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

Vnzla81

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Vnzla81

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    I thought that the PMs that you posted were directed at you by Vnzla. Was those PMs his exact exchanges with Hicks?
    Yes, as far as I know.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Vnzla81

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      Yes, as far as I know.
      I see. Thanks for answering this question, mate.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Vnzla81

        Originally posted by khaos01207 View Post
        Hicks understand that most users here on PD believe you were justified as well, and there isn't some grand conspiracy against you just a couple disgruntled friends of Vnz who refuse to acknowledge that this has been a problem for years on end.

        If you were as petty as they are trying (and failing) to make you seem they would have been banned on the spot for questioning an admin decision.

        You have went far and beyond what most admins on most sites would have, you can't please everyone.
        Nice post, but there isn't a topic on this board that has ever pleased everyone. Hopefully we can move on and save everyone's skin here.

        Personally, I would welcome back both OlBlu and V. I know they are both trolls, but they are "our" trolls. At the same time I don't have to police them and I know they are high maintenance. But I know that both brought some entertainment to the board while also making some very good points.

        Even now, I recall OlBlu ranting about Peyton Manning and as we all know now, Peyton has torn it up in Denver and set NFL records putting up better numbers there than he ever did here. Peyton may well play another 5 years at this rate. OlBlu might not even be alive today, but he's vindicated.

        Then you have V who is right about Granger and the whole issue of him starting vs Lance. That Atlanta loss showed how much we miss Lance...and even if we had two or three Grangers, it's not as important as one Lance.

        In any event, I will miss V and hope he finds someplace to call home...

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Vnzla81

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Then you have V who is right about Granger
          He really isn't, though.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Vnzla81

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            OlBlu might not even be alive today, but he's vindicated.

            He was alive as of December 20:

            (note the thread starter....)

            http://forums.colts.com/topic/24430-...qbs-this-year/

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Vnzla81

              Let's keep this about feedback to the admins and their responses and not discuss other topics.

              Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Vnzla81

                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                V lives on. It was nice knowing you McKeyFan.
                I don't see me being penalized for posting the pm's. Hicks was not in a position to ethically post them without V's permission. I'd like to think I offered a service to better understanding the concerns in this thread.

                Are there some decisions I'd like to see done differently. Yep. But, at the end of the day, I have to remind myself that this is a free forum run by volunteers. So I do appreciate the service and the effort.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Vnzla81

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  A shorter leash to the point where he basically couldn't give his opinion any longer. A leash so short that he got an infraction for a tame one line post that would be glossed over if it were literally any other poster. When you start basically making up new rules for a specific poster, then it crosses into vendetta territory.
                  Wow, he's even got you making him a victim now. He could give his opinion, he could give it the way you do. Instead, he chose to be a constant *******, so he got banned. It's not what he said, but rather HOW he said it.

                  You might consider them making them up, but the rules changed quite a while ago and they were done so to try to avoid the problems. V couldn't adjust to the rules, he was given multiple chances too. Sooner or later, you reach the point where your bite doesn't mean anything or you follow through with the threats.

                  I would have thought his 30 day vacation would have been a clear warning to him.

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Why does it matter to me? I liked the guy and enjoyed talking with him. I'm not saying that he was perfect, but I do feel that he was definitely done wrong here.
                  He's not dead. PM BnG and maybe he can give you the list where Vnzla wants people to follow him on other sites.

                  EDIT: If you really think the admins are this vindictive, you'd think they'd ban you too instead of answering your questions and actually holding a debate on the topic.
                  Last edited by Since86; 01-12-2014, 07:27 PM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Vnzla81

                    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                    When reading this thread I was amazed at your unreasonableness. If Hicks had had a vendetta, with his authority he wouldn't have taken such a long time to act on it! And he wasn't the one that suspended V a month ago.

                    No kidding. The guy got a leash that was 3 years long, and the complaint is that the leash is too short...
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vnzla81

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      If any other poster had posted the comment that led to vnzla's infraction and subsequent ban, would it have earned an infraction? Literally--ANY other member of this board.
                      I've avoided this place for awhile, but I can't think of any other current posters that would...but OlBlu probably would, and I can think of some that would have from years past...both from here or RealGM.

                      Would any moderator besides Hicks have given vnzla or--literally--anyone else an infraction for that post? And yes I know the history and the backstory and the "I farted daddy" analogies but let's try to break this down from the abstract into the simplest terms possible. If Hicks didn't have a personal problem with vnzla, would these 64 posts worth of discussion have happened? That was only quasi-rhetorical.
                      True, the post in question - taken by itself without any context - should not have drawn an infraction. True, the personal animosity between vnzla and Hicks played too large of a role in the event immediately preceding vnzla's banning. But...what you're implying here - that vnzla was only banned because Hicks didn't like him - is completely untrue.

                      Vnzla was banned, because a lot of people didn't like him.

                      What many don't understand - or perhaps, don't want to admit - is that this is why virtually all poster bannings happen. In the vast majority of cases, said poster is kind enough to commit obvious, ban-worthy offenses. Most are about as subtle as a jackhammer, though considerably less intelligent, so nobody misses them. But...while most have specific events that can be conveniently pointed out as evidence, the reason that KOBEROXLEBRONSUXAZZ69 was shown the door was because he couldn't play well with others.

