+ZYIpUDMEEEEbyKbESN4/ilGaZl3iDt1poRJzmWnPXVvNoxDclBT345KFiY6G1/HypflLPaajMQP4qvsZ24yIaWQCZjx/tIqyZXnjTzYbAKHxMiO6tPgRsQNwbWkHlQnilGLaOjkTlsJy7L pOqfKrFh1qQibEmuMvywpaJVajmWNED2hFRhNqNnTa5P8FCMzh tV7zER9TSZ7AOrGsJUUg703xGCcKlBAAHLammUv9myUPHrA84P zqlprYl/hVsCy4gSEmD4Gu+KGF/d2zbSVwRzkg6Y9xHups5myz3EBOkbWMxQPETK1YUqIICVBfoJH 6j3U8GtUTZQ8S2YvtaD7j/FTZauVJvcGPhW1K9veBPzBFQ5evSsT/eJmtIoS9JJI3+h+/uoFwk2AnenOJSJ689rfV6Uuk6lFMG0fKTRRwEsXtf0rKworKYS z2djLFLUJUlUACmGXcOjtHPxUJNpB3A8ppI1jIVJJuLEV5txLx A6cW6sLUkzG8G3lWTGoybNEnSPSc3b0OltBBvfmKlBbSmCglWm 1rTSH7N3StlSnJV3yJuSDANWHMmSO8FcjaKXhwbG5WJ8GparHS E3t4zW8xcDYUJvypd9+WLJbO+53mg8dh33LlJ9L122zlKjQYWo nSkqA5ios0wakITqV7X9NN8ncUhkjY3mwpbm9glRMgGoxbcqB6 AWEIsAbzcnYUxxXE7DSdKElxXMzCQfDmaquPzErNrDwrWAyZx7 2BNejHGvZHnXRvM84W+qVHyAsBVr4HwaEAOuESfZH60nHBjqUF a4AAkxvQGKzkykI2QIFWWiL2ewodB2NbmqPwfnLi1aSZHxq7JV NFsKNkVwGSTapQmi8A0C4kHaRU5DofPcLNKZCBIUYVM84i/hc++qhmnBuKKjpSFf1AgiNVgoX/Nv5+ZqzZvnWlzu8hQAzlYHtVNpMqm0UrNeB8WlM9iVDmEkGPEV VlZU82YcQ4meqVDp4eFem5txeWEalrMdOtVVz7XFSIbUQOqv4p eCDzYgxTaylSoISLWB+t6reIF9q9uy/wC0DW2lZI7w9hWmfUVpastxcJfZaSVTC0Qk7G/d3PvoRXH2CX2PEG0FVkgk9AJ91XjhbIi22XXEQomEzvp/STPurjA5Y23iHUogpSohKtpCSb/CrNj8ZpwyNJv/AHpZytbAlQdl+LedRJSkISYIm5+Fa+9Sk2sNooFX4LTepZK13O kmCN4PIiD7xU+WZihWvukJEX8ax5Fb4hIF6pnVvymsxWCU6ASa lU6lLyO0AKJ2HuqbPcQ2hUIsk3t1pktdDQ9ivBOtoWdaoI26H3 V3n2ba8OpMWIjabUBoTrJKgU+O9DnEBMxdImOlO21QKKi094TO/vj1rtaoSJ3kG3j16WG1csJixHX9f4qNRJ1JG8z8B+xraSGeKJI BTPswfr62pcFFJ5TGm/v5UUlX4RndNqBedkCN76q6IWQLavvW62s3tWUwp6NgnlLMC/QV5lnIIeWFAg6jvXrWDyuFLKVXFxFedcaZfoeKxcLk+ShuKxeP L7OJWf8AEd/ZRmoS8tpWy0zHin+D8KuuIBUoqkATsT9CvGcqxxZdQtO4Pw5j3 V6ZhUfeEakT59arkVPoEGT5hgVlYIWkBXTcVBh3ktrVqUooFpJ m/hNOWuG027hJCb3/AJqsZvlrgFxCJ91I79DjXGY9gg7pB5/U1V+KMakhLbZ1BV/TlWg/IKSSRNMuGMu1rLigOieoAtT44XJN+icpUqRXsLwe+4AoAQfGrl w5w92A7wE+FP0prqa2ESF9kKSQdjavMeI+FlMqKkCUH4edepGo HsOFghQkHegwlV4GwGlOs3mwq5ig8JgktgJQIAo0JrkcTsiosb jw0LG/hvUjRikucsOpOtxCgDsSLH1qGduK0XxJSewdWe3uFGl2O4rULI T6n9hULqxeaXEalRWWMpMtKKRzi3lvGXLxt0HpTbNMljAYdSQU kOOBYIj2wkp+CDQicMQZO2/pvVqRxV95wz6XQO6nWnr3Sn9Cad2qESTTKtw/iUtk6tJsYJ+Xx+FCYnMFFZ5AnlyHhQ2JxEE6LCaHZlRrqvsipV 0Mcfi2wdLRJ8TXTGaOFKUEyERA+t6UYlHetTHLgCu/L410qqgXbGz2YaTcXixp5w9jz2C0kA7+dVtRK1wBMfpUrWLI1D 2azcFFfUN+2OHUFsp1oXCucH4VD2mtY1SU/W9FZZxuez0KCXVAQJsrp0v50MM4ISspSAoi88vKKu40rGi6TCU MAnUhGqDYRvQOMUVJXICTBt+la4Zz3sApbneJ9kedRN4rt3FFW xMn9qnNOlY3JMqoG9t/0EH5g1ClEKO20z9eXxojtjrjkNXL0v7q4Wod6eW1b+yQM45cgW Bj5Cx8ZqTEswmfr6mulCUp25ExsLj96x5Q9Db1A3HlFcEEUitV GtV+dZT0JZ6VleYlUk7RBqDiPIw6yQi9tY8x+4qHKCAhYkkzTx LoCUhPS9eGsnxy5L9KraPHiiD5Vfvsuz8NullwjSsHSTyV/NIOLMrCHO0SO6snyB50nwj2lYO0HlXsanEn0z6HbAAMnypJnA7 MER3V3E1BgMacVhkqZOpYFxzMbkDn5VXcyzZwnvEyJEHl6Vnal HTKOQA0wlLTyzEgGPjTLhLHJU2E8wL2j+9Ic0cPYrjbYnxJrXB 2IKXI3mtGHpkpvo9CisrgKrFLqgDoqqJTsVhcodxdK2FImTial D9JsQ+Egk2ApOrPyTCbedSefiUjjci6peprh8/IToWAtH5VCQa89TxCse0n1BotjiMHrRXkwl2N8MkWPM8gwmJEo Jwy+cDUg/8AjIg+VLMdwIUtpcwpU9yWkgBQPIgCZHyrtrHJOxBnx/SjE48pBj3U6jCW0DlJaZXMSypvuupKDtChpPxoLCrSlDuqw7Mj 1JSB86snFWOD2EaURCkOlAMzqCklR3uIKfKqRmrw0hHW59LD9T 6Cs0390h1qNi3Ee0YMipQ7AqBtNbK6o1ZmNN3M0eVwIPvpfIFd FznSzjZzdDjDYwjqD1o9hxLu5uN/Gq4vHGfKo/vRmQYqM8bekFyvQRjU9m50k2po25ZMq33mkeJeK4J5VvFYswBV FGVJS7GjLih5mfsjREczW8Oohuf1pRhseU903BrtxOm1/TaucEgX7QK04CTNyq+/O9RNr5H1PuG/Xeu2Wvb+HvqByQYG0fX6VoQQzCuC4gWHoYuKGxEbg7mYrTLpCp 5GbfOol/CN6ZAfRCVCsria3Tky6JzENEhKbGDRwzSIkQT8jVXZx0gA8udH YbGlJ1SDAsDXjvxVVMqnZZsxwbbrGgneSPA151mOWqZVBjwirO 1i3CNahAPMC1Y40HiUxqATPjV/HjKDa9DtWhPkvFD2HPcUQBykj5U+d+051QGpCFnqoA29RVZdyy/dO3I70G9h1JsRW5STJ7Q6zbiUPt6Ay22SoFSkCJjlGwpnwSvvE QKpyF16nw1ljaWkqQLqAk04jHEVG4Kl01G4k1zQQZZqBZrt5UV C0L1GRRAHEmBV2QUkynmPGqkoV6UGwpJSdiINUHNMEWnVIPLas +aNbLQl6IELPWt6z/asSfo1sprPaHsmbx8Eb1YWeJEdmoFrUtUaVFVhG9gJv50iyfI1 4p0NN6dR/MoJA8/4mpsVlSmFaVSDztzFqZNx6G77CMXjVOgFwzo9m9kjoB0vQXE2A LbiFCdC2mlJP/gEqv8A60qFH4DBpW08FGFBsrT4lCkkj/aDTNrDKfwbUJ19mpxKhzAVpWmP/aqY5W7YmSNxKGDXBbJvyq3M8JkqsmB401TwgSAkDleqSzQj2zO oWeeJSf2qQNnVpIIPjXoWC4CbDkuEwOQtem2L4IZKdeoqV0Mfp S/OqsZY0/Z5uxlIWoISDqIrvFcMvNpJUgAecmr+3wcLQSjoRvR6uGUWCyVe ZNJ/lx9DSxpI8hawayrSAaNY4YxDiglCCfE2HvNevt5A0kGEAk/CusPgNBEWii/JSJ/Gjz7EfZyW0IKnRr/qFoHgKBd4bWJ3UBzFelPZalZM3mt4bLEtpV0qf+RbtFFGKTPFM Q3pJAN+98JH6UMtJt4Aben60Xm2HLbziCZ0rUJPrG3hBocbjw/it8XaskaKriD18Pq9bWPw7/RFcLFzb+9SvK2kWImmAwD31qtFRrKcmXfK+BnXbkEUzTwiULA0 +EmvQe1HsiJ8K7LSd1Ca8x+QzSkkysZRlX4bjKgCkgza48RSbK +HFslRF9xJ6cjV+KhvEGoHFxbTuanLyZLoe0ykDhVbh1aQkg3P WiMRwSmxUdWrkBEetXXDiLRauXFcopJeVLsW0eJ8S8Nrw650KC CbE7eUirjwPitWHCfy/QqzZ7lScS2UKvF48qScPZF92SpOrUCZFel42VZI2Rn3ocE1wa0 VVxqrWIA4+hkOVPmG1BoNQdWUQyw7tIONGtKQ4Bf2SflTnDqrj iDChzDOCJtI8xejKKktnJ10ebM4k865dxB67Vw2giuimYNQ4qx 7ZPhsXpIIMHr0qz4vO1YnStwgqCUpJ5mP6j4maqaEXptggQIFT nEpFssOQoSp9KTssLQY6KQofrVk+zN0Fp9siSNKo94NUfA4xSF JUrulK5Frgg/xTLh/iBeHxBfCQQonUnYEKMkDpUa/Cqdqj0Z5lJIMVgbg2rbGJQ6gLROlYkA7+R8QZHpWlrIuBavPc9 0zMzesnzFjWlLPMVMtEEXuagWdRtQlKnTASLdNd9pMVCWT1qEr KVEePyFBOnoNsI1mbm1bLgqJWGSsJKlEXmBzo3D4pOmyQSbz9e FWr9YxCkgVDjswIEaRB512/czG94oJ9F9MzBna2xpOTXQLPI+I2gMS+nkVq3v8aV4fYjaCL+6 mvEzg+9PWEdov1kz6b0sSza+55eW3wr28X8F/RM267a0wb+dzXCz02g7+6pCjmLCPnUbibQPocvjVkBgShWV0Wu orKYQ+hkYeAVDlNcJf1bXj9a4ddVEJkH4dJrWEZKAbztMda+ay OtlkTajI6c/Kh33EyQVXnlz8anxOMsY3ilzCE6ioTeJB28aRzdNDxqnYzOwj1 9a6E7mfCP1qJjEArAMJ6g7EDofKu8W8ZABJTq5cqeKa+0hKCXW WwmUySRvOx8qruJTCjTpBmZtFLM7QAoR0vXpeHL7vXoWQv11w6 +AKHddqbL8EXTI9lO9ehPIoRtiJDTLcBKNSh7Vx5VVHcYO1cQY