Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Suggestion Box

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Suggestion Box

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    It's something to think about, sure.
    Yeah I have seen it on other forums and it works great, we don't really need to open a new thread every time we have a trade proposal all those proposals in one thread should be OK in my opinion.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Suggestion Box

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      The rules are bolded and even above the sticky threads. Is it just that people don't know they are there? Maybe we could make the title Obnoxious Red for a while.
      That'd definitely get them read, if you can change the color of thread titles anyway. I definitely scan right past the stickies, if there was a new one in the default navy blue I'd never see it.

      Comment


      • Re: Suggestion Box

        Have you guys ever considered the idea of making a new joint forum for IU and Purdue athletics, or just a generic forum for all Indiana college athletics. I feel like there is too much there for just a single thread for each college + sport.

        Comment


        • Re: Suggestion Box

          That's basically what the Locker Room is supposed to provide, but once those threads came along, everyone started keeping it all in there. But there's no rule that says it has to be contained all in one thread; there can be as many IU or Purdue threads on that board as people care to make.

          Comment


          • Re: Suggestion Box

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            That's basically what the Locker Room is supposed to provide, but once those threads came along, everyone started keeping it all in there. But there's no rule that says it has to be contained all in one thread; there can be as many IU or Purdue threads on that board as people care to make.
            Oh, well the, in my opinion people on this board need to be less organized!

            Comment


            • Re: Suggestion Box

              Cut down with the over moderation. That's actual constructive criticism, although I'm sure it will be taken personally and I will receive an infraction for disagreeing with the choices of the moderating team.

              Edit: I'll elaborate a bit: In a forum atmosphere, you can't stop people from making sharply pointed comments and/or snarky commentary. If I make a snarky post, and I receive a snarky message in the "deleted for:" box, then I'm probably going to respond with a reasonable amount of annoyance. Now, I'm sure I will be asked to move this to a PM setting, but I put it here because this is where I think it belongs and I think a worthwhile discussion could be made of it.
              Last edited by cdash; 01-10-2014, 01:41 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Suggestion Box

                We're not putting up anymore with people stopping by a thread just to say it's stupid. Apparently you took that post deletion personally, given your attitude and behavior since then.

                If you think doubling-down on posting something that was just deleted by a mod, with an attitude no less, was going to cause anything other than another deleted post and an escalated response to blatant disrespect, you're nuts.

                Comment


                • Re: Suggestion Box

                  As for what you edited into the above while I was replying, I'm sorry you took my comment to have snark behind it, but I was being literal. If the thread is stupid to you, then simply move on.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Suggestion Box

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    We're not putting up anymore with people stopping by a thread just to say it's stupid. Apparently you took that post deletion personally, given your attitude and behavior after that post was deleted.

                    If you think doubling-down on posting something that was just deleted by a mod, with an attitude no less, was going to cause anything other than another deleted post and an escalated response to blatant disrespect, you're nuts.
                    Oh, I made that second post knowing full well I was going to get an infraction. I don't care, I have three per month before I earn a sabbatical.

                    I love your, "with an attitude" comment. Hicks, go read your last post in the vnzla thread. It's clear (and obvious to most everyone who paid attention) that your vendetta against him was personal. When you went on your MAStamper/non-moderating sabbatical you made a few pointed comments that made your stance on him crystal clear. That comment in response to Sollozzo was, as I read it, full of "attitude". You won't like this, and I'm about 90% certain it will earn me my second infraction, but you really need to get some thicker skin about some of this stuff. Your tone in general (as much as it can be relayed via internet posts) is one of dictatorship and "my way or the highway" type of stuff.

                    This isn't just about recent events either. This has been happening for years. The "counting thread" debacle from several years back which alienated a group of really nice guys and overall good posters was absurd, in my opinion. The common thread? Someone (I believe, if memory serves, N8R) challenged your authority and you just couldn't handle it. I'm sure you find ways to justify these actions (well, obviously you do), but in that example you would be hard pressed to find anyone besides you who was bothered by what was going on in that thread. It's overmoderation, or it's some personal thing you have when people cross you. By saying this (and, in essence, challenging you), I realize I've earned a spot in your crosshairs. That's fine. I'm just voicing concerns that may bother very few people, or a lot of people, I honestly don't know. It might just be me being an *******. I think this arena is better than PMs to discuss it because I believe in transparency, plus if there ever was a thread where these discussions could take place, it would be this one. We are not derailing any other discussion. Think of it as an ombudsman type of thing.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Suggestion Box

