Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 259

Thread: New Rules: Final Opportunity for comment before going into effect on Feb 21st

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    5,280
    Adopted Bronco:
    Kendall Hinton!
    Posts
    43,922

    Default

    The derailing of a topic is going to be hard to enforce. These threads, just like real-life conversations often stray from the original topic. Sometimes not so good, but most of the time very interesting. JMO.

    As to the political avatars & sigs, I don't see a problem with someone having a positive image of our President, or any other political figure. One that is in bad taste is a whole other thing.

    There's my $0.02.

  2. The Following 6 Users High Fived BroncoJoe For This Post:


  3. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northman View Post
    Well, in theory that is great. But having been on the other side of the fence i can say that there tends to be a different code when it comes to handling issues between Mods and the ordinary member. When a Mod goes and determines whether or not another mod has crossed the line most times than not the mod in question usually just has his post deleted without any further punishment or warning. Im not trying to create a hoopla as i myself have crossed the line plenty in both regards. But, because the line is so grey i think you need to come up with a better system in that regard because one of the things that draws the ire from the board is the "impression" that one is favored over the other. Now, i was never here for the "committee" that you guys had while still having mods but maybe thats something you should attempt again so that there is a check and balance. At least create one for regulating the Mods in some way.
    I agree with 100% about what you are saying. Things have changed greatly since you stepped down, and I think you would be 'much' more comfortable with the way mod discussions are going now, then when you were on the team and often frustrated.

    The biggest offender(s) of violating the rules are no longer mods, but mods are still human, so a rule will still be violated here or there. I was PM'd last week by a mod and told one of my comments crossed the line. I responded that they should then edit or delete it. I have posted the same in the Mod discussion areas.

    Before mods sometimes got a pass on violating the rules, but as Frau has indicated, we have had discussions on this very topic. I still am not sure we know exactly how to deal with a mod that starts violating rules on a regular basis, where we would give a suspension to a regular poster, but it is a topic we will have to discuss.

    Mod's will no longer be above the law. If we ask a poster to follow the rules, then the mods will have to as well. I think we all understand that.

    As it stands, there has already been a great effort by the mods to ensure that they aren't moderating threads with which they are involved in heated debates.

    I think the starting point is that everyone needs to be involved in the policing process. Report posts that violate rules.

    If we see that a moderator, or moderators, are consistantly violating the rules, then we can see what further action is needed. If we see that it is becoming so common that we need a secondary board/panel/grand jury to determine punishments against mods, then we can cross that bridge down the road. Hopefully, it doesn't come to that. I have every confidence that our current team of mods is doing everything they can to make this a fun and civil place, and that will include how they post.

  4. The Following User High Fived Tned For This Post:


  5. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ray Finkel
    Posts
    86,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post
    I agree with 100% about what you are saying. Things have changed greatly since you stepped down, and I think you would be 'much' more comfortable with the way mod discussions are going now, then when you were on the team and often frustrated.

    The biggest offender(s) of violating the rules are no longer mods, but mods are still human, so a rule will still be violated here or there. I was PM'd last week by a mod and told one of my comments crossed the line. I responded that they should then edit or delete it. I have posted the same in the Mod discussion areas.

    Before mods sometimes got a pass on violating the rules, but as Frau has indicated, we have had discussions on this very topic. I still am not sure we know exactly how to deal with a mod that starts violating rules on a regular basis, where we would give a suspension to a regular poster, but it is a topic we will have to discuss.

    Mod's will no longer be above the law. If we ask a poster to follow the rules, then the mods will have to as well. I think we all understand that.

    As it stands, there has already been a great effort by the mods to ensure that they aren't moderating threads with which they are involved in heated debates.

    I think the starting point is that everyone needs to be involved in the policing process. Report posts that violate rules.

    If we see that a moderator, or moderators, are consistantly violating the rules, then we can see what further action is needed. If we see that it is becoming so common that we need a secondary board/panel/grand jury to determine punishments against mods, then we can cross that bridge down the road. Hopefully, it doesn't come to that. I have every confidence that our current team of mods is doing everything they can to make this a fun and civil place, and that will include how they post.