ELUB5AkVesNIgH+K8rzM/juR+dX/I15eLK5Tcv0vGNlibXBFMEp1JKeoI99U3GZ0UM/5hYH6+r1xknGyg6EuRpJiegO1enF2iT0M8V9mb+jUkoUTJ0zHu JsfhVYx2UPMGHW1o8SLHyOxr2XA48EAE1LinJTpUEqSTBSoTIN iPdevNllnilxmh07PEGUimbC6K4n4a+7O90y2uSg//ACfEdeYv1pbhRCqvyU1aKQez1ZDyHcLrWkXaJIgSSEkH1tvXng sKumCxQRl2sxKQtInmSbR/u+FUpI66tO0gTHvifeKyQTjdlIr7M9B4QWV4VAMDSpSR5Ag/NRp3isSiQju2ESOZ86WcOYJCGUICpOkKJ8V97blYjfpRzuDPQX vc/K1Z5XukSn/JnRVCfGtJHMb84v76mKkpEKISSLSLGNxIkHrQykEAEgAdU7Hp5 G3xoyxqnYhtZI7vz8qEOITIki569dRPptW8W7feevr+n70pxmJ EwIJsI29SeVh8TWXlTrs4ZqzAGSNiLG+3h1G1GMuxCRHL4eV6r qsUUosoKM3Ii03Agi223U+/X+IDVp1XCSrn3r2MXm83t+tWjTns4c4nMBrg7JJuOpn4RMUozT NdDgAkyFG3hYbep9aCzTOrKUImR1Bgbnn0Mgibiqrj+I1rJ2Fg LcgJmL2mSDWuEXNk5ToTY8FS3CRJ1GfQma4LmlIJva1cvvKO58 ahcV7q9OLpJE+dEvaWMfUVEF3nn7tq0HOVc6qdSA56NrXJJrdQ +n176yjyF5HuzOKe0mUyBIIAvE2qZt7vJSpJCSDJ5gg2EdN6mT j9J0hVifC/U/CgziCvf2QqyuRG3qK+eeSLlxXRsck/QWppI3JIOx/eh28ItMhXXlznaKIWvuAcoHw5VGt83IB7pA8IPP3iPWkcIypR0 FSq6MKkpRK9h7x6c6BwmLc1XKSlRIEAza4uaJUlK4Usq7MzMAe 0Bb3x8K0kW7qNNwQo7k87Vamou6AFh3QklQlRIsOc29KU5sSVS QRqGytxFoPwo3FuADUQrkI3MnlS3MX1EB0qUpCiAApPeQQAJMb A+PWr+NNY53+nVaAW8JrWE7A71Y8RiGsK0kKUESYTvKiRslI7y lRyANJEr2Iqx8IPB7GPrVdSGWEondCVqfK9PTUUpnroT0rfnwu cl+E4sBw+dNEobJUhRMJDiHGif9IdSkq8hNeY5oqMQ8CZIcWDA JgyTuB0IPrXoWJ4wLmExuFzBtf3hJeASlowlO7LiSDyVBSsdAZ mmP2SPqXg8QpftKxLhMfmLTBO3iTU4+LGL0Vi6Kpw49gBh/xXmj2gOvUZTpEwnoNpJ/ak/E3AOGbX+FiQ0sjUG3byCSAQoCQJBFwdqvnCWGW3w0tDqVoWGMZ KVgpUJLxEg3FjPrR3DGIvjngCkIaZR6obcfJF7f8A9xTxw8Zab FezzvhPGlpBbccSpQJVZWoabCZ6T86sWF4yZAH4iVDcSCd+lqa 5qorYyx4ye0w62zYGe1YQ7sbG7FNeBM0fXqw7gbKMM0wkLb7SV KKTYhexCEpJ/wBYqzqX1kgcSjcSZ4w/hXBqTMjQRM9omFaI3koJt41TWHBKZsTAuCLmwFxubV6blTKHs7 LyZkuYhQuT3GGm8JI5CXFL8xFG8RvF/L8059jiFHy+7/d3PhoNTWONfUaLoqmYZo0Mv7ArSFjQqEyVglRVeBYaFD/dVcbzJPJUG4IgmYiZTHiNx/UK9X4TfLWGxykEdwhSYuLYRgj5CkxfU3mOMxiDBXg8GoEQb4ha G5g2/wCiPdSxwpx7H5tMzLM/w6WgQ6gLS2krPQSEDUDy1FI9RUjvHrGrQXABzV/RNvZBMxeDUv2oPlL7EcmnFHewbfwiybf6RvU32qPQrCb91S3Bv uhbA/8As1J4Fb2c67ZCvivCLBC32xzBUdO0CBa+9QDPWFwlD4UoyNIk qKRE3IGwB2tHvoz7VXgleEJMaVqWPNDmG/c139p2L0O4Tc2xBgTJsyj/APSp5PEioyabsmIM0zlKASBJ9lMm3W5B6TB336UC04Fp7hPaKK lDYzEDZREgXEdPKluZ3UhSSFJiSBeVXAG8kxFjQTL5WvZN7hV5 H5SL84jwrzl47Ts5MY4jGuaCo7kgd32eUWmQeQ3FrUMrG6ASq0 agARBncwQd5uZ/ShnEE95SknktI7p8rwDysJoTFOzcE6TyIFzzPgbVpWJchJSZFm GOKh0sKXKPWpwsEieVrV268lU726i9ejCCSJpKRDhn0Cyh6muM WyAApGx5XrhSAb3giw8aid3F6oL6pkWg0Thw3p7xM8un967wzc lQ5Ry/apnsvhPdUNpHKRIvPPn0i1qVyQIugPSeQt9eFZTBnBK0j8UI/wApUsR6aTE7786yu5HWe54nCMqb1K0gpAsgwb+BJ/NNIv8AEmtRGsSICRfeQI8N5qNg9u3MqlMoMggGCYtJk/KBQbuDSHdCCEmJtMztEkX7xgDxryZThJ/0b3Dj2O0vwpKFn21b9ZJgfzUgkEoKgVAElMjVpnw8RbzoLSuAX LqRBn2ZvbaBsfLak+Px2uVlRS4SYm8efIgAyI/NSRhLnSTqjkouLvsszOUK1akg6Y2ChcG4sTQ2KxyGnrlXsyRE6 bjukC4PTfebVXTnrijYnSBpPsyRNiFe1z26Acqjw2ahIcIEme9 MkSYvcXjrHM1XgouqJykWHE4oapUoBBJ0332I87Tt1qLGqSltV tQULQSL2gzsYJqp8VZqFlOknwI8bGY9fjSvD49QATqMetaIYNW gW+0WHFY1SGiEe1H9XQ7xB3FTcNLx2IeUvBpbQ8wlCVFxwhK0L KyEKRoOpJ7M8wQbgi819xIVEqVty+udMOGeJ3MvxBW22XkOhKF pJhRKSopUlUQFDUoQRfVuIrdCTSUZE12X1lTOd4BxTjXZvNKcb BBktPISDLa4BKDqSYIEgwRQ32JvlWXurO5fUfe0waVYnj5LbDr WAwJYU6VqUpSkQFrHfcCWyorVG10iw6RUPCnEJyvDqZ+7qdbcW VoXrCbFttOkjT7Q0fEUXkjfY62WzB8Rqx+RvYlaAhTjGKlKSSB oDqNzfZM0LwjgVv5XjOzjXiFYlKCTaQgYdMqjYFveNuVV3hfMs Q3lP3FOFLmpt9IdS4kI/FLhmFJCra4iJtU2GzbE4bK/uQwqtSm3EB9DqSjU6pRKgU3ka5sZEUvyQvsamh/neAXhsqwfax2mEVhArSSRaMOog2MaXDXWUY84XKXcYqA48FviY AKnYRh0nkO6GR76rGLzxxeVrwCmS4ooU2l1Twm5Km1EEE2Gmbn 2TVka4yWptDRwAUkpSAkutlNrAQURuB8KHyQ5XZwv+zZhJxatB CgxhUo1AhUqccuSRIv2ExT7J+GHkM5k29oIxb+JW3pJPceQEJC rCDba/nVYyLPlYbFY11GDEPqaOhDiE6Esths90IE97UqQP6qI4TzjFsr xJWwpztXC6El/2ZW4YTqBEQUpAEDuHauhOEVVnUSfZ6qctxh1apSCTEXOEZJHoT HpQmII/wAGwr8955rKmT1PZPhR/wCRrjh/EYjC4bEs/dwrt1OFJDoGhJQG0pI0bpSBtype5h8QrLsNg+ySDhX0rUouwFJ bUtaUhJTIsoCdu6a758aX8kGmxn9tLBUtkggacPiFXMSErw5Me IAn+9D/AGo8Q4d8oLD7bvZ4fEqUWXEriVYcpCtCjAJRzpXxzxccW6kBkJ 0NuNmV6wdamlgghIgDsz1ma3x1nIc7JTeFQ0nQ5JSpBS4FqZVE oSP+0d/zUjyRfT76OaaQ2+07OsPiSnsH23uzw+JWeycbWEkLwqhq0qtZB 9xipPtC4pwjjrZbcaxGlh+OydQrQta8PpUSgmLINudVjjLiNGM 7JTOFSwEBer2PxNSmlaTpSPyHed6i4u4nbxq2S1hQwGw6Fex3t ZaI9gDbszv1q0qaZNyQJgMKVd8kaZ2JiQL+t491GuYdpHsq0fm ChaRuRAMk7bRfxpLhXVmyf6bgf3ogtqWgqO6bhMXgSCPCDB9fC sOSFuxef+jjMcaFEgch0iw5fGlb7eozN+Ucqa4HLVKCj75mb2B/9h762nBaXAhY30gnl3hYz6irR4xuhbbFyMKqNpFaWwSTFWJ/LVhA0AqUBdM3A8Bsqlb6HRAWmNRF+V45/W1GM+StHfGvQsGGNhv/AHovFYTUUqFtSRPO47p+U+tNMFlClEaRYhU39mxv5Gp3srWE6Q DIUCBESNiR4W+FTnlpoXg1pibCYbszO3WDNjaR5g1ZMBkGsDRC 0GDMEQSCm4O21x/l8LOeHME2tKWMQkAKJIKdJWhQuJMTB5pPh0rloqZITqM3SbWME jYWFht4VHPklw+vbNePHBOpCteXpbOhScQVDcoA0nnIjrvHKa3 TRzMTOwPiJE+MEEisrD8vkfiNnHxygNZiASSpSVSYAUojc/HY+/nFErzFpRKgp2xTEmTpPZSD42xF7z+HIF5ysr3XGP4jA2cu5m0R BW7cOTKlXSSrRtz0hMidyYsBQbTuG5qc/wCnYFXIntJnnpiI5zyrKymVCnSXsMYCVL/qkSu5K+5F/wDtQTP9Q8iNrewqV94uaCo2BVqKSk6bzv2mmfCsrKKOImzhYuV zF7qjVqQP+JXy30eMajD6lQV6SpOkSdQTPfEzBMdbedZWVwUTp bbUkBGuQQdWokRzhKhO0QSfAjnTnFPNaEdjyOlfZhwJkATPauH UsEbxB1G5gTlZUpPY8XpkGGxDCFOa1IuQWkqS8pCgVTZSVhSVF P5p33SZNDNrKpSlSimSQokgwLDuyYMAWBO25iTlZUpPVhegtrE KTAClW2uaiXiVg6gpSesHetVlS4r8FtnKnwZBBJVsZIvsOcUNi XiE+0reBc2HM71lZVEkwEDGO0mStRid5PXxt/FGjHEEHUvafaO3KsrKVxVDKTBcXnagYCl+J1Kn4G1AnNVlWrUZ Ije8Hf68aysqqjGuhbo2vHKMTMgxqm/QbUM/iVLN1GOQnbyG3KsrKaMY/gvJvs6K+Um3jUaUnr896yspjqJUoIVEm9tzzo9oEK0kkEEiZN/OsrKSfQEgxpmN/ZvME7Hl865fwW8qMbzJ8/rzrKykrVjJEK2yCFBR8bnzrRkxcm03JvWVldHoLVGmHClRIOw2 uR8TWncYT195+Am1ZWUOCc7YVJpEDiilU6lHYzJBn0rp55RhWt RNrSRuPoVlZWhpHPo2pSz/AFH31lZWVnEP/9k=