                      I'll add one more thing: I realize moderating a forum with this many members can be challenging, and I understand that difficult decisions can and must be made. I don't like the vnzla banning, but from his general behavior and tendency to bait other people into the endless circle of debating the same thing in every thread, I can see where it came from. I don't necessarily like how it came about, but can ultimately respect the decision. I'm not being critical for the sake of being critical, and I'm not simply irritated at you, personally, Hicks. I just don't like the "closed door" stuff and wish us, as members of the posting community, could have a say or at least be privy to what the moderators' discussions on certain subjects are. Again, I'm trying to be constructive here.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Suggestion Box

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        Oh, I made that second post knowing full well I was going to get an infraction. I don't care
                        While I'm sure the opinions being expressed are honest, this is largely a farce because it was prompted by you being upset with how I treated your post, nothing more nothing less.

                        You blatantly did something against the rules. Go read them again if you don't believe me. And with that being the case, any admin has every right to delete your post. Nothing to apologize for there. When I said to just ignore the thread if you think it's stupid, that was literally all I meant by it, no hidden meaning or attitude attached. So the rest of what followed was you misinterpreting my 'tone', getting angry about it, and then, as you've admitted, you knew damn well that by mouthing off with that second post you made that it would get an infraction and be deleted. So, again, nothing for me to apologize for. That is all on you, and this is what got you in here complaining and criticizing me.

                        If that's your standard for over-moderation, that's just insane. You don't like one of the rules, and when it was enforced you got mad and unapologetically broke it again. That's all on you, not me.

                        Given all of that, I can just as easily accuse you of being thin-skinned and adopting a 'my way or the highway' attitude yourself.

                        As for the rest of this:

                        Of course I have negative personal feelings about vnzla81. But guess what? I've had them for years, yet he remained, so your theory is bunk. He earned his exit, as even you can see, an on the heels of his Nth go round of doing something inappropriate (I can explain the infraction, but you'll just criticize it, even though it's legitimate, so why bother), and yet had the nerve to take shots and the site and at me for the Nth time as well. If that's not a good time to go ahead and do what ought to have been done earlier as it is, then there never is a good time short of waiting for him to do something nuclear-bad. Enough.

                        As for the 'tone' of my last reply in that thread, I didn't write it with an attitude, and frankly I just don't see what you're talking about. I think this is just a weak attempt to 'equalize' us since I've already criticized your attitude.

                        Like everyone else on this planet, my skin will seem thick to some, thin to others, and it will depend on the case and the context on top of that. Specifically regarding the case of deleting your post, that didn't even factor in. That's simply something we discourage on PD, period, and the revised rules made that abundantly clear. Me enforcing them or defending my actions doesn't make it petty, personal, or thin-skinned.

                        As for this 'dictator' stuff, any time you are on a privately-run website, you are not entitled to do and say whatever you want, but the powers that be are entitled to ban you or censor you as they see fit. It's just a matter of what their personality and attitudes are that vary from place to place. So, technically, everyone who has a website is a 'dictator' in that regard; they get to call the shots. But beyond that, to suggest all I do is whatever sounds or feels good, everyone else's feelings/thoughts be damned, is false. I didn't do what you would have done, so I'm some jerk dictator with no justifications for his actions. That's basically all this amounts to.

                        Look, I've said many times over the years that sometimes I **** up, get it wrong, but at the same time when that happens I own up to it. Could I have handled the counting thread incident better? Yeah. Does that absolve other parties from their roles or responsibilities in what happened? No. Did I have any valid reason to what I did? Yes. Do I think they overreacted much how you feel I overreacted on my end? Yes. We're human beings, we're going to disagree sometimes. It is what it is.

                        If you call all of that over-moderation, then so be it, but I disagree, and I don't know if there's anything else to say about it than that.

                        As for you being 'in my crosshairs', the only reason I might feel that way is because of how you act when you get mad. You get mean, you get sarcastic, you take shots, and you get offended because someone told you 'no' when you didn't want to be told 'no', and you break rules on purpose because you don't give a ****. That's a red flag to most administrators of a web forum. That should be self-evident as to why. That's not personal, that's basic stuff.

