Calling ALL Posters

[Guest]

I get all of that. But again, and the only people who have seemed to disagree with this in the past have unfortunately been the mods, there were different rules for different users for awhile, which unfortunately either drove people away completely, got people who shouldn't have been infracted actually infracted, or forced people to become lurkers more so than users. I'm just saying what has been told to me.

 

And again this isn't a knock. But for awhile, that's how this place was perceived unfortunately. Alot of issues usually involved the same 2 or so people. And while they got away scot-free, others would be suspended or infracted. It was difficult to ignore because it got annoying. And saying to simply ignore it was difficult because honestly, those posters posted in just about every thread about the Rangers on a Rangers message board. So saying ignore it is fine and well and all, but it's not as easy as it seems unfortunately. And the way alot of issues were handled, I've heard, turned alot of people off to posting here. Hence the slow up, which is larger than usual even now.

 

Just explaining what I've been told, and honestly, what I've seen.

 

There are not different rules for different posters. I won't share anyone's discipline history because it's not made to be public, but the people who get warned and infracted have clearly broken forum rules. Just about every warning or infraction we issue gets replied to with "I didn't break any rule" or "what about them". Sometimes "what about them" is that "they" were also warned or infracted. As I said, none of that is public. I'm sure anyone who breaks a forum rule and is warned or infracted for it disagrees, just as everyone in prison "didn't do it".

 

As to people coming to you with their disapproval of the way the forum is run, that seems odd to me. I like to think that I'm as fair as I can be and I've repeatedly, probably over a dozen times recently have said when these type of situations occur, that if you feel a post, no matter who it's by, violates forum rules, we need you to report it. Yet we very rarely get reported posts. When we do, we discuss them. But it very rarely happens. So them PMing you doesn't help us better run the forum.

 

What I've gotten a couple times in the past is a PM, usually after someone is infracted, saying something like, "what about Mod X. They always break the rules and never get punished for it, while the rest of the users get punished for not doing anything. And everyone agrees with me." I can't do anything with that. It's like going to the police station and complaining that your neighbor always punches everyone else in the face. Then when you're asked for a specific incident so that the police can act on it, you say, "they always punch me in the face and plenty of other people complain they get punched in the face, too". It's not actionable. So there's nothing we can do with it.

[Respecttheblue]

Old and new, let's get this place rocking again. It's on a steep downfall and it's time to get it to what it once was...who's with me!?!?

 

 

LGR

 

p.s. repped -- great thread; hope i didn't fuck it up.

[Parsley]

The simple solution is for the Rangers to win the fucking Stanley Cup.

http://s2.r29static.com//bin/entry/e2e/x/1362926/image.gif

[RichieNextel305]

There are not different rules for different posters. I won't share anyone's discipline history because it's not made to be public, but the people who get warned and infracted have clearly broken forum rules. Just about every warning or infraction we issue gets replied to with "I didn't break any rule" or "what about them". Sometimes "what about them" is that "they" were also warned or infracted. As I said, none of that is public. I'm sure anyone who breaks a forum rule and is warned or infracted for it disagrees, just as everyone in prison "didn't do it".

 

As to people coming to you with their disapproval of the way the forum is run, that seems odd to me. I like to think that I'm as fair as I can be and I've repeatedly, probably over a dozen times recently have said when these type of situations occur, that if you feel a post, no matter who it's by, violates forum rules, we need you to report it. Yet we very rarely get reported posts. When we do, we discuss them. But it very rarely happens. So them PMing you doesn't help us better run the forum.

 

What I've gotten a couple times in the past is a PM, usually after someone is infracted, saying something like, "what about Mod X. They always break the rules and never get punished for it, while the rest of the users get punished for not doing anything. And everyone agrees with me." I can't do anything with that. It's like going to the police station and complaining that your neighbor always punches everyone else in the face. Then when you're asked for a specific incident so that the police can act on it, you say, "they always punch me in the face and plenty of other people complain they get punched in the face, too". It's not actionable. So there's nothing we can do with it.

 

Listen I respect your opinion. And I know you respect mine which is why this is civilized.