turftoad
09-10-2010, 12:34 PM
Hell, I don't know man!:lol: I would be in the BT area criticizing him more than likely! Someone would have to be hard up to lose sleep over this, but I fail to see what the harm is in giving it a try for people who want to sing Kumbaya about everything that is BRONCOS...I'm not that person though I may say a good thing or two every now and then!

I guess I can see your POV because when you advocated for the military forum, I never heard a good enough reason to have an exclusive 'military' only and exclude the rest of the community!!

If McD takes us to a 2-14 record, there won't be anyone populating that forum so no worries.

Now, just that would have got me a vaca in the kumbaya forum. :D

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:34 PM
I couldnt handle Jrwiz going unchecked. It would be like a dog watching the neighborhood cat taunting him thru his own window.

If you are going to start with the analogies, you'd best be warned that is Tned's bag . . .

-----

MileHighCrew
09-10-2010, 12:36 PM
Hell, I don't know man!:lol: I would be in the BT area criticizing him more than likely! Someone would have to be hard up to lose sleep over this, but I fail to see what the harm is in giving it a try for people who want to sing Kumbaya about everything that is BRONCOS...I'm not that person though I may say a good thing or two every now and then!

I guess I can see your POV because when you advocated for the military forum, I never heard a good enough reason to have an exclusive 'military' only and exclude the rest of the community!!

I was pro-military forum because it is close to me as a serving member and I understood it. I just want to understand why this is being asked for. If someone says I can't stand these jerks and them still begging for Culter to come back, I might not agree but I can understand where they are coming from.
All I was looking for was to understand the purpose. Witht he military one it was so military members who are Broncos fan can conect and talk with eachother without explaining what a COC is to someone who doesn't get it. The fact it was rejected is fine by me too.
I guess in the end I was looking to make an informed vote, so I asked for some information, just like many did with the military forum. Like you said you never got a good enough reason to have it. I was asking the people who want this to explain why in a better way than those of us who wanted the military forum, because we clearly did a poor job of it

Dreadnought
09-10-2010, 12:38 PM
Because my experience with "gray areas" is the rule book (opinion book) that makes it all clear will be as thick as a Catholic Bible and takes time for posters to develop a sense of what they can and cannot say. Those that act openly like idiots are easy to spot and eject, no problem. My concern is with those who want to post in a Kumbaya type thread but inadvertantly misstep. It will be too easy for a mod to interpret a comment as negative when the poster may have been trying to be positive or even benign!