                        My reaction to you today in no way supports the concept of me having a bad attitude or tone or being a bad administrator. You just don't like how things are, so I have to be the bad guy. That's all it is.

                        And I'll point out that if I were everything you claim I am, then I would have banned you rather than taking the time to give a long and thought-out response. Yet you are not banned, you did not receive two more infractions for two posts you were pretty damn sure would earn you two more, and here I am responding to the post. Maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.

                        As for this being in public, I don't have a problem with it. Was the suggestion box the place for it? At first, yes, when you started making it about how bad I am as an admin, no, because then it's not about suggestions it's specifically about criticizing my role on the site, and that's beyond some suggestion. But whatever.

                        As for transparency, it's pretty much a standard operating procedure for most all Internet forums for there to be a private administrators-only board to privately discuss forum matters and forum policy. I don't think that needs to change. Sandman is also correct in the V thread when he points out that the amount of time I have taken to explain myself regarding that banishment goes beyond what most admins would do, so I don't think I have a problem in that sense, either.

                        If you want a forum that's run more democratically than it currently is, that's just not likely going to happen, and I really don't think there's anything atypical (relative to most forums) about that stance. I created the site, able hosts and maintains the site on the tech side, and the rest of the administrators were all recruited members of the forum because they were all active and well-respected posters in the community. Also, just because things don't always happen the way you approve of, it doesn't mean that we don't think about or listen to other people and their opinions, either. It just means we're not always going to do what someone else thinks should be done.

                        And, no, every time we think we see a problem with someone's posting behavior, we're not going to start a public thread announcing our concerns. That's unnecessary in general, and it needlessly humiliates whomever we're worried about. When problems arise, we discuss them, we privately reach out to people about them, and then otherwise we snip or delete posts as we feel is appropriate based on our perceptions of misbehavior/broken rules. Nothing more, nothing less.

                        To wrap this up, if I were what you claim I am, I would ban you, I would have banned V years ago, I would not be writing this, and for that matter there would not even be a suggestion box thread or for that matter a feedback board at all, because in that case, I would not give a **** what anyone had to say. Yet here we are.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Suggestion Box

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          While I'm sure the opinions being expressed are honest, this is largely a farce because it was prompted by you being upset with how I treated your post, nothing more nothing less.
                          I'll agree to a certain extent it was a farce. I baited you into it with both of those posts, really. I was irked by the vnzla ban (and this coming from someone who was on the receiving end of many, many of vnzla's barbs), and your hyper-sensitive response to Sollozzo's post. So really, both the deleted post and the reaction were a "farce" to give me an excuse to hop on my soapbox. Like I said, I was willing to take the infraction knowing full well even if I get two, I won't get a third in a month-long span.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          You blatantly did something against the rules. Go read them again if you don't believe me. And with that being the case, any admin has every right to delete your post. Nothing to apologize for there. When I said to just ignore the thread if you think it's stupid, that was literally all I meant by it, no hidden meaning or attitude attached. So the rest of what followed was you misinterpreting my 'tone', getting angry about it, and then, as you've admitted, you knew damn well that by mouthing off with that second post you made that it would get an infraction and be deleted. So, again, nothing for me to apologize for. That is all on you, and this is what got you in here complaining and criticizing me.
                          I know I did. Your "ignore it if you don't like it" thing irked me a little more, because you could have simply deleted the post and said, "violation of forum rules" but you chose to get snarky with me, so I was a little more aggressive with my second post. Banning me from participating in the thread was an extra nice touch. Not that it really bothers me all that much, because that thread is full of lunacy. Also, I'm not looking for any sort of apology from you. Even if I was, I'm smart enough to know I wouldn't ever get one.
                          [/QUOTE]

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          If that's your standard for over-moderation, that's just insane. You don't like one of the rules, and when it was enforced you got mad and unapologetically broke it again. That's all on you, not me.
                          Oversimplifying a bit, aren't we? Also, are you insinuating that I'm insane? If I did the same to you, would I receive an infraction? I rather doubt it, but your tender underbelly is starting to show.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Given all of that, I can just as easily accuse you of being thin-skinned and adopting a 'my way or the highway' attitude yourself.
                          You are more than welcome to do so. I don't think you will find a great deal of evidence to support the "my way or the highway" aspect, seeing as how I have absolutely no power here, but you are free to think what you like.[/QUOTE]