 

But far too many times has one person been responsible for a thread being derailed and a fight starting, and not enough was done about it.

 

This isn't a police station. It's a forum. And while you may say that our thinking is almost to attack the mods and you can't see it that way because you're a moderator, you have to understand how we see it, where alot of us have had our share of infractions and suspensions on here, and watched other posters get banned completely.

 

We're not lying to you guys. I'd like this place to be more active again too. But again, when you have posters telling you about a problem, and it's not just one but several, and you can see the problem (lack of activity here) then there's not much else for us to do.

[Respecttheblue]

I see what you're saying in that the in-depth debates, if we want to call them that, can be a little bit unapproachable. But I don't know that I agree, and I don't really think any poster - mod or not - should have to simplify their posts just so others feel included. That's a tough argument to make.

 

I think the hostility and, at times, condescension is probably valid, but, while I understand your point, the fact that you don't have time to post more because of work/kids/spending too much time at the bar/whatever isn't really anybody else's fault and shouldn't be a reason to not post thoughts. Opinions still drive this and every other forum, there's no reason that every post has to be a scholarly argument.

 

I post the first thing that comes to my head all the time and don't feel like I'm not contributing because of it. Others might, lol, but I don't.

 

 

Yep I see what you're saying and I don't fault it.

 

 

Maybe I'm losing my point in trying to make too many points, or mentioning one particular point that is more my problem — time,

 

BUT, I am trying to put my finger on something about how the forum has evolved to become less unapproachable over time, and what it is about that evolution that may have sucked the oxygen out of the room for a lot of middle-of-the-road posters whose presence on BSBH I valued, but who are increasingly scarce in the discussions because the time-investment proposition of the discussion is orders of magnitude more involved.

 

For a some that is just fine and clearly maybe what they want.

 

But what I do say is that it may not be for the long-term good of the forum if the hockey discussions become predominantly the province of just 5-10 guys.

 

Maybe this is more of a mod-type discussion, but one issue I sense is there's less space for the middle of the road guys, and their contributions are maybe not fostered enough, welcome enough or appreciated enough by the big kahunas.

 

One small aspect of that I'll describe again as a kind of pissing-match syndrome — is it the drive to get reps that does it, I'm not sure. I'm not sure I'd say cliquey, either, probably not, but when the oxygen in the room is sucked up by the big fires, there's a possibility it might appear that way, too. I don't believe I'm the only one that's has gotten that impression.

 

 

I get what you're saying about the barrier to post here. I think that's kind of necessary though. That's what forums can offer that Facebook, Twitter and the like can not. The forum can't beat Facebook or Twitter for casual discussion of the Rangers. It will fail completely if that's all it did. Here, that's what the game day threads tend to be. Quick, short, less thought out posts, often about what just happened but sometimes overall takes on players, an aspect of the team, management, etc..

 

 

I would ask the mods to look at the three quotes from other users I quoted in my first post, and the parts I highlighted, and just think about it. I am not asking BSBH to become superficial like Facebook or Twitter[/U] or even some Yahoo groups, but I think there's some middle ground happy medium that many of us used to enjoy that has gotten crowded out. Something got lost, and members got lost with it ... something if I was a mod with a personal stake in this, I would not ignore or gloss over.

 

There's something to what Richie, H-Dreamer, and others in this thread have touched on here, I would suggest the mods do not choose to look past it, dismiss it, or not take it seriously as a more worthy thing to brainstorm among themselves, very honestly. I think there's a blindspot — it've tried to put a finger on it and maybe failed — but I'd hate to see BSBH become a ghost town like the other place did.

 

One other forum I frequent has a daily hello kind of check-in thread where all kinds of lighter discussion is cool, and it's not tightly moderated where OK this has to go in the New Yrok Rangers thread or that has to go in the Prospects thread, and that has to go in there, so much. Maybe that's not even possible here, with teh way passions get inflamed, but I've seen it work elsewhere, where folks touch on all kinds of stuff that comes to mind, and share a lot of thoughts even on the core forum topic, whether it be internal combustion engines, but exercise restraint and know themselves when something has to go to a more detailed or dedicated thread. Maybe that would dilute BSBH, maybe it's not possible, but it's just an idea. (I don't want to offer criticism and not offer some kind of solution at all).