    Good enough. Thanks for the feedback.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Adopted Bronco:
    Josey Jewell
    Posts
    30,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frauschieze View Post
    I have a couple questions in regards to #10:

    If a poster makes a joke in P&R, but the rest of their post deals with the subject, is that acceptable?

    And if P&R requires on topic (or relevant topic posting), can we require it for Town Hall discussions as well? Maybe not as strict as there have been some very funny threads in here, but purposely derailing Town Hall threads has always bugged me.
    A big part of the problem is not in the present regs but in their enforcement--
    consistent enforcement. One instance in mind took place right here in Town
    Hall before you were ever a mod. One poster was chided for posting a joke
    during a discussion, yet another poster's dozen or so jokes in the same thread
    were ignored.

    The only reason I could figure for that was that the former poster was not
    particularly liked, at least by a few, while the latter was very popular on the
    board. Maybe it was intimidation: I don't know. But it was not consistent.

    Members have seen this and have commented on it many times. If we feel we
    need new regs, fine. But let's get consistent.

    -----
    Though He slay me, I will trust in Him . . . (Job 13:15)


  7. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BroncoJoe View Post
    The derailing of a topic is going to be hard to enforce. These threads, just like real-life conversations often stray from the original topic. Sometimes not so good, but most of the time very interesting. JMO.

    As to the political avatars & sigs, I don't see a problem with someone having a positive image of our President, or any other political figure. One that is in bad taste is a whole other thing.

    There's my $0.02.
    On the sigs, this is one of the reasons for the final week of discussion. I personally also don't have a problem with a positive message. Unfortunately, some members will try and play games, and put up something like "Democrats, the part that didn't destroy our economy" or something like that and claim it is a 'positive' message about democrats. However, those back handed slams at one party or another, or candidate or another can be ruled on by the mods.

    I'll be interested in hearing what others have to say about allowing positive political sigs/avvies, along with positive religious ones.

    As to derailing. The enforcement takes common sense. For instance, here is the moderating guideline on this subject:

    Allowing some topic drift: Friendly rivalry and banter is acceptable and expected. As a Moderator, you should allow discussions to flow, unless it generates into a useless, name calling thread that is going nowhere. When possible, let the conversation takes its natural course, and realize that things may sometimes get bumpy when members are debating subjects they are passionate about. Unless there are clear attacks that are violating rules and disrupting the thread, let it end naturally. Realize that part of what keeps a message board alive is new posts, so even when a conversation wanders, don't be too quick to 'force' it back on topic. Very rarely does a thread end or die out on exactly the same topic as it started.
    The point of the above guideline is that threads should be allowed to take their natural twists and turns, like a real life conversation does.

    However, if there is a thread about TD getting into the hall of fame, and someone comes in just for kicks to disrupt it and posts, "I like having sex with cats", that isn't a natural flow of the conversation.

    Moderators are encouraged to not raise the off topic flag too quickly, but at the same time we have some members that get a kick out of trying to derail conversations, especially if started by people they don't like. That can't be tolerated. Does that make sense?

  8. The Following 4 Users High Fived Tned For This Post:


  9. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frauschieze View Post
    I have a couple questions in regards to #10:

    If a poster makes a joke in P&R, but the rest of their post deals with the subject, is that acceptable?

    And if P&R requires on topic (or relevant topic posting), can we require it for Town Hall discussions as well? Maybe not as strict as there have been some very funny threads in here, but purposely derailing Town Hall threads has always bugged me.
    Ultimately, as I just mentioned in the post that might be right above this reply, it is going to come down to some mod judgement, but the example I gave of a TD HOF thread being interrupted by "I like to have sex with cats" is a perfect example of clearly off topic.

    On the flip side, if there is a good conversation going on and someone says, "what's the difference between a Republican and a fruit fly --- the fruit fly serves a purpose in life. ", but then says, "j/k, seriously, the stimulus package really isn't about stimulus, it is about pushing through a wish list....." and is back on topic. That is probably no harm, no foul.

    This place should ultimately be fun, BUT we should not allow posters that have no desire to discuss the intended subject to for whatever reason (not liking the thread starter, personal amusement, to get attention, etc.) to derail threads by posting nonsense, jokes, etc, that have nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

    Yes, there should be something specific about Town Hall, like P&R, since many people do take the time to discuss how to make the message board better, and 'jokes' that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed only serve to derail, not add to, the discussion.