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          As for the rest of this:

                          Of course I have negative personal feelings about vnzla81. But guess what? I've had them for years, yet he remained, so your theory is bunk. He earned his exit, as even you can see, an on the heels of his Nth go round of doing something inappropriate (I can explain the infraction, but you'll just criticize it, even though it's legitimate, so why bother), and yet had the nerve to take shots and the site and at me for the Nth time as well. If that's not a good time to go ahead and do what ought to have been done earlier as it is, then there never is a good time short of waiting for him to do something nuclear-bad. Enough.
                          Just because you have a personal vendetta and have had one for years does not debunk anything, Hicks. Rarely is the case where someone has a personal vendetta and can act immediately upon it, or at least someone in a position or "power" over another. You needed those years of your growing vendetta to make a case against him. As you said in the other thread, he was an expert at toeing the line. I agree, he earned his exit by constantly pissing in your face, and openly defying the rules you guys had laid out for him. I think we all knew once he was banned the first time how he would react, and that it was just a matter of time before his ban became permanent. I don't like that it ever got to this point, and honestly, if you had stayed away from moderating, I think vnzla would be here still, and I don't think he would have been as openly antagonistic as he was the past several months. That's not an indictment only on you, as obviously vnzla, being the master of pressing buttons that he was, played an equally key role in a situation where neither of you was going to back down.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          As for the 'tone' of my last reply in that thread, I didn't write it with an attitude, and frankly I just don't see what you're talking about. I think this is just a weak attempt to 'equalize' us since I've already criticized your attitude.

                          Like everyone else on this planet, my skin will seem thick to some, thin to others, and it will depend on the case and the context on top of that. Specifically regarding the case of deleting your post, that didn't even factor in. That's simply something we discourage on PD, period, and the revised rules made that abundantly clear. Me enforcing them or defending my actions doesn't make it petty, personal, or thin-skinned.
                          You might not have written it with an attitude. That's the ugly of the internet. But I can tell you it came off that way, whether it was your intention or not. I'm not trying to equalize anything. I know my attitude can and does rub people the wrong way on here. I would wager that 90% of the time my aim is not to be an *******, but realize it can and does come off that way. It's a self-awareness that I have, and accept as part of posting on the internet. Sometimes I think that line is blurred for you. You seem to take stuff very personally. Just my opinion, of course. And let's drop the deleted post stuff--that was just a vehicle for this conversation (which I think is, or will be, productive, although it may not be enjoyable).

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          As for this 'dictator' stuff, any time you are on a privately-run website, you are not entitled to do and say whatever you want, but the powers that be are entitled to ban you or censor you as they see fit. It's just a matter of what their personality and attitudes are that vary from place to place. So, technically, everyone who has a website is a 'dictator' in that regard; they get to call the shots. But beyond that, to suggest all I do is whatever sounds or feels good, everyone else's feelings/thoughts be damned, is false. I didn't do what you would have done, so I'm some jerk dictator with no justifications for his actions. That's basically all this amounts to.
                          Dictator was perhaps a strong adjective to use there. I apologize for that. But you definitely seem to relish the fact that you have power that others don't. No, we handle things in different ways. Not saying either one is better than the other, but obviously, like anyone else, I'm going to feel that my way is the superior way because, well, it's the way I do things and I handle people and difficult situations in a certain way that has been met with success. For the record, I did not call you a jerk, and I think I even acknowledged that you have justifications for your actions and have conceded some of them, so let's cut the hyperbole down a notch, shall we?

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Look, I've said many times over the years that sometimes I **** up, get it wrong, but at the same time when that happens I own up to it. Could I have handled the counting thread incident better? Yeah. Does that absolve other parties from their roles or responsibilities in what happened? No. Did I have any valid reason to what I did? Yes. Do I think they overreacted much how you feel I overreacted on my end? Yes. We're human beings, we're going to disagree sometimes. It is what it is.