                      Vnzla - and posters like him - are much more difficult and much worse than your run-of-the-mill dumbass. They are the bane of forums, forum members, and forum mods all over. Vnzla didn't respect anything, except his own opinion, and he made that clear to everyone. Then, when people responded in kind, he played the victim. The cycle repeats over and over again, until their very presence creates the problem.

                      The problem that moderators and other posters face has multiple aspects. First, is that stealth trolls like these rarely commit overt acts. They just poke. And they poke. And they poke. In that context, no comment they make is ever innocuous. All of this leads to the second part of the problem, which is the reactions that the poking provokes. The troll creates the environment - is really the cause of the problem - but other posters end up committing the violations, and the moderators are stuck in between.

                      But, far more problematic, is that their presence becomes pervasive. Vnzla infected the entire Pacer board...or at least he did up to just before the season started, when I essentially stopped coming here. I can't think of a long-form topic thread over the last two seasons that didn't have a least one of the following exchanges:

                      1. low grade vnzla snark
                      2. somebody taking the bait
                      3. vnzla upping the snark
                      4. the responder upping his complaints
                      5. people telling the responder to ignore vnzla
                      6. people *****ing about vnzla, some requesting a ban
                      7. people *****ing about people *****ing about vnzla
                      8. someone trying to make it about people persecuting vnzla for having unpopular beliefs (it never was, and he rarely did)
                      then, either
                      9. a valiant few heroically drag the thread back on topic
                      or
                      9b. the thread dies.

                      Guh.

                      Vnzla made the whole forum worse - in a lot of ways - but the most damaging was that his presence fed an atmosphere in which everyone treated everyone else just a little bit worse each day. Reacting to, dealing with, avoiding, and being unable to avoid vnzla adversely affected how other posters operated and posted. I'll give an example that will require a personal, face-to-face apology from me on Tuesday night to that person on Tuesday night (or at one of the games this week).

                      BillS is a great guy and one of the best posters on here. He's one of the few that I speak to personally, and I have a lot of respect for him. However, I do believe that his posting style has become increasingly shrill and preemptively sarcastic over the last couple of years - a time frame during which Bill and the rest of the moderating team has spent working with vnzla on the issues the board was having with him.

                      It's not just Bill. In the few times that I was sucked into the vnzla vortex, I found myself re-reading posts that I thought - in retrospect - were unhelpful, or deleting drafts of post that were just plain ugly. Whenever vnzla was involved, I felt both stupider and meaner.

                      And, cdash, I think it played a big role in the exchange you had with Hicks in the suggestion box. I think Hicks was in vnzla-mode, and while I think he was wrong in the way he handled that specific instance, I can very clearly understand how it could happen without any malicious intent.

                      But, more importantly, the existence of guys like vnzla - and OlBlu - is the reason for the creation of rules like the one mentioned. It is - from a general point of view - a pretty useless rule. But, as the general tone on a board gets worse, moderators begin to enumerate rules in order to address specific symptoms. These rules plug leaks, but don't address the cause and tend to create a lot of collateral damage among posters who are good actors. This ends up looking like over-moderating, but it's actually just over-compensating. It's really reflective of a different kind of moderating failure, generally, one made earlier involving a different situation and, usually, grossly under-moderating it or a different poster.

                      You object to the abstract, but this entire situation exists in what you call the "abstract." It's all about tone and tenor and how people generally treat each other on the board. Vnzla getting banned has seemed to be a long time coming, but it seems to me it was always going to be something like this. For me, vnzla's actually banworthy crime was being an unrelenting gaping *** hole for the better part of the last five years. For others, the fact that he's been the same gaping *** hole for the better part of five years without being banned means that he shouldn't be banned at all.

                      This type of banning makes people uncomfortable, because there isn't anything to tie it up all nice and neat. Also, It touches heavily on what kind of forum this will be. For things like, it feels like there should be very detailed rules that everybody understands.

                      However, that's not how it really works. There aren't detailed rules...there's really just one, and everybody understands it...Don't be a dick.

                      Now, that doesn't mean that everyone has to be endlessly polite. It doesn't mean things can't ever get heated, or that people won't be frustrated. It doesn't mean everyone will have exactly the same definition. It does, however, mean that if you want to participate in a forum, you have to respect the differences and make a good faith effort to be a good actor in the community. It means that people have to understand that this is a conversation...not a test...not negotiating peace in the Middle East. People have to recognize that being wrong isn't the end of the world, and more important than anything else, being right doesn't make it OK to be a complete jackass.

                      cdash, you and I have interacted with each other for years, both here and on RealGM. We weren't friends, but we have gotten along reasonably well for most of that time. This is true, despite the fact we have very different posting styles and very different tastes in terms of the type of interaction we enjoy. The reason it can work, is that we respect the differences and do not create situations to lead to problems.