 

The other thing I'd say is, again, is there a way the mods can tame the ambience of "my argument is bigger and longer than yours" that has grown in BSBH from time to time. I also sense a combativeness and tension that IMO just does not need to be — although I guess some folks thrive on conflict and they should not be denied that aspect, either.

 

If other forums can have threads where people can chat about the core topics in a lighter less time-demanding advanced-stats-or-die way, then maybe BSBH can have one that can COEXIST, with the Rangers thread, too. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. Its.just.an.idea that has come to mind today as I got into this discussion.

 

Now I will go away and shut the eff up, because this is supposed to be my once every six months mental health day.

See y'alls from time to time in the GDT if all goes smoothly at home.

[Respecttheblue]

Listen I respect your opinion. And I know you respect mine which is why this is civilized.

 

But far too many times has one person been responsible for a thread being derailed and a fight starting, and not enough was done about it.

 

This isn't a police station. It's a forum. And while you may say that our thinking is almost to attack the mods and you can't see it that way because you're a moderator, you have to understand how we see it, where alot of us have had our share of infractions and suspensions on here, and watched other posters get banned completely.

 

We're not lying to you guys. I'd like this place to be more active again too. But again, when you have posters telling you about a problem, and it's not just one but several, and you can see the problem (lack of activity here) then there's not much else for us to do.

 

Without mentioning any names I will support this, as I cannot stand to see posters tell you guys there's a real problem in this regard too and for it to be dismissed.

Your customers are speaking, mods. Listen to them.

Maybe we don't pay a subscription, but our time here is our most valuable currency.

Adios, and now I will shut up and get on with what I had hoped to do today.

[fletch]

Whether it's true or not, it's my perception that a moderator/admin will be warned, but not receive a 'time-out' from BSBH (no posting for a day or more). I've seen users that I respect (like Mikey37) not post for awhile because of an infraction. The point is not whether or not Mikey37 deserved the time-out (in a lot of cases he would have probably agreed with the discipline). But if Mikey37 and a moderator get into a heated discussion... as a neutral observer I expect that the user is a lot more likely to face discipline than the moderator/admin. And I only use Mikey37's name because I know he has been put in time-out, and I'm not sure about any other long-time user.

 

Just putting that out there, because I'm sure I'm not the only user that perceives things this way. Since users can't see behind the curtain, we don't know what conversations have taken place.

 

Without mentioning names, has a moderator ever been disciplined? Has an administrator ever been disciplined? If yes & yes, then you just have a problem with perception among the users. If no & no, then you have different standards of conduct for moderators versus users. And I've seen as inappropriate things said by moderators as by users in the heat of the moment.

[Guest]

Whether it's true or not, it's my perception that a moderator/admin will be warned, but not receive a 'time-out' from BSBH (no posting for a day or more). I've seen users that I respect (like Mikey37) not post for awhile because of an infraction. The point is not whether or not Mikey37 deserved the time-out (in a lot of cases he would have probably agreed with the discipline). But if Mikey37 and a moderator get into a heated discussion... as a neutral observer I expect that the user is a lot more likely to face discipline than the moderator/admin. And I only use Mikey37's name because I know he has been put in time-out, and I'm not sure about any other long-time user.

 

Just putting that out there, because I'm sure I'm not the only user that perceives things this way. Since users can't see behind the curtain, we don't know what conversations have taken place.

 

Without mentioning names, has a moderator ever been disciplined? Has an administrator ever been disciplined? If yes & yes, then you just have a problem with perception among the users. If no & no, then you have different standards of conduct for moderators versus users. And I've seen as inappropriate things said by moderators as by users in the heat of the moment.

 

A lot goes on behind the scenes. We dedicate a lot of time to trying to handle the moderation of the forums in a fair way. I won't speak to what goes on behind the scenes in detail because it's not my place. I can only speak for myself. I have had posts become the topic of moderation discussion. I've admitted when I was wrong. I've come back and apologized publicly and privately when that's occurred to me (which was my choice, not something required). I've edited posts of mine after other mods have pointed out I may have crossed a line. And twice I've decided I needed to take a step away from the forums for a little while because my posts were getting too heated or I was typing out posts and deleting them before submitting because I realized they were over the line.