                          If you call all of that over-moderation, then so be it, but I disagree, and I don't know if there's anything else to say about it than that.
                          I've honestly never seen you admit that you've ****ed up, or at least not about moderating issues. Obviously that's not saying you haven't, but I had never seen it, and I can only go by the information I possess. I do think that was over-moderation, yes. You disagree, as I suspected you would, but there has never really been a place to talk about stuff like this, which is part of the reason I wanted it out in the open and initiated this. I don't know if you give this stuff all that much thought or how your moderating team works. For all I know, they just ride along with what you say. It all happens behind the scenes. Obviously, I'm not a mod so I am not privy to that, and I'm not saying I should be, but I think it's healthy to be challenged sometimes. People need to be called out from time to time. Say what you want about vnzla, but he spoke his mind and after my initial irritation with it, I came to respect that part and kind of brush over some of his other antics.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          As for you being 'in my crosshairs', the only reason I might feel that way is because of how you act when you get mad. You get mean, you get sarcastic, you take shots, and you get offended because someone told you 'no' when you didn't want to be told 'no', and you break rules on purpose because you don't give a ****. That's a red flag to most administrators of a web forum. That should be self-evident as to why. That's not personal, that's basic stuff.

                          My reaction to you today in no way supports the concept of me having a bad attitude or tone or being a bad administrator. You just don't like how things are, so I have to be the bad guy. That's all it is.
                          How I act when I get mad? I took one shot and then took it here, and I think this is a fairly healthy discussion. You probably don't think so, but we'll just disagree about that too. I am always sarcastic, and I will take shots at people. It happens. It's a forum. I've had plenty of them lobbed my way, too. It's part of dishing it out: I know I'm going to get them back, and prepare myself accordingly. I never said you were a bad administrator. You are getting a little dramatic here. In fact, I think I sent you a PM a year or two ago (can't remember when, exactly) where I apologized to you for being an ******* at a time when I clearly was, and then commended you on how you ran this site. I can still be critical of certain aspects of you how do it, and I think over-moderation is one of those.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          And I'll point out that if I were everything you claim I am, then I would have banned you rather than taking the time to give a long and thought-out response. Yet you are not banned, you did not receive two more infractions for two posts you were pretty damn sure would earn you two more, and here I am responding to the post. Maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.
                          You and I both know you don't have anything you can ban me for. I have (I think) 7 total infractions in 4 years, with 3 of them coming within one 20 minute period that resulted in my being banned for a month. I took issue with that because to me, logically, it should have been one infraction for the whole episode (I repeated the same thing three separate times in three separate posts) and a sternly worded PM, as at the time those were my first three infractions I believe. You are taking what I'm saying, and mixing in a fair amount of hyperbole. No need. Also, I knew I wouldn't get infractions for those posts. That's why I put it in there. If you had given me an infraction for it, you would have just proven my point. We both know that wasn't going to happen. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe you are too. Maybe, just maybe, there's a middle ground here.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          As for this being in public, I don't have a problem with it. Was the suggestion box the place for it? At first, yes, when you started making it about how bad I am as an admin, no, because then it's not about suggestions it's specifically about criticizing my role on the site, and that's beyond some suggestion. But whatever.

                          As for transparency, it's pretty much a standard operating procedure for most all Internet forums for there to be a private administrators-only board to privately discuss forum matters and forum policy. I don't think that needs to change. Sandman is also correct in the V thread when he points out that the amount of time I have taken to explain myself regarding that banishment goes beyond what most admins would do, so I don't think I have a problem in that sense, either.
                          I never once said you were a bad admin. I said I disagreed with the way you handle things sometimes and think you overmoderate at times. You took it as an attack. Obviously, there has to be a private place for the admins to discuss things. I'm not challenging that or insinuating that this be some sort of democracy, because that is lunacy. I noticed able (another mod I feel overmoderates at times) made a pointed reference in the vnzla thread about that, and it's not what I meant. I just think getting some perspective from the moderating team when rules change or a prolific poster gets banned deserves some sort of explanation, and due to your (admitted) personal vendetta against vnzla, I didn't really think you were the best person to be the spokesperson for the group. I'm not going to pat you on the back for doing something that I think is expected in your duties though. Had Sollozzo never made the post about it, it obviously never would have been brought up until somebody else noticed.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          If you want a forum that's run more democratically than it currently is, that's just not likely going to happen, and I really don't think there's anything atypical (relative to most forums) about that stance. I created the site, able hosts and maintains the site on the tech side, and the rest of the administrators were all recruited members of the forum because they were all active and well-respected posters in the community. Also, just because things don't always happen the way you approve of, it doesn't mean that we don't think about or listen to other people and their opinions, either. It just means we're not always going to do what someone else thinks should be done.
                          No **** it's not going to happen. Probably a poor choice of words on my part again to use the word "democracy". This whole operation is about getting you to listen to other people and their opinions. These are my opinions. I don't expect my word to be taken for gospel, I just wanted to voice some concerns that I think other members have maybe thought from time to time. Or maybe they haven't.