Agreed - but there will inevitably be a few (what my Grandpa called) "Philadelphia Lawyers" who delight in seeing if they can skirt the edges of a rule, then claim immunity for themselves by virtue of a technicality - which 9 times out of 10 they are either wrong about or misinterpreted in the first place. For normal modding purposes our admittedly slow process here deals with such pretty well. This sub-forum might need a different style.

dogfish
09-10-2010, 12:40 PM
Dog, I've been a mod for 10 years on the Freak and here. You have been on the forums for a long time.

Yes, most are adults. That said, you know as well as I do they don't always act like it all the time. It's gonna happen.

yea, i know-- i'm highly okay with those people getting non-paid vacations. . .

MileHighCrew
09-10-2010, 12:41 PM
I didn't mean anything by that, MHC. Sorry I said it in the wrong way. http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thnervous.gif

I know you can control yourself. I was trying to relate it in more generic terms.
Sorry for my fail . . .

-----

thank you. and I appologize I could have PM'd you.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 12:45 PM
man, this place baffles me sometimes. . . i truly can't understand why anyone would be opposed to this. . . what does it matter? why would you deny someone something they want when it's no skin off your nose either way?

just seems petty to me, like denying the military opt-in. . . it doesn't cost anything, and is no detriment to the way anyone else wants to post. . . if it makes people like carol and PN more comfortable, let them have it. . . by all means!

it should be a thread, though, not a forum. . . there simply won't be enough traffic to support a forum, and while having more forums is never an issue IMO, it does clutter site navigation a bit. . .

i apologize for the off-topic, but that kinda brings up a related point. . . it's time to get rid of the "suggestion box," "issues to be discussed," and the "proposals for comment/discussion" sub-forums that haven't been used in years and probably never will be again. . . let's streamline a bit, and perhaps it'll make a few people less opposed to adding more "stuff". . .





i don't see why it would be a problem for the mods. . . the OCG area is a clearly marked jackass free zone, and if somebody wants to get froggy with it just ban their ass and have done. . . if people want to act like children, treat them that way. . .

Great post, and great points :salute:

dogfish
09-10-2010, 12:48 PM
have there been any doumented instances or even suggestions of the OCG causing any problems over at mania?

anybody?

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 12:51 PM
I am not saying I would post, I am asking what people who post in that forum would write in that situation?
I was against the idea because I don't understand it, not because I just want to be against it. So I am asking what the point is, how it would work and what can be gained or learned from having it.
Either way I am not going to lose any sleep, but from where I stand now it takes away from the site as it is now and doesn't add anything. I am asking the supporters to change my POV

I would continue posting the many articles I do in Broncos Talk; however, I would post the same articles in the OCG forum - and by people reading the articles there, they would know that the thread the article(s) are in would not eventually turn into personal attacks, etc. I believe all along that was pn's point. As she travels a lot, she likes to read different things on the Broncos, without having to put people on ignore, without trying to sift thru personal attacks, etc., to see what is happening with the Broncos on a daily basis.

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:51 PM
have there been any doumented instances or even suggestions of the OCG causing any problems over at mania?

anybody?


Well, of course, that would not be the place to do it. But there are those who
will do it. And they will get suspended, under the present suggestions. We have
posters here who just cannot help but to bash certain players/coaches, but
otherwise are good posters. So, they wander into this kumbaya thread, and they
forget what thread they're in (it's happened to me). So . . . WHAM! . . . now
they can't log in.

That's just one of many scenarios I can think of. I'm not against the posters,
who want it, having their haven. I'm just considering what may follow. We can
bring up Mania, yes . . . but let's remember we are not Mania, and nowhere
close to Mania . . .

-----

----------

OrangeHoof
09-10-2010, 12:53 PM
I won't oppose it but I think it's silly. Why can't we have a negative only thread or a neutral only thread? Why should only positive people be accommodated?

I'm not sure I'd know what to say in a positive only thread. What would I say?

"Darn. Orton threw another interception but I'm sure his mother still loves him."

"That Sproles just gashed our defense for another 20 yards but I'm sure our boys are trying their best."

"Gaffney just dropped a pass but he does a lot of good in the community."

I'm a diabetic. I'm not sure I could handle a thread like that for a full three hours.

Tempus Fugit
09-10-2010, 12:54 PM
I'm guessing the part about the ignore not working well has to do with the number of people she would have to put on ignore. As it stands now, probably half of the active posters would have to be put on ignore if you tried to avoid all of the bashing, attacks and bickering.

Whether people just want a sounding board, or don't like specific people, or whatever the reasoning, the <ignore> function works to weed out such problems. People who don't think the <ignore> function goes far enough can add Ffvb as a Firefox addon, and it will even eliminate the quotes of people on ignore when they are quoted by other members.

Whether you put half the people on ignore, or you segregate yourself in just the "puppies and unicorns" forum, you're doing the same thing in the end. Making more work for the Mods when it's just a matter of a few clicks for the poster just doesn't make sense to me.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 12:55 PM
I won't oppose it but I think it's silly. Why can't we have a negative only thread or a neutral only thread? Why should only positive people be accommodated?

I'm not sure I'd know what to say in a positive only thread. What would I say?

"Darn. Orton threw another interception but I'm sure his mother still loves him."

"That Sproles just gashed our defense for another 20 yards but I'm sure our boys are trying their best."

"Gaffney just dropped a pass but he does a lot of good in the community."

I'm a diabetic. I'm not sure I could handle a thread like that for a full three hours.

Well then, don't go into that area. :confused:

topscribe
09-10-2010, 12:57 PM
I won't oppose it but I think it's silly. Why can't we have a negative only thread or a neutral only thread? Why should only positive people be accommodated?

I'm not sure I'd know what to say in a positive only thread. What would I say?

"Darn. Orton threw another interception but I'm sure his mother still loves him."

"That Sproles just gashed our defense for another 20 yards but I'm sure our boys are trying their best."

"Gaffney just dropped a pass but he does a lot of good in the community."

I'm a diabetic. I'm not sure I could handle a thread like that for a full three hours.

Carry a KFC honey packet in your shirt pocket. That's what my dad did.

But then, he didn't have to cope with kumbaya threads . . . :laugh:

-----

Day1BroncoFan
09-10-2010, 01:05 PM
I didn't am not going to read all 180 plus posts in this thread.

I am for having a forum but not a thread so much. Why not?

I would use it. A thread would be a convoluted nightmare of various topics. I think it should be open to more than just Broncos related subjects as well.

dogfish
09-10-2010, 01:22 PM
I won't oppose it but I think it's silly. Why can't we have a negative only thread or a neutral only thread? Why should only positive people be accommodated?

I'm not sure I'd know what to say in a positive only thread. What would I say?

"Darn. Orton threw another interception but I'm sure his mother still loves him."

"That Sproles just gashed our defense for another 20 yards but I'm sure our boys are trying their best."

"Gaffney just dropped a pass but he does a lot of good in the community."

I'm a diabetic. I'm not sure I could handle a thread like that for a full three hours.

why is this looked at as the positive posters "being accomodated?"

:confused:

giving them a thread or forum doesn't require any particular effort or take anything away from anyone else. . . the negative posters don't need a specific thread-- the entire board is their playground. . . :lol: there's never been a request for a negative only forum, and any such request would be merely facetious anyway. . .

also, i don't understand why people keep asking "what would i say in there?" and other variations of this question. . .

obviously, if you have to ask, you-- like me-- wouldn't say anything in there. . . just skip it. . .

Northman
09-10-2010, 01:27 PM
At the end of the day i just dont see a lot of people really digging the idea. No reason to be offended that people dont want it as the thread was used for its purpose of ya or nays.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 01:27 PM
I didn't am not going to read all 180 plus posts in this thread.

I am for having a forum but not a thread so much. Why not?

I would use it. A thread would be a convoluted nightmare of various topics. I think it should be open to more than just Broncos related subjects as well.

Great post, and I agree. For those who do not want a forum such as this one, let me give you an example of what would not be acceptable:

This morning, I started a new thread on the Broncos/Bailey talking long term contract.

If there was an OCG forum, and I started a thread with that article, and then made a separate post where I stated that I hope they get this done with Bailey, as I think it is a very good idea, there would be nothing wrong with someone responding to my post as saying, "I don't agree with you, as I feel Champ has lost a step, I feel he is on the downside of his career".

However, a response to my post stating, your post was pathetic - "what the hell is wrong with you, apparently you have your head up your a** - he has lost a step, he is on the downside of his career.

That would be the difference - my examples of the two responses contain the same conclusion - he has lost a step, he is on the downside of his career; however with the elimination of the personal attacks one of the posts contained.

Northman
09-10-2010, 01:31 PM
Great post, and I agree. For those who do not want a forum such as this one, let me give you an example of what would not be acceptable:

This morning, I started a new thread on the Broncos/Bailey talking long term contract.