 

So in my case, yes, I've been treated as any other user would be and I've tried to improve my posting when I could. And none of us are perfect. Or pretend to be (except Phil).

 

That said, being heated on the forum is not in violation of forum rules. People don't get persecuted here for their opinions. When an objectionable post is either seen by us or reported by another user, we discuss it internally to see if it violated any forum rules. If it did, we take the appropriate steps, based on the user's past discipline history and how far across the line the infraction was.

[SaveByRichter35]

I wouldn't say policy in general. But maybe a form of it. A lot of people weren't thrilled with the way this place looked the last few seasons here, where every thread was a fight featuring the same few people.

 

Pretty much this. Still read a lot, but just wasn't worth the aggravation of posting anymore due to a few other posters. I'll post from time to time, but can't really get involved in a real discussion because I know how it's going to go.

 

Because almost every post would turn into a fight, with someone getting the last word in. And if you went against them after they tried to get their last word in, warnings and infractions were threatened.

 

It just was a bit out of hand with the favoritism for a bit. I will say that. Certain people were treated better than others, which wasn't right.

 

I get all of that. But again, and the only people who have seemed to disagree with this in the past have unfortunately been the mods, there were different rules for different users for awhile, which unfortunately either drove people away completely, got people who shouldn't have been infracted actually infracted, or forced people to become lurkers more so than users. I'm just saying what has been told to me.

 

And again this isn't a knock. But for awhile, that's how this place was perceived unfortunately. Alot of issues usually involved the same 2 or so people. And while they got away scot-free, others would be suspended or infracted. It was difficult to ignore because it got annoying. And saying to simply ignore it was difficult because honestly, those posters posted in just about every thread about the Rangers on a Rangers message board. So saying ignore it is fine and well and all, but it's not as easy as it seems unfortunately. And the way alot of issues were handled, I've heard, turned alot of people off to posting here. Hence the slow up, which is larger than usual even now.

 

Just explaining what I've been told, and honestly, what I've seen.

 

DING DING DING...Winner winner chicken dinner

[Guest]

All we have are claims. There is nothing we can do with out examples of these mod posts that violate rules. And since I doubt any who claim we are biased are going to volunteer to allow us to share their discipline history and related correspondence, there isn't much we can do to move forward.

 

I wish we were allowed to share publically the posts which earn warnings and infractions. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find mod posts that anywhere near crossed the same kind of lines that earn warnings and infractions.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Phil]

I've been absent from this thread until now but seeing as I run this place I suppose it's probably important that I also chime in, even though I think AJ already provided sufficient answers to most of the issues. I'm not going to mass quote because that's not going to be helpful here, so I'll just try to add a response to what I think are the primary issues in no specific order, and directed at no one in particular. Fair warning, this is a long post:

 

 

On concerns and complaints about the forum threads being hostile and/or unapproachable to our "middle class":

 

I actually do understand and appreciate the general concerns here voiced by members like Respecttheblue about hostility and perceived barriers to conversations. This isn't a new issue. It's been a recurring one for years. I do everything I can to make every thread, even the ones based on complex issues that are designed for complex conversation, easily accessible (or as easy as possible) for everyone. For example, when a thread is started that doesn't contain certain elements, they might be added to the OP, even if the original poster didn't include them. Also, thread starters routinely quote selected portions of an article (it's actually in the rules) or source information properly (also in the rules) that will help other users understand the thread topic, or the position being taken by the OP, and never is anyone discouraged from participating in any given thread. In fact, I wish more people would respond, especially to the in-depth conversations.

