Thread: Ask Questions and Request Clarification Regarding the Posting Rules and Guidelines

Please post in this thread any questions or clarification you may need regarding the revised posting rules and guidelines that went into effect on Feb 21st 2009.

When replying, please indicate if your question pertains to the Rules or Guidelines section, and post the corresponding number.

2. No Flaming, baiting or harassing. Regardless of whether you like a poster or a point being made, do not resort to flaming and harassing that poster. Don’t post “flame-bait”. That is a post just to irritate members or designed to get a reaction from another poster. This type of posting behavior will be dealt with in much the same manner as personal attacks.

Need some clarification here....
For example..."No argument's huh? Lewik? BG7? "

This was posted to specifically ask people to respond to a thread. It was not posted in a threatening, flaming, or harassing manner. It was a simple and direct request for an opinion. How is this baiting? And if a request for an opinion is baiting, what is the point of even having a board to talk about things? Should the rule be clarified to prevent posters from getting "stern warnings" from mods in PM's, or changed in the spirit of common sense?

There are few rules that are more open to interpretation than baiting. We currently have a massive rash of baiting going on Broncos Talk that the mods are trying to deal with.

In most cases, the mods are going to take a statement and attempt to reconcile it with past behavior between the parties, to try and determine whether it was a joke, serious question or baiting/flaming. If a poster is continuously posting in a contentious manner towards other posters, it is more likely that a post, especially one that specifically mentions other posters, will be seen as trying to get a rise out of them. When there isn't that history, it is harder, and like pass interference, there is an aspect of 'judgment call' to this, which is one of the reasons that discussions typically take place among the mods, even before a PM is sent to someone.

Unfortunately, it's not an exact science, and my personal opinion is that any attempt to further refine the rule, will create more problems, not less. As with any rule, or any aspect of how BF is run, it is something that can be discussed and if it is clear that the community at large wants a change, it will be implemented.

Well, no way that I represent the community at large, so I'll take that as a 'shut up and stop baiting people AT27!'

Originally Posted by atwater27

Well, no way that I represent the community at large, so I'll take that as a 'shut up and stop baiting people AT27!'

Not at all (well, yea on the stop baiting ), but I'm just saying it is a discussion that can be had. If you want, we can open up a discussion in the main Town Hall forum and see what kind of feedback we get.

Originally Posted by Tned

Not at all (well, yea on the stop baiting ), but I'm just saying it is a discussion that can be had. If you want, we can open up a tiscussion in the main Town Hall forum and see what kind of feedback we get.

Naaa, not worth it. Just a question. I have been on the wildly unpopular side of the town hall once or twice. I'll save everyone the annoyance.

Originally Posted by atwater27

2. No Flaming, baiting or harassing. Regardless of whether you like a poster or a point being made, do not resort to flaming and harassing that poster. Don’t post “flame-bait”. That is a post just to irritate members or designed to get a reaction from another poster. This type of posting behavior will be dealt with in much the same manner as personal attacks.

Need some clarification here....
For example..."No argument's huh? Lewik? BG7? "

This was posted to specifically ask people to respond to a thread. It was not posted in a threatening, flaming, or harassing manner. It was a simple and direct request for an opinion. How is this baiting? And if a request for an opinion is baiting, what is the point of even having a board to talk about things? Should the rule be clarified to prevent posters from getting "stern warnings" from mods in PM's, or changed in the spirit of common sense?

I see that as a bait not just for conversation, just so the poster can jump on them based on what they reply to that. A direct request for an opinion would more likely read, "Thoughts? Opinions? BG7, anyone?"

Baiting is begging the other party to disagree so "you" (general you, not specific you) can throw stuff back at them, "proving" that "you" were right, and denigrating them to lower than dirt status. No one likes a bully.

Often times, if the comment is questionable, the mod will PM the person to whom it's intended and ask if they were offended by it.

I removed a few posts in here that were definitely off-topic for a Town Hall thread. Let's keep it on topic please.

Nice work, NTL.

I think you are doing a great job as a moderator, despite what buff says.

Originally Posted by slim

Nice work, NTL.

I think you are doing a great job as a moderator, despite what buff says.

Part of Buff's oddball appeal is that he has never yet been right about a single thing. Not even once. It makes him almost lovable in an odd non-homosexual way.

In another life has gotten a bit of a taste of what life with no rules and standards can be like on the interwebz lately, i.e. how there is no such thing as a set of rules so relaxed and chill that some jerk won't go and break them all out of pure cussedness or God knows what other motivation.

That is part of a more general problem, in that we do try to keep adjusting the "line which must not be crossed" to meet some kind of unscientific community consensus - to the point of maintaining different standards in different areas of this board (5 different ones by my count - General, P&R, Lounge/Opt In, Smack, and Town Hall.) I don't think there are all that many who don't want any such lines at all (maybe Buff, but again, he is always wrong) so we are permanently stuck trying to draw them.

It's like those cartoons where the kids wish for no parents. They get their wish, then after a few days of doing whatever they want, they miss them.

Originally Posted by gnomeflinger

It's like those cartoons where the kids wish for no parents. They get their wish, then after a few days of doing whatever they want, they miss them.

Except everyone here is supposed to be growed up. Nobody should need diaper changing. Maybe King87, but nobody else, and anyways if thats what he needs you can have that job

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Except everyone here is supposed to be growed up. Nobody should need diaper changing. Maybe King87, but nobody else, and anyways if thats what he needs you can have that job

Hell no. That's way below my pay grade, and I'm not even a moderator.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Part of Buff's oddball appeal is that he has never yet been right about a single thing. Not even once. It makes him almost lovable in an odd non-homosexual way.

In another life has gotten a bit of a taste of what life with no rules and standards can be like on the interwebz lately, i.e. how there is no such thing as a set of rules so relaxed and chill that some jerk won't go and break them all out of pure cussedness or God knows what other motivation.

That is part of a more general problem, in that we do try to keep adjusting the "line which must not be crossed" to meet some kind of unscientific community consensus - to the point of maintaining different standards in different areas of this board (5 different ones by my count - General, P&R, Lounge/Opt In, Smack, and Town Hall.) I don't think there are all that many who don't want any such lines at all (maybe Buff, but again, he is always wrong) so we are permanently stuck trying to draw them.

Buff has been right about a few things. I've seen the pictures to prove it.

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

Buff has been right about a few things. I've seen the pictures to prove it.

A lot of things are possible I guess. Platypuses are possible. I'd need a lot of convincing.

OTOH, Buff is right about his choice of football teams, so that's something right there. I stand corrected