If there was an OCG forum, and I started a thread with that article, and then made a separate post where I stated that I hope they get this done with Bailey, as I think it is a very good idea, there would be nothing wrong with someone responding to my post as saying, "I don't agree with you, as I feel Champ has lost a step, I feel he is on the downside of his career".

However, a response to my post stating, your post was pathetic - "what the hell is wrong with you, apparently you have your head up your a** - he has lost a step, he is on the downside of his career.

That would be the difference - my examples of the two responses contain the same conclusion - he has lost a step, he is on the downside of his career; however with the elimination of the personal attacks one of the posts contained.

However, the quote in red is indeed a negative take and would be contradictory to what the OCG would be about and this is kind of the "grey area" that Tned speaks of. Because frankly, a lot of that goes on in the regular threads already so why basically have another forum doing the same thing? The only thing you have pointed out is the "attacks" aspect which is watched on by the mods. The way i look at is if you posted your article and someone posted that first quote it should be deleted immediately as it is not a positive post at all. Its not attacking but doesnt serve the purpose of the OCG in my opinion.

Tempus Fugit
09-10-2010, 01:34 PM
why is this looked at as the positive posters "being accomodated?"

:confused:

Because that's precisely what it is.


giving them a thread or forum doesn't require any particular effort or take anything away from anyone else. . . the negative posters don't need a specific thread-- the entire board is their playground. . . :lol: there's never been a request for a negative only forum, and any such request would be merely facetious anyway. . .

It makes more work for the mods, so I don't see how that's not requiring "particular effort or take anything away from anyone else". That is, in fact, precisely what it's doing, when the person who doesn't want to read the other opinions is free to put anyone they wish to on the ignore list.


also, i don't understand why people keep asking "what would i say in there?" and other variations of this question. . .

obviously, if you have to ask, you-- like me-- wouldn't say anything in there. . . just skip it. . .

Maybe it's me, because I don't really see the need for huge numbers of forums anyway. This site already has forums with under 20 threads in it. I don't see the real benefits of adding another forum without great need.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 01:36 PM
However, the quote in red is indeed a negative take and would be contradictory to what the OCG would be about and this is kind of the "grey area" that Tned speaks of. Because frankly, a lot of that goes on in the regular threads already so why basically have another forum doing the same thing? The only thing you have pointed out is the "attacks" aspect which is watched on by the mods. The way i look at is if you posted your article and someone posted that first quote it should be deleted immediately as it is not a positive post at all. Its not attacking but doesnt serve the purpose of the OCG in my opinion.

Well, then maybe we need to define negative. I would NOT want an OCG where no one can disagree with someone's post - and I really don't think that is the way it is set up on Mania.

BUT the words used in how someone disagrees makes the difference.

Tempus Fugit
09-10-2010, 01:38 PM
Well, then maybe we need to define negative. I would NOT want an OCG where no one can disagree with someone's post - and I really don't think that is the way it is set up on Mania.

BUT the words used in how someone disagrees makes the difference.

Heck, a line like "Well, at least they played better this week than last week", can be read as being bannable.

LordTrychon
09-10-2010, 01:39 PM
OOH! I saw my name! :laugh:

Ok...

I don't understand the 'We don't need it' attitude so much because what you really mean is "I don't need it... and therefor we shouldn't bother" or "I don't need it and I don't want those other guys to get toys that I won't use" or "I know I don't have the willpower to not opt-in and say something".

It doesn't hurt anyone if there's a forum you don't use.

As for having to have black and white rules there... yeah, I could see how it could be a pain for the mods.

The upside to this forum (I remember thinking it was a great idea on Mania when it was implemented) is that if you want to post an article... say about Brady Quinn or Tim Tebow or even Jake Plummer taking part in a charity without it turning into a flame-filled trashbin... this would be a place you could go. Also, if you felt like having a thread just to get pumped up about a difficult game... "This is gonna be a great game, and we're gonna kick some ass!!!!" without getting back "We're screwed. Shut up".

It gives the threadstarters the option of trying to control the tone of the thread when they make it... post an article and allow people to discuss the positives. I know if I wanted to start a nice thread about Jay Cutler... Well.... I wouldn't.


That all said... I thought it was a great idea when it was implemented on Mania (and yes, I know... this is not mania)... and I think it was... I think there was a division that needed some salve at the time and it served that purpose.

After it served its purpose... it pretty much died.

It's dead.

We've discussed removing it. It's just not useful anymore. Maybe need to find a way to get it used again rather than close it down... but that's been discussed... of course the bigger issue is that it's a cp whorehouse... but you don't have that issue here.

Out of time. Later!

Northman
09-10-2010, 01:41 PM
Well, then maybe we need to define negative. I would NOT want an OCG where no one can disagree with someone's post - and I really don't think that is the way it is set up on Mania.

BUT the words used in how someone disagrees makes the difference.

So basically, you want to make a duplicate forum in which civil people can talk but if there is a personal attack those individual posts and members will be deleted or banned? Isnt that how the regular BT functions already? You want to make a duplicate forum but with harsher restrictions? Doesnt make a lot of sense to me. When i think of OCG i think of nothing but positive posts and spins on any given topic. I dont really think its fair to create another forum with harsher restrictions just because you dont like how the current one is being handled. If you indeed go with a OCG and a negative post comes in and then that person is attacked or the thread gets derailed about former players and coaches by a McD supporter than what? Ban them too? It doesnt make a lot of sense to have this forum if its going to be designed exactly like the other one. :confused:

dogfish
09-10-2010, 01:45 PM
Because that's precisely what it is.



It makes more work for the mods, so I don't see how that's not requiring "particular effort or take anything away from anyone else". That is, in fact, precisely what it's doing, when the person who doesn't want to read the other opinions is free to put anyone they wish to on the ignore list.



Maybe it's me, because I don't really see the need for huge numbers of forums anyway. This site already has forums with under 20 threads in it. I don't see the real benefits of adding another forum without great need.

how does it make more work for the mods? seriously, ask any of the mods from the official site if the OCG is some huge source of contention-- as you see from LT's recent post, it isn't even very active. . .

little activity = little trouble

the only way it becomes a major task is if people insist on constantly posting negativity in there-- in which case, you send 'em packing. . . solved!

one extra sticked thread that six or eight people use is NOT going to increase the moderator workload. . .

dogfish
09-10-2010, 01:47 PM
I don't understand the 'We don't need it' attitude so much because what you really mean is "I don't need it... and therefor we shouldn't bother" or "I don't need it and I don't want those other guys to get toys that I won't use" or "I know I don't have the willpower to not opt-in and say something".

It doesn't hurt anyone if there's a forum you don't use.



honesty, thy name is awesome. . .


:cool:

topscribe
09-10-2010, 01:47 PM
how does it make more work for the mods? seriously, ask any of the mods from the official site if the OCG is some huge source of contention-- as you see from LT's recent post, it isn't even very active. . .

little activity = little trouble

the only way it becomes a major task is if people insist on constantly posting negativity in there-- in which case, you send 'em packing. . . solved!

one extra sticked thread that six or eight people use is NOT going to increase the moderator workload. . .

I'll have to say, in my view, that the pros seem to have a little bit more logical argument than the cons . . .

-----

weazel
09-10-2010, 01:47 PM
Ok, this thread is becoming a prime example of WHY Pn asked for a positive only forum.

The topic isn't other members or their views on this topic or how they are expressing them. The topic isn't the mod team, or me for that matter.

The topic is whether or not we should have a positive only forum, or permanent sticky, and why you feel that way. You shouldn't be focused on pointing out why other's opinions on this subject are wrong, but instead just make your opinion clear.

:focus:

Thanks

I know you aren't directing this at me, but I just wanna say I was joking about the rainbows and butterfly forum... we dont need that... lol

seriously though, I dont see what it would hurt. If you dont feel like posting something positive after a bad game, skip that forum.

dogfish
09-10-2010, 01:49 PM
weazel, don't act like you haven't been haging around for years just hoping they'd start up a rainbows and unicorns forum. . .


:D

Tned
09-10-2010, 01:50 PM
OOH! I saw my name! :laugh:

Ok...

I don't understand the 'We don't need it' attitude so much because what you really mean is "I don't need it... and therefor we shouldn't bother" or "I don't need it and I don't want those other guys to get toys that I won't use" or "I know I don't have the willpower to not opt-in and say something".

It doesn't hurt anyone if there's a forum you don't use.

As for having to have black and white rules there... yeah, I could see how it could be a pain for the mods.

The upside to this forum (I remember thinking it was a great idea on Mania when it was implemented) is that if you want to post an article... say about Brady Quinn or Tim Tebow or even Jake Plummer taking part in a charity without it turning into a flame-filled trashbin... this would be a place you could go. Also, if you felt like having a thread just to get pumped up about a difficult game... "This is gonna be a great game, and we're gonna kick some ass!!!!" without getting back "We're screwed. Shut up".

It gives the threadstarters the option of trying to control the tone of the thread when they make it... post an article and allow people to discuss the positives. I know if I wanted to start a nice thread about Jay Cutler... Well.... I wouldn't.


