As Tom Brady would say "this isn't ISIS, no one is getting killed".
As Tom Brady would say "this isn't ISIS, no one is getting killed".
Bill Williamson:
"The Broncos went from one of the more attractive organizations in the NFL to one in total disarray. McDaniels will go down as one of the most reviled figures in Denver sports history".
Wait Turf... that's not fair.
The Town Hall is made for our members to have the right to bring things to discussion. I don't see how her suggestion is mean oriented or attacking anyone.
There are obviously reasons as to why Tned and the mods are choosing to not disclose what goes on behind closed doors, so how about we start there and someone simply explain the reasoning...thoughts.. behind it in a civil manner?
I personally am ok with it staying behind closed doors. I'm also ok with things generally being judged on a case to case basis....but I don't think its a crazy question for the reasons to be explained, is it?
OB took the proper steps in posting a town hall discussion, I think she deserves the respect that she's showing in return.
(the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)
What does knowing do for you? Just curious. Does knowing what went into that decision help make you a better poster or does it make you stop to think before you post something or is it just good for reading fodder that you would want to know that? I mean to change a rule it has to make some sense and I just want to know because it's more board fodder just isn't a good reason. We've given way more insight today than we ever have about a ban and that's mostly just because we're all bored shitless and it felt like we had to be on the defensive today. I'm not trying to be shitty here, just wondering what good it would do to discuss that, beings we will probably not be this open to conversation about later bans.
I think GEM, intentionally or unintentionally, gave a good reason as to why it should remain behind closed doors.
Putting it out into public forum means it causes heated debates. "This isn't fair" "That's not what he said/meant/insinuated." That just leads to more backlash and arguments over nothing that will be changed. Do we REALLY think that if we knew the reasons a person was banned, as to what they were saying behind in PMs or whatevers, that we can argue a person's time to be re-instated? If there were/are more parties involved, and its a question on whether or not something was a joke, do we not believe that those questions aren't researched before a decision is made?
I don't know what the benefit of having the private discussions put on display would solve, and feel it would most likely cause more harm.
(the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)
Well you kind of answered your own question - we got way more info than we normally do today and once most of us found out we let it go.
I am asking for a LITTLE more transparency and some of us are asking if there is a way to be a little more consistent in how long people are banned
I dont know why I like to know WHY something happened - thats just who I am - I dont just sit there and say oh this happened and I dont know why but I am ok with it - if I can figure out why, I do.
I think I made it quite clear as to why I personally had an issue with WTE's ban (and it had nothing to do with WTE - I have spoken with a couple of mods in a PM about why I was posting what I was posting and things have worked themselves out)
The reason you werent included Turf - well your title says it all and your posts in this thread just confirm my reasoning in approaching the mods I did approach with my issue - it also makes me wonder how impartial you really are - good day sir
Having been a mod on the other site in the past, I can say I fully support not having open discussions about suspensions and bannings. I know this site is run a little differently, but having full disclosure about those things is a big can of worms.
I like having WTE around, but he should have had the self awareness to leave the thread if he was getting to the point where he was saying things he knows he'll get in trouble for. We all know when our emotions are getting out of control and need to take a time out. Sometimes we choose to ignore that need and someone else has to put us in timeout.
Look what has happened today because we were more candid than normal. There are just some things that are better left behind closed doors as it does nothing to move forward on the board. It's counter productive to moving forward discussing the reason someone who isn't here was banned. They may feel just as strongly that it's no one else's business.
No, no one let it go. I spent most of my day on these boards defending a ban that was well earned by a member who kept breaking rules. That isn't productive for anyone.
And as I said before many times over, there is a reason it jumped as it did. I just don't see the benefit of changing this rule and would be opposed to it.
Bill Williamson:
"The Broncos went from one of the more attractive organizations in the NFL to one in total disarray. McDaniels will go down as one of the most reviled figures in Denver sports history".
See now was that so hard
Maybe things took a turn for the worse in here today because of everyones tempers flaring but I just truly wanted to address these issues on a general level - maybe I should have waited a day or two before starting this thread and it would have been taken in a different context
EDIT: I posted this before I read your reply turf - so it wasnt directed solely at you - I appreciate your apology
And this is why I think ban lengths should be more uniform. Say the second offense is 14 days, and everyone knows that. Then, if that was the ban WTE had gotten, I don't think you'd have seen near the uproar about it. I mean in the grand scheme of things, is the difference between a 14 day ban and a 30 day ban really going to make any sort of difference in someone's future behavoir? Probably not. And it also saves the mods the headache of trying to determine different ban lengths for different cases.
I think a system like 7, 14, 30, then perma or something of the like for offenses across the board would save the mods time, be just as effective as the current system, and reduce the amount of outrage over people being banned. I guess I just don't see the downside to something like this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)