 

Now, if someone is intimidated by this, I can't do much about it. My work and the work of the Staff is to meet a baseline for the general public/users. This is something we do daily, but there's a certain level we have to assume all users are up to par on. Knowing the league operates with a salary cap, for example, or what abbreviations like "AAV" stand for. We can't hold everyone's hand over every technical aspect in any given thread. They would all end up coming off as remedial, and then I'd be sitting here writing a response in a similar complaint thread about how we treat you all like children. So I need to ask — what exactly are you guys suggesting be done here to make things less "hostile"? I understand the social reluctance to go into the trenches if you know that your opinion is going to invite argument, but at the same time, that's the point of the site. It's not supposed to be an echo chamber or a safe space. It's supposed to be an open forum where ideas, not people, are routinely challenged. I'm always trying to combat actual hostilities and barriers where I think they exist, but this only applies to situations where those hostilities actually exist. There may sometimes be a thin red line between perception and reality, but it's an important distinction to make. Always.

 

The goal here is to increase intelligence, not reduce it. To widen understanding, and to reward learning, not embrace or cater to the lowest common denominator. Yes, the means we use to do so (argument) doesn't always produce purely positive results, but it's designed to, and I can't think of a platform more capable of doing that than open-ended discussion. If you know of one, I'm begging you — share it with me, because there's no one more interested in that answer than me. It's my name attached to this site, and my credit card on the billing invoices every month.

 

 

On the idea of there being two sets of rules here:

 

To be frank, I'm a little sick and tired of is this zombie lie of a complaint. It's carried here since year one and despite my best efforts, it refuses to die. It needs to die. It needs to die today. Now. Here, in this thread. Let me be perfectly clear so this is understood with finality. NO ONE IS BEING PERSECUTED HERE. No one is targeted in any way for what they believe or the opinions they share. If you are warned or infracted, it's because you broke a rule, not because you're a conservative, or a Christian, or a fan of a player the Staff member who issues your warning or infraction dislikes. As a quick aside, I'll grant you that I've set up a lot of "rules" on this site. Our RuleBook has twenty-eight individual mentions covering varying topics and issues (some of which overlap) to varying degrees, but the only users here who have any idea of exactly how strictly we enforce all of these are the Staff — the same Staff you continue to wrongly claim are out to get you. Who treat you unfairly. Who target specific users like there's some nefarious, ulterior motive behind a bolded forum handle. The fact of the matter is, the people who are routinely infracted and warned and taken to task over rules violations are the people who routinely violate the rules. Period. Hard stop. There's no favoritism going on. There's no discrimination. Please stop pretending to know things you can't possibly know, or, as AJ offered, even though it's against my own policy, publicly agree to allow your disciplinary record to be shared so we can prove this double standard does not exist.

 

 

On "the last word"

 

Yes, if a user is violating a rule and an in-thread warning is issued, that is the last word. Not an invitation for you to get one last shot in, or one last rule violation.

 

 

On analytics/advanced stats

 

Like it or not, understand them or not, they're part of the lexicon of the NHL. They are going to be referenced to and spoken about in threads because they're relevant to the conversation, even if you think their value to the NHL is minimal. Minimal doesn't mean irrelevant, after all. We can debate how much they should be valued, or relied on, but what's not up for debate is if they should even be part of the conversation.

 

This also lightly touches on the easy access thing from above, which is why there's a stuck thread in the Rangers' section that explains much of the basics. If you are confused by something or don't understand what some term means, why not ask? Don't be too proud to admit you don't understand something. You aren't going to be ridiculed for it, and if you are, guess what? The user who does so is going to be warned or infracted for doing so because it's against forum rules!

 

Hope this helps.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

Seems this opened a can of worms, which wasn't the intention.

 

 

LGR

[Mike]

Not proud of it, but I've accumalted a ton of warnings, infractions, and suspensions. I'm friends with mods, (even though they suck at hockey) some closer than others, and believe me, I get 0 favoritism. Imo, most people don't like being wrong, or being proven wrong. That alone fuels the biased fire that people think exist. Now I can honestly tell you despite my friendship with mods, I really don't know anything about their behind the scene pow wows. If I'm arguing with someone and I'm wrong or out of line, I accept the consequences and move on.

[Mike]

All we have are claims. There is nothing we can do with out examples of these mod posts that violate rules. And since I doubt any who claim we are biased are going to volunteer to allow us to share their discipline history and related correspondence, there isn't much we can do to move forward.