  10. The Following 2 Users High Fived Tned For This Post:


  11. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by topscribe View Post
    A big part of the problem is not in the present regs but in their enforcement--
    consistent enforcement. One instance in mind took place right here in Town
    Hall before you were ever a mod. One poster was chided for posting a joke
    during a discussion, yet another poster's dozen or so jokes in the same thread
    were ignored.

    The only reason I could figure for that was that the former poster was not
    particularly liked, at least by a few, while the latter was very popular on the
    board. Maybe it was intimidation: I don't know. But it was not consistent.

    Members have seen this and have commented on it many times. If we feel we
    need new regs, fine. But let's get consistent.

    -----
    I couldn't agree more. One of the major reason for the shaking up the moderator team and getting fresh blood on board, was it is absolutely critical that there is consistency in modding. You can't have mods showing favoritism to their friends, but coming down hard on those they don't like, or who hold different political views. It won't be tolerated any more.

    In the future, you will find mods that do that are no longer mods.

    Great point, Top.

  12. The Following User High Fived Tned For This Post:


  13. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post
    On the sigs, this is one of the reasons for the final week of discussion. I personally also don't have a problem with a positive message. Unfortunately, some members will try and play games, and put up something like "Democrats, the part that didn't destroy our economy" or something like that and claim it is a 'positive' message about democrats. However, those back handed slams at one party or another, or candidate or another can be ruled on by the mods.

    I don't think there's any way to have a foolproof system. I see nothing wrong with someone having a "positive" signature or avvy but the problem is in defining the word "positive".

    In some cases the decision would be easy. Obviously anything that overtly slams a person or Diety, or political party is going to show up to everyone. But there is going to be a huge gray area where what's positive to one person is negative to another.

    "Republican - We don't believe in killing babies". or "Democrat - We don't like letting poor people starve" are two examples of this. Are these statements positive or negative? It all depends on who's reading them.

    With this in mind I think I would be more inclined to just prohibit ALL political sigs and avvys. But ..... it doesn't stop there. What about an avvy that slams the Broncos? Or one that says something like "God is a figment of your imagination? And I could go on and on.

    It seems to me that this whole discussion is going down a slippery slope with no bottom in sight. While I applaud your effort to have a board that's friendly to everyone I just don't think it's possible short of banning signatures and avvys completely.

    I, personally, would be in favor of banning the outwardly hostile or negative stuff and leaving it at that. The rest of the gray area stuff should just be ignored by people who don't like them.
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never cease to be amused!" Unknown

  14. The Following User High Fived deacon For This Post:


  15. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Adopted Bronco:
    Josey Jewell
    Posts
    30,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post
    I couldn't agree more. One of the major reason for the shaking up the moderator team and getting fresh blood on board, was it is absolutely critical that there is consistency in modding. You can't have mods showing favoritism to their friends, but coming down hard on those they don't like, or who hold different political views. It won't be tolerated any more.

    In the future, you will find mods that do that are no longer mods.

    Great point, Top.
    Glad to hear that, Tned. Maybe we have alllllllll learned by this.

    -----
    Though He slay me, I will trust in Him . . . (Job 13:15)


  16. The Following User High Fived topscribe For This Post:


  17. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by topscribe View Post
    Glad to hear that, Tned. Maybe we have alllllllll learned by this.

    -----
    Unfortunately, I doesn't seem so. Which is why sometimes change is necessary for the good of the community. You know, the whole Spok thing about the needs of the many far outweighing the needs of the few, or the one...

  18. The Following 3 Users High Fived Tned For This Post:


  19. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon View Post
    I don't think there's any way to have a foolproof system. I see nothing wrong with someone having a "positive" signature or avvy but the problem is in defining the word "positive".

    In some cases the decision would be easy. Obviously anything that overtly slams a person or Diety, or political party is going to show up to everyone. But there is going to be a huge gray area where what's positive to one person is negative to another.

    "Republican - We don't believe in killing babies". or "Democrat - We don't like letting poor people starve" are two examples of this. Are these statements positive or negative? It all depends on who's reading them.

    With this in mind I think I would be more inclined to just prohibit ALL political sigs and avvys. But ..... it doesn't stop there. What about an avvy that slams the Broncos? Or one that says something like "God is a figment of your imagination? And I could go on and on.