That all said... I thought it was a great idea when it was implemented on Mania (and yes, I know... this is not mania)... and I think it was... I think there was a division that needed some salve at the time and it served that purpose.

After it served its purpose... it pretty much died.

It's dead.

We've discussed removing it. It's just not useful anymore. Maybe need to find a way to get it used again rather than close it down... but that's been discussed... of course the bigger issue is that it's a cp whorehouse... but you don't have that issue here.

Out of time. Later!

Hey LT, thanks for the input.

When you have time again, where did you draw the line on what was positive and what was negative? If on game day someone's posting, "damnit, Gold missed another tackle, he shouldn't be on the field" or such, is that ok? Can you give us some thoughts on where you drew the line?

nevcraw
09-10-2010, 01:52 PM
No..

the idea of a forum kiddie pool is silly.. at best..

it's just like the the liberal media to put you all up to this crap..

Tned
09-10-2010, 01:53 PM
I know you aren't directing this at me, but I just wanna say I was joking about the rainbows and butterfly forum... we dont need that... lol

seriously though, I dont see what it would hurt. If you dont feel like posting something positive after a bad game, skip that forum.

If you had said Tiaras and poodles, we would have had words.

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 01:54 PM
OOH! I saw my name! :laugh:

Ok...

I don't understand the 'We don't need it' attitude so much because what you really mean is "I don't need it... and therefor we shouldn't bother" or "I don't need it and I don't want those other guys to get toys that I won't use" or "I know I don't have the willpower to not opt-in and say something".

It doesn't hurt anyone if there's a forum you don't use.

As for having to have black and white rules there... yeah, I could see how it could be a pain for the mods.

The upside to this forum (I remember thinking it was a great idea on Mania when it was implemented) is that if you want to post an article... say about Brady Quinn or Tim Tebow or even Jake Plummer taking part in a charity without it turning into a flame-filled trashbin... this would be a place you could go. Also, if you felt like having a thread just to get pumped up about a difficult game... "This is gonna be a great game, and we're gonna kick some ass!!!!" without getting back "We're screwed. Shut up".

It gives the threadstarters the option of trying to control the tone of the thread when they make it... post an article and allow people to discuss the positives. I know if I wanted to start a nice thread about Jay Cutler... Well.... I wouldn't.


That all said... I thought it was a great idea when it was implemented on Mania (and yes, I know... this is not mania)... and I think it was... I think there was a division that needed some salve at the time and it served that purpose.

After it served its purpose... it pretty much died.

It's dead.

We've discussed removing it. It's just not useful anymore. Maybe need to find a way to get it used again rather than close it down... but that's been discussed... of course the bigger issue is that it's a cp whorehouse... but you don't have that issue here.

Out of time. Later!


See.. this is why LT is asked for his opinion. Its sound, its logical, and well worded.

This is, and everyone knows, why I could never be a mod :lol:

Northman
09-10-2010, 01:54 PM
No..

the idea of a forum kidde pool is silly.. at best..

it's just like the the liberal media to put you all up to this crap..

We could always just make a "liberal free" forum. :beer:

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 01:54 PM
Heck, a line like "Well, at least they played better this week than last week", can be read as being bannable.

This is NOT what anyone who is in favor of this is wanting, or MORESO EXPECTING. Common sense does need to play into this, on both sides of the fence.

Northman
09-10-2010, 01:54 PM
See.. this is why LT is asked for his opinion. Its sound, its logical, and well worded.

This is, and everyone knows, why I could never be a mod :lol:

What are you trying to say? Im not logical? That hurts.

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 01:56 PM
What are you trying to say? Im not logical? That hurts.

Hah.. well.. if the shoe fits! :lol:

Northman
09-10-2010, 01:57 PM
Hah.. well.. if the shoe fits! :lol:


Oh, your going down. :coffee::laugh:

weazel
09-10-2010, 02:02 PM
weazel, don't act like you haven't been haging around for years just hoping they'd start up a rainbows and unicorns forum. . .


:D

shhhh... this isn't the first time I've brought it up!

Tned
09-10-2010, 02:07 PM
This is NOT what anyone who is in favor of this is wanting, or MORESO EXPECTING. Common sense does need to play into this, on both sides of the fence.

I'm not sure many people know what's being asked for. Are you saying that you think it would be ok to be negative or critical, if it's done politely?

Jaws
09-10-2010, 02:12 PM
Maybe a polite only forum is what we need- but how do you define polite. Everyone has a different standard.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 02:14 PM
how does it make more work for the mods? seriously, ask any of the mods from the official site if the OCG is some huge source of contention-- as you see from LT's recent post, it isn't even very active. . .

little activity = little trouble

the only way it becomes a major task is if people insist on constantly posting negativity in there-- in which case, you send 'em packing. . . solved!

one extra sticked thread that six or eight people use is NOT going to increase the moderator workload. . .

Also, before someone uses little activity as a point as to why we do not need one, the little activity might be that on Mania, there is not much traffic in the off season in that area.

And again, I am against the one thread. It needs to be a forum. I can't believe anyone would post in there if there is one thread, and for example, people are posting in regards to many articles that have been posted, and without separate threads, there is no way to distinguish exactly what article, or a content in an article, they are even posting about.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 02:20 PM
I'm not sure many people know what's being asked for. Are you saying that you think it would be ok to be negative or critical, if it's done politely?

Example - if someone posts that Orton should have completed the pass to (name receiver), as that receiver was wide open - I would not consider that a negative post.

And if someone responded with "guess I have a different opinion - I think the receiver did not run the right route", that would also be ok.

Just examples of posts that I would not find anything wrong with. I am not wanting a forum where we all hold hands, and if someone says something, we all say - yes mam, or yes sir, you are totally right - end of discussion.

Northman
09-10-2010, 02:24 PM
Maybe a polite only forum is what we need- but how do you define polite. Everyone has a different standard.

Well, thats kind of what i was getting at. We already have that forum with rules in place. But as with any discussion things can get sour even from a misinterpreted joke. I mean, if simple things like McDumbass or Mikey ignites flame wars than what does that mean will happen in a OCG forum? Its just far to easy to lose control of said forums and would make double the work for the Mods. The best answer here is to simply work better at improving the quality of discussions in the current forums. Maybe more mods are needed? I dont know. But making an exact duplicate with stricter punishments really isnt the answer to me.

Northman
09-10-2010, 02:25 PM
Example - if someone posts that Orton should have completed the pass to (name receiver), as that receiver was wide open - I would not consider that a negative post.

And if someone responded with "guess I have a different opinion - I think the receiver did not run the right route", that would also be ok.



We have that now. :confused:

Jaws
09-10-2010, 02:28 PM
Would a "Gloves on" and "Gloves off" version of Broncos Talk work?
That way you wouldn't be confined to "postive only" viewpoints, but a positive style of posting i.e - just being civil!

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 02:30 PM
We have that now. :confused:

We have that now with such things as "that stupid McDumbass, he should have kept Cutler - Cutler would have completed that pass, everyone knows that Orton can not throw farther than 5 yards, yada, yada yada.

North - I can't believe you do not see the difference, and do not understand what some people do not want to see/read.

Northman
09-10-2010, 02:37 PM
We have that now with such things as "that stupid McDumbass, he should have kept Cutler - Cutler would have completed that pass, everyone knows that Orton can not throw farther than 5 yards, yada, yada yada.

North - I can't believe you do not see the difference, and do not understand what some people do not want to see/read.


Well, to be fair Carol. Just because someone thinks Cutler can do things that Orton cant why is it they cant simply state that? Why censor a differing opinion? I mean i admit, if it becomes a lets call the coach names or derail the thread into a bash a former coach or player than the mods can simply delete that post and warn the poster. I guess i just cant see the point of creating another forum when its basically the same thing now. I was under the impression that it was going to be nothing but positive things and no differing opinions. THAT would make more sense than what you are asking for here to me.

Northman
09-10-2010, 02:38 PM
Bottom line i guess to me is when i think of Orange Colored Glasses i think of no negative opinions or comments at all. Thats the whole point of being a homer to me. Not accepting anything thats not pro player or team.

honz
09-10-2010, 02:39 PM
The fact that this thread is 15 pages long already tells me that this would be a bad idea.

Tned
09-10-2010, 02:42 PM
We have that now with such things as "that stupid McDumbass, he should have kept Cutler - Cutler would have completed that pass, everyone knows that Orton can not throw farther than 5 yards, yada, yada yada.

North - I can't believe you do not see the difference, and do not understand what some people do not want to see/read.

Just like people get sick of, "I'm glad we finally have a coach that knows how to win, unlike mikey who should have been fired years ago and doesn't no defense from the hole in his ass"

That's the whole reason using ignore isn't an option, because it isn't just a couple guys calling McDaniels a name, it's a lot of people that have dug their heels in on their side, and post things just to piss others off.

Maybe the discussion we should be having is whether we need to crack down even more than we have on the baiting and other uncivil behavior. It's a really fine line between keeping the place civil and over-moderating, which time and again we have been told that members don't want us to do.