 

I wish we were allowed to share publically the posts which earn warnings and infractions. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find mod posts that anywhere near crossed the same kind of lines that earn warnings and infractions.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

You can use mine. I still have them saved in my mailbox from 2012

[fletch]

A lot goes on behind the scenes. We dedicate a lot of time to trying to handle the moderation of the forums in a fair way. I won't speak to what goes on behind the scenes in detail because it's not my place. I can only speak for myself. I have had posts become the topic of moderation discussion. I've admitted when I was wrong. I've come back and apologized publicly and privately when that's occurred to me (which was my choice, not something required). I've edited posts of mine after other mods have pointed out I may have crossed a line. And twice I've decided I needed to take a step away from the forums for a little while because my posts were getting too heated or I was typing out posts and deleting them before submitting because I realized they were over the line.

 

So in my case, yes, I've been treated as any other user would be and I've tried to improve my posting when I could. And none of us are perfect. Or pretend to be (except Phil).

 

That said, being heated on the forum is not in violation of forum rules. People don't get persecuted here for their opinions. When an objectionable post is either seen by us or reported by another user, we discuss it internally to see if it violated any forum rules. If it did, we take the appropriate steps, based on the user's past discipline history and how far across the line the infraction was.

 

I appreciate your response, AJ, and all that you do as moderator.

 

For information gathering purposes only... and statistical analysis... I suggest that you look at the reported posts (someone in the forum reported a post as inappropriate) over time (perhaps starting with the most recent 6 months, or whatever gives you a good chunk of 30-50 reported posts) in 2 categories. 1. inappropriate posts by users who happen to be moderators 2. inappropriate posts by users who are just users. Calculate the percentage of posts in each of the two categories that the admin/mods have decided to require some sort of discipline or reaction. If the percentage in category 1 matches the percentage in category 2, than you are treating inappropriate posts the same way regardless of the identity of the potential infractor (moderator or user). Any deviation represents a bias toward category 1 or category 2.

 

I know I only report a post when I think that it has crossed a line and pissed me off, which is more likely when the other user disagrees with me. That's why I appreciate when a moderator can take a look at whether it is inappropriate or not.

 

In the end, the 'powers that be' run the forum reasonably and fairly in 99% of cases. And if I didn't enjoy the banter and give/take, I would have moved on. And what I've bolded is actually great advice for anyone. If something is pissing you off that much, walk away from the forum for a day or two. Don't log on. Do whatever else you enjoy doing in your life. And come back to the forum when you're not pissed off anymore.

[Guest]

I appreciate your response, AJ, and all that you do as moderator.

 

For information gathering purposes only... and statistical analysis... I suggest that you look at the reported posts (someone in the forum reported a post as inappropriate) over time (perhaps starting with the most recent 6 months, or whatever gives you a good chunk of 30-50 reported posts) in 2 categories. 1. inappropriate posts by users who happen to be moderators 2. inappropriate posts by users who are just users. Calculate the percentage of posts in each of the two categories that the admin/mods have decided to require some sort of discipline or reaction. If the percentage in category 1 matches the percentage in category 2, than you are treating inappropriate posts the same way regardless of the identity of the potential infractor (moderator or user). Any deviation represents a bias toward category 1 or category 2.

 

I know I only report a post when I think that it has crossed a line and pissed me off, which is more likely when the other user disagrees with me. That's why I appreciate when a moderator can take a look at whether it is inappropriate or not.

 

In the end, the 'powers that be' run the forum reasonably and fairly in 99% of cases. And if I didn't enjoy the banter and give/take, I would have moved on. And what I've bolded is actually great advice for anyone. If something is pissing you off that much, walk away from the forum for a day or two. Don't log on. Do whatever else you enjoy doing in your life. And come back to the forum when you're not pissed off anymore.

 

I went back over the last year. Ignoring mod reported posts, which is just a tool we use to discuss any post that's even close to the line, I can tell you the comparison of member on member reported posts to member on mod reported posts is not even close. 5 to 1. And it isn't the same mod or user over and over again. To be fair to both sides, a good chunk of reported posts are simply disagreements between users. It's immediately obvious that they are not violations of any forum rule. That goes for both member on member and member on mod. A handful are not. And we deal with those all the same way.

 

Over that same year, here's the official discipline that was handed out (not including accounts that were created just to spam the forum which are automatically banned):

 

Warnings - 10

Infractions - 13

 

Mikey was gracious enough to let us show the posts that he got infractions for. 3 of the 13 infractions were his and they really illustrate what gets you an infraction here:

 

Speaking of a lack of knowledge ...... you'd be surprised to see how similar the numbers are for every team/GM/Scouts if you actually looked it up rather than look like the pompous ass you actually are. 10 to 1 says you're a glorified street hockey player.

 

Oh well if you say so, it must be true. Go back to HF boards with the rest of the clowns. You know nothing.

 

...keep throwing your jabs. You're mad because you pretend to know a game in which you can't even tie skates. And secondly there's about 10+ people on here that laugh at your hockey knowledge, statements, discussions, etc. via private message.

 

Now, any one of these as a first offense would just get deleted and a formal warning. Since Mikey agreed to share his history, I'll go ahead and say that these were not his first infractions. Mikey has been banned for accumulative points. He's gotten what we call automatic bans, where a single post is so over the line, the user gets taken out of the normal flow of discipline and is instantly banned for a length of time.

 

This really, really speaks to the claims of favoritism that get thrown around, so I'm glad Mikey volunteered this. Mikey is friendly on here with most of the mods. He's also friends in real life with several. Yet that hasn't spared him discipline. Not a single time.

 

If others want to volunteer their discipline reports, you'll see more of the same. The one thing they will all have in common is that they clearly break forum rules. And I will state it again, if anyone sees a post that breaks a forum rule, regardless of whether it is a moderator or not, please report it. We read as much as we can, but we do miss things.

[Future]

"10 to 1 says you're a glorified street hockey player"

 

Made me spit my coffee out lol

[Morphinity 2.0]

Yeah, unfortunately we have to delete some gems

[NYR2711]

If you like posting from time to time but don't want to get into deeper debates, then why not just post what you want and ignore posts you don't feel like responding to? I post a lot and get into some deeper conversations. I've also started to type out replies to some people and realized I was getting agitated. At that point, I just hit cancel and move on to a different post or to something else.

 

I guess what I'm saying is if you enjoy this place in some way (which, you must, since you two have been here for a combined decade) then why not just walk right past what you don't like? No place online or in the real world is going to be 100% what you want it to be. In the real world if you like going to a bar because there are 10 people you like there but there are also 1 or 2 that annoy you for what ever reason, you don't quit going to the bar. You just ignore the ones who you don't like.

 

Or maybe that's just me.

 

I am actually falling into the group of those the come here to read. While I liked some of the threads and discussions we have all had, and there are many posters I do like having these political discussions with, there are posters who give an attitude towards you and when you say something to them, they get nasty right back again while claiming they arent. It gets tiring because you can't have a civil discussion sometimes, and I have even taken it to PM and nothing changes, so to me, the easiest thing to do is not become involved in the threads anymore. I like everyone here, don't get me wrong, but its become tiresome dealing with getting attacked in many different threads by someone. Ill still post, but I am not posting like I was anymore because I just don't want to deal with it anymore. We all have strong feelings towards certain things, and we all should, but when it gets condescending a lot of times, its not fun anymore. Thats just my piece, take it for what it is, and I love this forum because there are a lot of informative posters here about a team I and others love, and getting news here about the team is most of the time better than any or the media sites and clearer.

[fletch]

I went back over the last year. Ignoring mod reported posts, which is just a tool we use to discuss any post that's even close to the line, I can tell you the comparison of member on member reported posts to member on mod reported posts is not even close. 5 to 1. And it isn't the same mod or user over and over again. To be fair to both sides, a good chunk of reported posts are simply disagreements between users. It's immediately obvious that they are not violations of any forum rule. That goes for both member on member and member on mod. A handful are not. And we deal with those all the same way.

 

Over that same year, here's the official discipline that was handed out (not including accounts that were created just to spam the forum which are automatically banned):

 

Warnings - 10

Infractions - 13

 

Mikey was gracious enough to let us show the posts that he got infractions for. 3 of the 13 infractions were his and they really illustrate what gets you an infraction here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, any one of these as a first offense would just get deleted and a formal warning. Since Mikey agreed to share his history, I'll go ahead and say that these were not his first infractions. Mikey has been banned for accumulative points. He's gotten what we call automatic bans, where a single post is so over the line, the user gets taken out of the normal flow of discipline and is instantly banned for a length of time.

 

This really, really speaks to the claims of favoritism that get thrown around, so I'm glad Mikey volunteered this. Mikey is friendly on here with most of the mods. He's also friends in real life with several. Yet that hasn't spared him discipline. Not a single time.

 

If others want to volunteer their discipline reports, you'll see more of the same. The one thing they will all have in common is that they clearly break forum rules. And I will state it again, if anyone sees a post that breaks a forum rule, regardless of whether it is a moderator or not, please report it. We read as much as we can, but we do miss things.

 

Thanks again, AJ and Mikey. I appreciate the look behind the curtain.

[Mike]

Thanks again, AJ and Mikey. I appreciate the look behind the curtain.

 

Sure, there's plenty more where that came from. I have them all saved. Whenever you need some cheering up, shoot me a pm and I'll share a few with you.

[Mike]

I went back over the last year. Ignoring mod reported posts, which is just a tool we use to discuss any post that's even close to the line, I can tell you the comparison of member on member reported posts to member on mod reported posts is not even close. 5 to 1. And it isn't the same mod or user over and over again. To be fair to both sides, a good chunk of reported posts are simply disagreements between users. It's immediately obvious that they are not violations of any forum rule. That goes for both member on member and member on mod. A handful are not. And we deal with those all the same way.

 

Over that same year, here's the official discipline that was handed out (not including accounts that were created just to spam the forum which are automatically banned):

 

Warnings - 10

Infractions - 13

 

Mikey was gracious enough to let us show the posts that he got infractions for. 3 of the 13 infractions were his and they really illustrate what gets you an infraction here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, any one of these as a first offense would just get deleted and a formal warning. Since Mikey agreed to share his history, I'll go ahead and say that these were not his first infractions. Mikey has been banned for accumulative points. He's gotten what we call automatic bans, where a single post is so over the line, the user gets taken out of the normal flow of discipline and is instantly banned for a length of time.

 

This really, really speaks to the claims of favoritism that get thrown around, so I'm glad Mikey volunteered this. Mikey is friendly on here with most of the mods. He's also friends in real life with several. Yet that hasn't spared him discipline. Not a single time.

 

If others want to volunteer their discipline reports, you'll see more of the same. The one thing they will all have in common is that they clearly break forum rules. And I will state it again, if anyone sees a post that breaks a forum rule, regardless of whether it is a moderator or not, please report it. We read as much as we can, but we do miss things.

 

Come on bro, the least you can do was tell everyone that the first infraction was aimed at a user that is now permabanned ! Where's the love ?!?!

[Guest]

Come on bro, the least you can do was tell everyone that the first infraction was aimed at a user that is now permabanned ! Where's the love ?!?!

 

I would love to, but unfortunately we can only share discipline details if the person allows us to. So far, you've been the only sucker person to allow it.

[fletch]

Sure, there's plenty more where that came from. I have them all saved. Whenever you need some cheering up, shoot me a pm and I'll share a few with you.

 

I would love to, but unfortunately we can only share discipline details if the person allows us to. So far, you've been the only sucker person to allow it.

 

:rofl:

[SaveByRichter35]

I also don't care if mine are used. As far as reporting "offensive posts" you'll never see me reporting someone because I just don't do that. Its the internet, its not that serious. If someone pisses me off, oh well. Words don't bother me, things don't really offend me. Do I feel there is favoritism towards members? No, doesn't seem like it to me. Does it seem like some some members get away with more than others? In my opinion yes. That's the stuff that bothers me. My feelings on that topic are pretty well documented on here in that regard so its probably not worth getting into it again.