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          And, no, every time we think we see a problem with someone's posting behavior, we're not going to start a public thread announcing our concerns. That's unnecessary in general, and it needlessly humiliates whomever we're worried about. When problems arise, we discuss them, we privately reach out to people about them, and then otherwise we snip or delete posts as we feel is appropriate based on our perceptions of misbehavior/broken rules. Nothing more, nothing less.
                          To wrap this up, if I were what you claim I am, I would ban you, I would have banned V years ago, I would not be writing this, and for that matter there would not even be a suggestion box thread or for that matter a feedback board at all, because in that case, I would not give a **** what anyone had to say. Yet here we are.
                          I'm not claiming you are anything, Hicks. You are taking what I (attempted, possibly poorly) to portay as constructive criticism and making yourself appear to be some sort of victim here. I know you aren't going to ban me. I know you wanted to ban V years ago, by your own admission. That's not the point. I just wanted to voice some concerns I had. I don't particularly appreciate micromanaging bosses, and that's how you come across. You are in an obvious position of power, and certainly no one forgets it. I think you nip things in the bud before they are ever really a problem, and in doing so, sometimes you create a bigger mess than would have occurred if you had simply let things run their course. Does that make you a bad admin? Nope. It's admirable that you care enough about this board and this community that you are willing to go to such lengths to make it an inviting place. But you aren't above criticism either. Nor am I for my posting habits, and nor am I pretending to be.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Suggestion Box

                            So you deliberately broke the rules, and because you misinterpreted my comment to read into snark that wasn't there, copped an attitude publicly and privately, told me you don't care, baited me into possibly giving you more infractions to try to make me look bad, and that is your pretense for having an open and honest conversation about admin/forum policy? You went about this completely the wrong way, and I have no respect for that. I'm not going to keep the discussion going due to your deceitful and rude methods. It overshadows everything else you're trying to say.

                            You basically strike me as someone who does what he wants as long as he's okay with it, regardless of what anyone with authority thinks. I can't stop you from having that mentality, but don't expect me to respect you when you act this way. Unbelievable.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Suggestion Box

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              So you deliberately broke the rules, and because you misinterpreted my comment to read into snark that wasn't there, copped an attitude publicly and privately, told me you don't care, baited me into possibly giving you more infractions to try to make me look bad, and that is your pretense for having an open and honest conversation about admin/forum policy? You went about this completely the wrong way, and I have no respect for that. I'm not going to keep the discussion going due to your deceitful and rude methods. It overshadows everything else you're trying to say.

                              You basically strike me as someone who does what he wants as long as he's okay with it, regardless of what anyone with authority thinks. I can't stop you from having that mentality, but don't expect me to respect you when you act this way. Unbelievable.
                              Right. Pretty much what I expected. You focus on the negative to negate any potential of wrongdoing on your part, make me out to be some sort of crazed out of line poster, and ignore anything positive from the discussion. Hicks, come on. Engage in the dialogue and try to be constructive. You don't have to respect how it got here, but you and I both know I have legitimate points. Paint me as the person wearing the black hat, I don't mind. But as someone in a leadership position...act like it instead of dismissing anything critical of you.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Suggestion Box

                                I have a suggestion. Maybe it will lighten things up.

                                Just wondering if cdash could update his avatar. Calbert Cheaney isn't a good enough player to still be on an avatar in 2014. Also, Bob Knight is more likely to visit West Lafayette wearing a black & gold sweater than visit Bloomington in a red one. It's also pretty unfair to be reminded of IU when you're an old Purdue fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X