Tned
09-10-2010, 02:44 PM
Bottom line i guess to me is when i think of Orange Colored Glasses i think of no negative opinions or comments at all. Thats the whole point of being a homer to me. Not accepting anything thats not pro player or team.

Which is also why we need those that really want it to FULLY define what it is, because I can't make a thread or forum and ask the mods to police it, if we don't know what the guidelines are.

claymore
09-10-2010, 02:44 PM
If we have a really bad year, and McD gets fired, we will all be reset to zero.

Northman
09-10-2010, 02:45 PM
J

Maybe the discussion we should be having is whether we need to crack down even more than we have on the baiting and other uncivil behavior. It's a really fine line between keeping the place civil and over-moderating, which time and again we have been told that members don't want us to do.

Absolutely. :salute:

dogfish
09-10-2010, 03:13 PM
If we have a really bad year, and McD gets fired, we will all be reset to zero.

no "we" won't. . . you might, because you don't like mcD-- but unfortunately, too many of the people who DID like him will be just as pissy towards whoever the new coach is as people have been towards mcD. . .

it's a perpetual cycle because some people won't let old agendas die just because of regime change. . . just like all the old plummer factionalists adore mcdaniels for getting rid of cutler-- a lot of people will still be aligning themselves based on their pro- or anti-plummer/cutler stance fifteen or twenty years from now, as far as i can tell. . . :doh:

claymore
09-10-2010, 03:15 PM
no "we" won't. . . you might, because you don't like mcD-- but unfortunately, too many of the people who DID like him will be just as pissy towards whoever the new coach is as people have been towards mcD. . .

it's a perpetual cycle because some people won't let old agendas die just because of regime change. . . just like all the old plummer factionalists adore mcdaniels for getting rid of cutler-- a lot of people will still be aligning themselves based on their pro- or anti-plummer/cutler stance fifteen or twenty years from now, as far as i can tell. . . :doh:

I will unite people like Martin Luther King did. But Im waiting for McD to get fired first.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 03:16 PM
Just like people get sick of, "I'm glad we finally have a coach that knows how to win, unlike mikey who should have been fired years ago and doesn't no defense from the hole in his ass"

That's the whole reason using ignore isn't an option, because it isn't just a couple guys calling McDaniels a name, it's a lot of people that have dug their heels in on their side, and post things just to piss others off.

Maybe the discussion we should be having is whether we need to crack down even more than we have on the baiting and other uncivil behavior. It's a really fine line between keeping the place civil and over-moderating, which time and again we have been told that members don't want us to do.

Great points - however, if the discussion would change to "if we need to crack down even more than we have on the baiting and other uncivil behavior", and the consensus is - "no, it is just fine the way it is" - nothing has changed, people will continue to just post things to piss others off, and then we will be right back to where we are now - people will continue to post this way, and it will upset those who prefer not to read/see it, and have no area to escape to to avoid it.

One of the earlier posts in this thread by a poster stated something like "if you don't like it - go elsewhere". Well, I am sorry, but that should not be the only option someone should have.

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 03:20 PM
Which is also why we need those that really want it to FULLY define what it is, because I can't make a thread or forum and ask the mods to police it, if we don't know what the guidelines are.

As I stated before, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's perspective - what is wrong is the way the disagreeing is done - name calling, personal attacks, etc.

Northman
09-10-2010, 03:20 PM
and it will upset those who prefer not to read/see it, and have no area to escape to to avoid it.




My only problem is right now its seems like its just 4-5 people who feel there needs to be this escape. That too me just isnt worth the time or effort for the mods to deal with overall.

bcbronc
09-10-2010, 03:21 PM
Only read the first couple and last page, but sounds good to me as long as you differentiate between negativity and reasonable criticism. Because no player/coach/org is perfect and if you can only discuss the positives it tends to make for short discussions.

For example, something like "orton had a solid game but he can't miss open receivers like he did with Royal in the 2nd quarter" should be okay imo. Its a reasonable critique of an on-field happening.

On the other hand, somethiing like "Orton missed Royal cuz he can't throw deep worth shit" would be a regular forum post.

Tough on the mods when you leave a gray area, but hey, that's why they earn the big bucks right? ;)

It would be nice to discuss the team sometimes without people getting butt hurt because you noted a missed play by their favourite player. But if the forum is going to be strictly fluff comments (Orton can make every throw and that miss on Royal is just one of those things that happens--even to Broncos!) Then the forum would be pretty dull and I'd pass.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Elevation inc
09-10-2010, 03:22 PM
Just like people get sick of, "I'm glad we finally have a coach that knows how to win, unlike mikey who should have been fired years ago and doesn't no defense from the hole in his ass"

That's the whole reason using ignore isn't an option, because it isn't just a couple guys calling McDaniels a name, it's a lot of people that have dug their heels in on their side, and post things just to piss others off.

Maybe the discussion we should be having is whether we need to crack down even more than we have on the baiting and other uncivil behavior. It's a really fine line between keeping the place civil and over-moderating, which time and again we have been told that members don't want us to do.



THIS...its called respect:beer: we all have our moments good and bad. Seasons starts Sunday lets wait to see if this is really needed, right now i think the time has passed....it may come a time when its a good idea again...like after the season is over if we sucked....HAHAHA, but for now.....i think its a little overboard.....

claymore
09-10-2010, 03:26 PM
I want a thread where I feel safe from Topscribes sexual advances.

bcbronc
09-10-2010, 03:29 PM
The thing with baiting etc, its been going on between a handful of posters for years across multiple forums. "Cracking down" is going to require making some tough decisions about some long-time posters. If the site authorities aren't willing to take any step necessary (up to and including permanent bans on board vets) its really just lip-service and a waste of everyones time. Imo.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Nomad
09-10-2010, 03:30 PM
THIS...its called respect:beer: we all have our moments good and bad. Seasons starts Sunday lets wait to see if this is really needed, right now i think the time has passed....it may come a time when its a good idea again...like after the season is over if we sucked....HAHAHA, but for now.....i think its a little overboard.....

It was worth the try to get it for the ones who wanted it! But it comes down to people don't want to be told how to post their opinions as long as it's within the COC and don't want to be left out of the loop. Everyone likes to throw their 2 cents in. Oh well, I still don't understand what it hurts but it seems the consensus of the board sees no need for it...sorry BRONCO Kumbaya fans!!

Denver Native (Carol)
09-10-2010, 03:30 PM
My only problem is right now its seems like its just 4-5 people who feel there needs to be this escape. That too me just isnt worth the time or effort for the mods to deal with overall.

As you agreed with Tned's suggestion that maybe we need to crack down even more on the baiting and other uncivil behavior, I would think that would take much more of the mods time to deal with than an OCG forum.

If they don't mind cracking down on this in the forums already established, I would agree there then would be no need for an OCG forum.

Northman
09-10-2010, 03:40 PM
As you agreed with Tned's suggestion that maybe we need to crack down even more on the baiting and other uncivil behavior, I would think that would take much more of the mods time to deal with than an OCG forum.

If they don't mind cracking down on this in the forums already established, I would agree there then would be no need for an OCG forum.

Well yea, that was kind of the whole point of shoring them up.

Ravage!!!
09-10-2010, 03:41 PM
no "we" won't. . . you might, because you don't like mcD-- but unfortunately, too many of the people who DID like him will be just as pissy towards whoever the new coach is as people have been towards mcD. . .

it's a perpetual cycle because some people won't let old agendas die just because of regime change. . . just like all the old plummer factionalists adore mcdaniels for getting rid of cutler-- a lot of people will still be aligning themselves based on their pro- or anti-plummer/cutler stance fifteen or twenty years from now, as far as i can tell. . . :doh:

yeah... and?

Elevation inc
09-10-2010, 03:42 PM
As you agreed with Tned's suggestion that maybe we need to crack down even more on the baiting and other uncivil behavior, I would think that would take much more of the mods time to deal with than an OCG forum.

If they don't mind cracking down on this in the forums already established, I would agree there then would be no need for an OCG forum.

to be fair the 4 or 5 people(maybe more) wanting a escape currently would eventually tire of it when there was no one to talk to......its boring going to a forum where nothing new is posted...at the mania thats the norm and they have far more posters then we do here...so essentially as much as people want it now...it will becoming boring and the participation will die, leaving a forum for nothing....

This i have no problem with as people are free to do what they want, but really is it neccesary objectively speaking at this juncture.....

north and I for instance dont really care if it happens in the end the point is is it really neccessary in the grand scheme.....a great military only forum idea was turned down for some of teh same reasons we are mentioning here and there are far more interesting topics that would be there than MCD is so great and this team is gonna go 19-0.