                      This is something vnzla never even attempted to do. You, personally, decided to not let the treatment vnzla gave you bother you. However, that seems like a lot to ask of people who are just wanting to talk about their favorite team. Most of us have a sense of when we go over the line into being actually offensive. Most of us understand how our words will be taken. Most of us are capable of understanding who we are having exchange with, and when barbs would be good-natured banter and when it's just mean-spirited baiting. Vnzla did not - would not - acknowledge any of that, because to him, only he mattered.

                      And for all of those reasons and more, vnzla richly deserved to be shown the door.

                      But, that doesn't mean the situation was well-moderated, or that the mods don't have to get their house in better order. It just means Hicks isn't the bad guy, here. Hicks is taking the brunt of the abuse, because he was the guy stuck holding the bag for Peck, Shade, and the other mods who did little or nothing while the situation continued to deteriorate. Really, there is no universe in which vnzla is an innocent and Hicks a power-hungry ogre.

                      The board can get stronger here, by the board recognizing why vnzla had to go, and by the moderators recognizing where they let this get away from them. It can get worse, too, but not for lack of vnzla.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vnzla81

                        Remarkably candid. Thanks count.

                        cdash, you and I have interacted with each other for years, both here and on RealGM. We weren't friends, but we have gotten along reasonably well for most of that time. This is true, despite the fact we have very different posting styles and very different tastes in terms of the type of interaction we enjoy. The reason it can work, is that we respect the differences and do not create situations to lead to problems.
                        Yes, I would wager we have interacted with one another for 6-7 years between here and RealGM. That was the first forum I ever participated in, and remember very specifically being a royal pain in your *** as at the time you moderated that forum. I learned a lot from acting like a flaming bag of dicks back in those days. I think I even PMed you at one point here to apologize for my asshattery at RealGM.

                        Good post though. I have largely bowed out of this discussion and really have not kept up with this thread since I made that post, and will continue to do so. It's hit the point where we are talking in circles.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vnzla81

                          The problem I see with the above is comparing Vnzla with Ol'Blu. That is not an apples to apples comparison. Ol Blu staked claim to any position that he knew would cause people to argue with him. He didn't bring anything to the table except posts and comments that were intentionally to get a reaction. He's a lot like the analogy someone mentioned about going to another team's board and telling them their top players suck.

                          Vnzla just had a contrary opinion ON SOME THINGS with the vocal majority of the forum. Far from all things though. Vnzla is clearly a Pacers fan. Ol' Blu might not even be a football fan. OL Blu wasn't posting to share opinions and debate other Pacer (or Colts) fans. That is a big difference for Vnzla.

                          But what was allowed to happen with Vnzla was posters were allowed to poke at him and ridicule his opinions that didn't match with their own. He could dish it out as well as take it and so he did. But nobody really chided the posters for mocking him or ridiculing him. No mod ever rode in and said "Stop it... Both sides! Vnzla has a right to his opinions just as much as you do and even when it's a minority opinion it doesn't make him necessarily wrong". Instead, mods piled on too. Only Vnzla was called out. It was a vicious cycle because that just encouraged others to do it even more. And it empowered the vocal majority to feel even more confident in their positions.

                          Basically it became OK to insult Vnzla. But the reverse was never true.

                          And now it's looking more and more like a personal grudge got it to this point.

                          As I said back a few posts, if as implied his banning was inevitable at some point then surely there was going to be something more justifiable than the heart and soul comment and then being insulted with the 'blog' comment.

                          I was assuming Vnzla went out in a blaze of glory with both barrels blasting via PM to explain the rest of what transpired. Personally, I think once a mod hands out a punishment it's understood that the other person is going to likely be insulted and initially emotional. Especially in this case with the bad blood that was obviously brewing between the two. So I expected something much more blatant than what we've seen posted so far.

                          Honestly, I'm shocked. That should've been easy to step back from and allow some cool down if emotions weren't overruling logic IMO. I'm very, very surprised that this was all that transpired if that is the case.
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vnzla81

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            cdash, you and I have interacted with each other for years, both here and on RealGM. We weren't friends, but we have gotten along reasonably well for most of that time. This is true, despite the fact we have very different posting styles and very different tastes in terms of the type of interaction we enjoy. The reason it can work, is that we respect the differences and do not create situations to lead to problems.
                            I know that you are a retired mod in RealGM but I had no idea that Cdash was a member there. Your comments on his profile are not really kind but they are from 2008

                            The one troll that I clearly remember is Indy2thaWindy. Gosh, such a horrible poster. He took SOOOOO much pleasure out of bashing Darren Collison.

                            In any case, I agree with the gist of your post. I didn't want Vnzla to get banned but the layout that you posted happened a lot. I didn't really help with it. I was the guy responding to him too often
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vnzla81

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              Ol Blu staked claim to any position that he knew would cause people to argue with him.
                              That's what Vnzla did most of the time as well. He had some sincere positions as well but a lot of his positions were formed and articulated in a way that he knew that were going to be insulting to others.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vnzla81

                                Do you have any clue about the number of infractions we handed out to people baiting vnzla or just (really) overreacting?

                                Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X