    It seems to me that this whole discussion is going down a slippery slope with no bottom in sight. While I applaud your effort to have a board that's friendly to everyone I just don't think it's possible short of banning signatures and avvys completely.

    I, personally, would be in favor of banning the outwardly hostile or negative stuff and leaving it at that. The rest of the gray area stuff should just be ignored by people who don't like them.
    You are correct, it is a slippery slope, and wherever the line is drawn (and one has to be drawn -- whether it be in regard to nudity, politics, religion, fan affiliation), there will ultimately have to be interpretation.

    We certainly don't want to wind up at the bottom of that slippery slope with hundreds of members all having a generic Broncos log as their avvy as the only acceptable image. Yet, at the other end of the extreme, I don't think people that come to a football message board should have to see their President (whether it is Obama or former President Bush) portrayed as monsters, where entire religious or political groups are mocked or attacked, etc.

    So, I think the 'positive' line might make the most sense, with mod and my evaluation of the 'backhanded insults' passed off as 'positive'. The fact is, that I think all of us will recognize them, even if a poster tries to hide behind the letter of the law by saying Republican - We don't believe in killing babies is positive.

    Again, I'm glad we are getting input on this and other parts of the rules, so we can make whatever tweaks are necessary before next week.

  20. The Following User High Fived Tned For This Post:


  21. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Adopted Bronco:
    Josey Jewell
    Posts
    30,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon View Post
    I don't think there's any way to have a foolproof system. I see nothing wrong with someone having a "positive" signature or avvy but the problem is in defining the word "positive".

    In some cases the decision would be easy. Obviously anything that overtly slams a person or Diety, or political party is going to show up to everyone. But there is going to be a huge gray area where what's positive to one person is negative to another.

    "Republican - We don't believe in killing babies". or "Democrat - We don't like letting poor people starve" are two examples of this. Are these statements positive or negative? It all depends on who's reading them.

    With this in mind I think I would be more inclined to just prohibit ALL political sigs and avvys. But ..... it doesn't stop there. What about an avvy that slams the Broncos? Or one that says something like "God is a figment of your imagination? And I could go on and on.

    It seems to me that this whole discussion is going down a slippery slope with no bottom in sight. While I applaud your effort to have a board that's friendly to everyone I just don't think it's possible short of banning signatures and avvys completely.

    I, personally, would be in favor of banning the outwardly hostile or negative stuff and leaving it at that. The rest of the gray area stuff should just be ignored by people who don't like them.
    GREAT post, as usual.

    I would not be adverse to leaving the interpretation to the majority of the
    mods, as to the intent of an avatar or sig . . . a rule banning those that are
    deemed negative with the decision of the mods as the final say.

    -----
    Though He slay me, I will trust in Him . . . (Job 13:15)


  22. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Adopted Bronco:
    Phillip, Demaryius, Derek, Shane, Von,
    Posts
    47,828

    Default

    If there are items which are noted both in the rules and in the guidelines, it needs to be determined whether it is a definite rule, or just a guideline, as there is a major difference in the word rule, vs guideline.

    Thanks to MasterShake for my great signature
    Rest in Peace - Demaryius (88) - Darrent (27) - Damien (29) - Kenny (11)
    #7 - JOHN - #44 - FLOYD - #80 - ROD
    THIS ONES FOR JOHN
    WOULD YOU RATHER WIN UGLY, OR LOSE PRETTY?

  23. The Following 4 Users High Fived Denver Native (Carol) For This Post:


  24. #29
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ray Finkel
    Posts
    86,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tned View Post
    Unfortunately, I doesn't seem so. Which is why sometimes change is necessary for the good of the community. You know, the whole Spok thing about the needs of the many far outweighing the needs of the few, or the one...
    I bet you were waiting to throw that Spock line in there huh?

  25. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    67,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northman View Post
    I bet you were waiting to throw that Spock line in there huh?
    Yea, some movie lines are just classic and so fitting, you have to use them.

  26. The Following 2 Users High Fived Tned For This Post:


Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Mass Effect
    By Timmy! in forum Video Games
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-30-2008, 02:36 AM
  2. Mass Effect
    By Cleveland Rocks in forum Video Games
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 03:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group