Honestly this place wont change untill people can discuss with out bias or baiting and honestly i just dont think thats gonna happen until the broncos take care of some buisness on the field by winning....the same reason people tell us not to go into the orange colored glasses forum should also be the ones ignoring or not entering threads by posters they know will irritate them....

if you know someone is a baiter and irks you why read his material, not reading or ignoring them and not letting what they say effect you sounds much more efficent and perhaps a better way to win the battle then running to a private forum for ten some odd posters....(PLEASE CAROL I DO NOT MEAN THIS BAD IN ANY WAY SO IF IT COMES OUT LIKE THAT IM SORRY...sometimes i get lost during typing...lol......:salute:)

I am a pretty positive poster for the most part and enjoy the postive outlooks even predicting 10-6 for this team myself....

but really in the end is it neccessary...same questiosn were asked for the military forum that was turned down.....i know for a fact we have quite a few military past and present on here including myself.....

So whats the difference???

Nomad
09-10-2010, 03:59 PM
to be fair the 4 or 5 people(maybe more) wanting a escape currently would eventually tire of it when there was no one to talk to......its boring going to a forum where nothing new is posted...at the mania thats the norm and they have far more posters then we do here...so essentially as much as people want it now...it will becoming boring and the participation will die, leaving a forum for nothing....

This i have no problem with as people are free to do what they want, but really is it neccesary objectively speaking at this juncture.....

north and I for instance dont really care if it happens in the end the point is is it really neccessary in the grand scheme.....a great military only forum idea was turned down for some of teh same reasons we are mentioning here and there are far more interesting topics that would be there than MCD is so hot and this team is gonna go 19-0.

Honestly this place wont change untill people can discuss with out bias or baiting and honestly i just dont think thats gonna happen until the broncos take care of some buisness on the field....the same reason people tell us not to go into the orange colored glasses forum should also be the ones ignoring or not entering threads by posters they know will irritate them....

if you know someone is a baiter and irks you why read his material, not reading or ignoring them and not letting what they say effect you sounds much more efficent and perhaps a better way to win the battle then running to a private forum for ten some odd posters....(PLEASE CAROL I DO NOT MEAN THIS BAD IN ANY WAY SO IF IT COMES OUT LIKE THAT IM SORRY...sometimes i get lost during typing...lol......:salute:)

I am a pretty positive poster for the most part and enjoy the postive outlooks even predicting 10-6 for this team myself....

but really in the end is it neccessary...same questiosn were asked for the military forum that was turned down.....i know for a fact we have quite a few military past and present on here including myself.....

So whats the difference???

Military forum was turned down because the ones who wanted it as a military only and excluded the rest of the community (they couldn't get in unless proof of military service) which some of the same ones here who were not in couldn't bare not to be able to get in and give their two cents. Being prior military myself I didn't agree with shutting out the community and the other question was how could one prove military service without getting too personal! Which no one could answer as well!

I know it's water under the bridge as far as that but this OCG is a different situation. It would be open to anyone and as long as a person followed that forums rules (which would have been no negative posts) then they're allowed. As I said in my post above, people don't want that limitation just like they wouldn't have wanted to be shut out a military only opt in and the same ones who opposed that forum or opposed to this one so they won't be left out of the loop!! I don't care either way (even though it seems like it) though like I said I see no harm but I would like to see Tned overhaul some of these forums because that's another thing that baffles me, some here complaining about another forum when there are forums here that aren't needed and seldom used as well! But then I'll get 'you don't have to visit the forum, well if an OCG forum would have been made, you wouldn't have had to visit the forum either!! Ignore the poster, ignore the thread, ignore the forums, all true!!

Elevation inc
09-10-2010, 04:05 PM
Military forum was turned down because the ones who wanted it as a military only and excluded the rest of the community (they couldn't get in unless proof of military service) which some of the same ones here who were not in couldn't bare not to be able to get in and give their two cents. Being prior military myself I didn't agree with shutting out the community and the other question was how could one prove military service without getting too personal!

I know it's water under the bridge as far as that but this OCG is a different situation. It would be open to anyone and as long as a person followed that forums rules (which would have been no negative posts) then they're allowed. As I said in my post above, people don't want that limitation just like they wouldn't have wanted to be shut out a military only opt in and the same ones who opposed that forum or opposed to this one so they won't be left out of the loop!! I don't care either way (even though it seems like it) though like I said I see no harm but I would like to see Tned overhaul some of these forums because that's another thing that baffles me, some here complaining about another forum when there are forums here that aren't needed and seldom used as well! But then I'll get 'you don't have to visit the forum, well if an OCG forum would have been made, you wouldn't have had to visit the forum either!! Ignore the poster, ignore the thread, ignore the forums, all true!!


i understand:salute: but the original idea brought crticism well before the ID thing.....the point is its a special forum for a minority of posters...if we can have a orange colored glasses forum doest that mean we can have a Negative only forum as well by itself?????

so the positve guys can say what they want and the negative guys can say what they want.......

if thats the case then were talking more fairness......but right now i dont see the point...I wont be affected if it goes through.....mine is obviously a opposing viewpoint in some respects to this issue, but im not changing the view...im cool if it goes down...but objectively speaking in my mind and opinion whats the point????

Northman
09-10-2010, 04:06 PM
But then I'll get 'you don't have to visit the forum, well if an OCG forum would have been made, you wouldn't have had to visit the forum either!! Ignore the poster, ignore the thread, ignore the forums, all true!!

Not really the same thing. The other forums are of different subject matter. The one that is being up for proposal would be an exact duplicate with what would appear to be stiffer punishments and rules. I could almost understand it if it was simply going to be "Orton threw 5 INT's today but he is still our best option at QB". But if there is going to be any "negative" talk it defeats the purpose because we currently have that forum for BT set up that way. The only difference is that the argueing and bickering is at an alltime high. But, really thats something that can be ironed out and far more plausible than creating a duplicate forum in which someone can be banned on the fly for. None of the other forums on here have the same subject matter so thats why people can simply choose or not choose to go in them.

bcbronc
09-10-2010, 04:08 PM
i understand:salute: but the original idea brought crticism well before the ID thing.....the point is its a special forum for a minority of posters...if we can have a orange colored glasses forum doest that mean we can have a Negative only forum as well by itself?????

so the positve guys can say what they want and the negative guys can say what they want.......

if thats the case then were talking more fairness......but right now i dont see the point...I wont be affected if it goes through.....mine is obviously a opposing viewpoint in some respects to this issue, but im not changing the view...im cool if it goes down...but objectively speaking in my mind and opinion whats the point????

really, where's the issue? is the Smack Forum an exclusionary "special forum for a minority of posters"? an OCG Forum is exactly the same.

dogfish
09-10-2010, 04:11 PM
really, where's the issue? is the Smack Forum an exclusionary "special forum for a minority of posters"? an OCG Forum is exactly the same.

this place is full of special forums. . . how much does the tailgate forum get used? how much does the articles forum get used?

Northman
09-10-2010, 04:11 PM
A great example of how fast a thread can turn is right here.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172990


For the most part you have some pretty good civil discussion. But then you notice the cheap shots at the player in question and then the posts calling out other posters. So really all that needs to happen is to clean up the post that are out of place and warn the posters to chill and get back on topic. Now, if there needs to be more mods that might be something that Tned and mod panel could address if the workload is too much right now.

Tempus Fugit
09-10-2010, 04:11 PM
Ok, so reading the full thread shows that this is really about censorship, and not about anything else. With that in mind (some of this will be just repeats from earlier):

1.) The ignore function works fine to prevent the reading of posts from other people.

2.) If even the sight of those posts in quotes by other people offends the reader, he/she can use the Ffvb addon for Firefox:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7023/

that lets you ignore users, threads, avatars, signatures, individual words, etc., and can be set up so that it's basically 2 clicks without leaving the page you're already on.

3.) Disagreement, even 'uncivil' disagreement, should be a significant part of what message boards are about. If all that's wanted is a sounding board, people can set up their own blogs and rant on about how great/awful anything is, and they can then moderate each and every comment someone wants to make on that site. Bounds of etiquette is one thing, but this isn't afternoon tea.

4.) Again, you're simply going to be subjecting mods to addition work about subjective statements. They've already got enough to do.


If individuals have problems, let them use the available solutions instead of making further impositions upon the community as a whole.

Northman
09-10-2010, 04:13 PM
Ok, so reading the full thread shows that this is really about censorship, and not about anything else. With that in mind (some of this will be just repeats from earlier):

1.) The ignore function works fine to prevent the reading of posts from other people.

2.) If even the sight of those posts in quotes by other people offends the reader, he/she can use the Ffvb addon for Firefox:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7023/

that lets you ignore users, threads, avatars, signatures, individual words, etc., and can be set up so that it's basically 2 clicks without leaving the page you're already on.

3.) Disagreement, even 'uncivil' disagreement, should be a significant part of what message boards are about. If all that's wanted is a sounding board, people can set up their own blogs and rant on about how great/awful anything is, and they can then moderate each and every comment someone wants to make on that site. Bounds of etiquette is one thing, but this isn't afternoon tea.

4.) Again, you're simply going to be subjecting mods to addition work about subjective statements. They've already got enough to do.


If individuals have problems, let them use the available solutions instead of making further impositions upon the community as a whole.


And as someone who generally disagrees with you i am in total agreement with you. :lol: