Calling ALL Posters

[RichieNextel305]

This has been something that has hurt this place over time. By definition, is he breaking rules? I don't know. But he is alienating alot of users who contributed a lot more than they do now. If that isn't viewed as a problem, then I don't know what is. To me, that's a problem and it's one that's more extreme than someone cursing a lot.

[The Dude]

I think you're exaggerating a little. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding. People might have assumed that you've been here long enough. You've made a presence here. Not really a big deal.

 

Maybe it was. I guess I posted enough around that time, that some thought I knew more about everyone or was a part of the old school crew that came from whatever board a majority of the core posters came from..

 

No matter. I think a lot of us need to realize how we come off towards newer posters. Attitude wise, ego wise, sarcasm wise. Myself included.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

Agreed with new posters, I'm guilty of it as well.

 

 

LGR

[The Dude]

Re-read what I said about burden of proof. Provide me with actual proof, please. Find the posts you feel he's actually broken rules in. Post them here. I'm not doing your work for you.

 

Again, you guys just keep repeating the claim. I want the actual evidence so I can work with it.

 

 

Here, he decides after a bunch of responses to me, that the point he was making was no longer being discussed after saying that it was discussed three days prior when in fact it was just one day.. Later after a heated pm, he threatethat PM's are also moderated..

 

Not really odd, if you know any military families. They generally don't live in ghettos. If you don't believe that he doesn't know what that experience is like, we can get it straight from his mouth:

Just really goes to show you how misguided this dude truly is.

 

If you want to discuss something I said, read the whole thread. If you bothered to do that, you'd see that a few posts later, I said this:

So it was really more about his thoughts on Kaepernick sitting (disrespect) than his thoughts on the reason Kaepernick is sitting (opression). It's not at all hard to understand why former military would be offended by this, and therefore not surprising. What surprises me is when former military aren't offended by this, and I applaud them.

 

I don't care if it was 2, 3, 4, or 5 days ago. It was overwith.

 

Now if you want stay in this thread, talk about Kaepernick. If you want to talk about my assumptions based on my limited research of Allen West, you can PM me. Thanks.

 

 

 

This was after he in not do many words was insinuating that I'm racist and that I wouldn't say what I said (nobody recognizes the old part of the national anthem about slavery, so the song is not about slavery) if I was African American. I asked why he thought I wasn't. Because that's an assumption and a racial assumption... Was a legit question, that went along with where he was trying to take the discussion. As soon as he was backed into that corner, he decides IM trolling and makes threats.

 

You're trolling. I won't be wasting anymore time here, but I'd suggest you quit while you're ahead.

 

Christ I'm sure there's a log of my complaints about his posts. I've already admitted that I report them. Can we see those? I unfortunately don't remember all of the situation's where I've felt he is abusing his power and pulls these tricks out of his ass (decides YOU are off topic and YOU better stop, or THAT part of the discussion is over because HE says so, even if you are asking him calmly about it... You better stop and he doesn't care about his contradiction that you pointed out....

 

Edit.. actually the heated pm was not from this discussion., But from months ago. I apologize.

[The Dude]

I'd just like to add that we can ALL be babies at times, and can be stubborn and have too much pride to back down from poking and prodding, or being baited.

 

There ARE rules and they are pretty much common sense. Don't insult someones thoughts. Disagree all you want, but make your point in a thought out post. I'm victim of flying by the seat of my pants and being reactionary. I think lots of us do that.

 

This place is usually fun to be around even when some of us aren't getting along. I use the block/ignore feature for TWO people, only because I can see myself seriously butting heads with one and the other being a Pete lackey.. I don't recall what made me put said people on ignore, but I think more people should use this feature to avoid conflict with those you can tell just NEED to jump on you, or rub you wrong.

 

You can't block a mod though. And that seems to be a problem. Since a few people seem to have an issue with Pete, is it a slap in the face to him to strip him of his mod status? This way, this awkward rat him out stuff can easily be avoided and he can get along with who ever he gets along with? He's obviously friends with a bunch here. It sucks if he's not posting because of a few complaints from a group of posters with similar gripes. This shit is awkward and will only alienate those of us bitching about his "tactics".

[Mike]

I'd just like to add that we can ALL be babies at times, and can be stubborn and have too much pride to back down from poking and prodding, or being baited.

 

There ARE rules and they are pretty much common sense. Don't insult someones thoughts. Disagree all you want, but make your point in a thought out post. I'm victim of flying by the seat of my pants and being reactionary. I think lots of us do that.

 

This place is usually fun to be around even when some of us aren't getting along. I use the block/ignore feature for TWO people, only because I can see myself seriously butting heads with one and the other being a Pete lackey.. I don't recall what made me put said people on ignore, but I think more people should use this feature to avoid conflict with those you can tell just NEED to jump on you, or rub you wrong.

 

You can't block a mod though. And that seems to be a problem. Since a few people seem to have an issue with Pete, is it a slap in the face to him to strip him of his mod status? This way, this awkward rat him out stuff can easily be avoided and he can get along with who ever he gets along with? He's obviously friends with a bunch here. It sucks if he's not posting because of a few complaints from a group of posters with similar gripes. This shit is awkward and will only alienate those of us bitching about his "tactics".

I'm not alienating anyone regardless of my friendship with Pete. I'll agree or disagree because of what I believe, not because of anyone's feelings about Pete. I suggest everyone does the same no matter what their feelings are about Pete.

[Kevin]

Imo, the political threads are the kindling for disaster here. There's not enough posters here to overcome the amount of arguing and fighting that goes on in those threads. Unfortunately it all carries over into the 1 thing we're all passionate about .... Hockey. There's too much animosity in political and religious bullshit that it effects the way those people discuss hockey. It's almost like people go out of their way to disagree with something about the Minnesota Wild just because that person feels a certain way about Donald Trump.

 

This is brilliant. I agree 100%. For the last 5 years I've avoided these other forums on here and then I dipped my toes in this year a bit. I regret doing that this year and will be avoiding political or hot-button topics on here from now on just for the very reasons you wrote.

[TwoMinutesForNothing]

From my perspective, I don't care about breaking forum rules or not breaking forum rules. People seem to be dwelling on that a lot. Somebody can be an asshole without breaking the rules and if somebody is going to repeatedly be an asshole to me then, I'm not going to continue giving them that opportunity. I'm not asking for any changes or saying the rules are wrong and like I said I don't think I've ever had an infraction that I can remember. I was simply explaining why I don't post much anymore. It's fine I don't have to post.

[Guest]

First things first. We've broken with tradition to discuss a lot of this stuff publicly because some users feel very passionately that there is some sort of double standard here. There is not. The response here is telling. Many who complain that mods, particularly Pete, get preferential treatment have taken this opportunity to insult him. Publicly. In clear violation of forum rules. It stops now. This is not a free thread to take shots.

 

That is also the common denominator we keep finding. These users who are complaining get into a debate with Pete and when they don't like that he's thorough in his responses and calls on them to be consistent or not misrepresent his position, they lash out. You guys who have this issue clearly won't believe that this is what is going on. We've presented evidence, while you present none and we are accused of deflecting. That's not the case. It seems with the evidence we have that the issue is that some users don't like having their claims on the forum so effectively challenged. They just seem to want to say what they think and have it be accepted. That is not the purpose of debate and debate is the purpose of this forum.

 

Richie has allowed us to share his discipline history. So here it is:

 

You received a warning for this:

 

----

 

Quote Originally Posted by Peetie27

Why is someone else's opinion always called "spin"? That's a tactic to try and invalidate someone else's point.

 

Just because you keep repeating "bust" and "fail" 9 times doesn't make it so lol.

 

And just because you have a man-crush on the guy doesn't mean he didn't bust big time here, no matter how you try to spin it.

 

----

 

Saying someone has a "man-crush" on a player is talking about the user, not their opinion.

 

You received an infraction for this:

 

----

 

I'm being a POS? I'm sorry, but fuck you bro. Disagree? Cool. But to call me that? Go fuck yourself.

 

----

 

The user you were responding to no longer posts here and did call you a "POS" first. I'm providing that for context, not to excuse your response.

 

 

You received a warning for this:

 

----

 

I said one joke. Its deleted. I understand why. No need to go nuts over it even though its slow around here and hockey now.

 

----

 

This is a common theme on the forum. When a post is deleted or an in thread warning is issued to try to calm things down, PM us if you need clarification. Don't take a parting shot at us on the forum. This was after you said "I feel like you do a lot of drugs" to a user which was deleted.

 

You received an infraction for this

 

----

 

Lol. K. See where this is going.

 

----

 

This was in response again to an in thread warning. When that happens repeatedly by the same user, we infract instead of warn.

 

This is another infraction:

 

----

 

You do the SAME exact thing "big guy." Don't whine [username removed].

 

----

 

This was after you and the other user had posts deleted and an in thread warning issued.

 

Another infraction:

 

----

 

Because you're getting on people for being delusional, yet you post your fair share of delusional stuff on here. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house is what I believe the saying is.

 

----

 

This again was after an in thread warning to dial it down.

 

 

Since you're having an issue specifically with Pete, I wanted to pull a situation that show quite the opposite.

 

Posted by: RichieNextel305

Original Content:

That's not true at all. This team can't hit a lick. Clutch hitting is just as important in October.

 

That opinion of yours is cool. Just like mine.

 

Pete was responding to this:

 

If they could ever get to October, this pitching staff could actually win them a World Series. Its just such a strong staff.

 

So you made a claim, he challenged it, you didn't like that your opinion was challenged and so you lashed out at him. It's minor, but it's the same pattern we keep finding. And I don't believe you were warned or infracted for this, I just want to point out the pattern we find.

 

Here's something I found that speaks to the entire double standard argument. Here you were getting into it with Phil, the forum owner:

 

http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?13445-POST-GAME-ECSF-(-03)-05-05-14-%95-Rangers-v-Pittsburgh-Penguins&p=652800&viewfull=1#post652800

 

If you read through your exchange, you'll come down to this post, by Pete:

 

http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?13445-POST-GAME-ECSF-(-03)-05-05-14-%95-Rangers-v-Pittsburgh-Penguins&p=652838&viewfull=1#post652838

 

He quotes both one of your post and one of Phil's posts and says:

 

What's highlighted in red are what we refer to as pot shots. You both got yours in. Let's settle it down, guys.

 

So Pete here is warning the forum owner that his post, along with yours, is over the line. And if you look down from that, you took one more shot, but then stated in thread that you were posting that shot while the warning was being issued. So Pete responded:

 

Got it.

 

Now everyone walk away from the keyboard for ten minutes LOL.

 

If there was a double standard, the forum owner would not have received a warning publicly. You would have simply been given a warning or infraction. And when you respond immediately after the in thread warning, if we had some sort of vendetta against you or other users, that would have been the easiest opportunity of all to give you an infraction.

[Guest]

If you guys want to simply say he doesn't break forum rules and that we don't like debating, that's fine.

 

He baits and baits and then when someone goes off on him, they're breaking forum rules and he isn't.

 

This is a problem guys. People are trying to tell you why they don't post here, but again, it just seems like it's being deflected like usual, unfortunately.

 

The guy is just untouchable. You have a forum that has dropped rapidly in months, partially due to him. And you have forum members asking what the problem is, and other forum members are trying to tell you the problem. Yet it still seems like it's falling on deaf ears.

 

Whatever, I guess. I've tried to tell you.

 

The issue is that what you consider baiting is him dissecting your argument, responding to it and calling on you to defend your claims. We are not going to punish that, because it's the purpose of the forum. Just because a handful of people don't like to have their positions vigorously challenged doesn't mean we're going to change rules or punish a mod. No one here is untouchable. When they break forum rules, they receive proscribed forum discipline.

[Guest]

I never said I wanted anyone in particular to stop posting. I do enjoy a lot of user's posts because they're so thorough. I just do not enjoy the way, or the perception that is left open, that some posters get away with more than others. Whether it is actually true or completely false. Whether it is because some know the rules in and out down to the very last period and know when to stop while others have a simple understanding of the rules and maybe don't know when to stop. There is obviously enough people seeing it that way so maybe there isn't enough being done to at least eliminate the perception that it is happening.

 

The rules are black and white. It isn't "walking the line" it's staying on the correct side of the line. So the thought by some that have broken rules and been warned/infracted that someone who hasn't broken the rules should be warned/infracted is odd, to me. The perception problem is that some people have a misunderstanding of the rules. They're pretty clear if you want to go read them, though. The one that keeps coming up is to not post about users, post about what they post. You can challenge another user's opinions any way you see fit. As soon as you make a comment about that user, you've broken a rule. Simple.

[Guest]

This has been something that has hurt this place over time. By definition, is he breaking rules? I don't know. But he is alienating alot of users who contributed a lot more than they do now. If that isn't viewed as a problem, then I don't know what is. To me, that's a problem and it's one that's more extreme than someone cursing a lot.

 

You had a problem with cursing and dealt with that. Your other problem is not being able to control yourself when you receive an in thread warning. That's gotten you in more trouble than anything else that I can see.

 

He is not breaking forum rules. There are plenty of things that can alienate users here. A user that doesn't like to have to defend their positions will be alienated by being called to do that. A user who wants to post entire articles here but is told that they can only post excerpts may feel alienated. A user who wants to post information from others without providing a source may feel alienated. A user who wants to curse other users out may feel alienated. A user who wants to post about the Penguins in the Rangers forum may feel alienated.

 

This board has a purpose. Debate. Vigorous debate if that's what users choose to engage in. We're not going to punish users for that just because some users don't want it. There are other forums on the internet that discuss the Rangers which allow all kinds of things that we don't and that have more superficial conversations. This is not that place.

[RichieNextel305]

So everything is fine then, because he doesn't break forum rules.

 

Again, you have many posters here telling you that the way he talks to us is viewed as baiting, which many of us got sick of. We were asked to voice our opinion to help fix a problem, yet it's seemingly falling on deaf ears.

 

I'm gonna step away from this thread. It's going no where, and nothing is going to get fixed because we're being told he doesn't break forum policy. That's great, but he has steered people away from contributing here. So, leave it the way it is. At this point, I give up.

[Guest]

Here, he decides after a bunch of responses to me, that the point he was making was no longer being discussed after saying that it was discussed three days prior when in fact it was just one day.. Later after a heated pm, he threatethat PM's are also moderated..

 

PM's are also moderated. You can't just PM someone anything you want. I don't know the exact context of that conversation, though. As to him pointing to something he previously posted, that happens sometimes when we jump in late to a debate. I've seen that dozens of times on the forum. Two people are discussing something and then a third person takes something out of context and replies to that. It derails the conversation and it's so simple, when you're joining a debate, to read back a little bit to get context before jumping in.

 

This was after he in not do many words was insinuating that I'm racist and that I wouldn't say what I said (nobody recognizes the old part of the national anthem about slavery, so the song is not about slavery) if I was African American. I asked why he thought I wasn't. Because that's an assumption and a racial assumption... Was a legit question, that went along with where he was trying to take the discussion. As soon as he was backed into that corner, he decides IM trolling and makes threats.

 

I read that section of the thread. He wasn't implying you were a racist, he was asking you to try to take the perspective of someone who was black. This followed:

 

You: How do you know I'm not?

 

Pete: Please stop.

 

You: Stop what? What makes you think I'm not African American? You're very judgemental yourself. You are assuming I'm not African American without even knowing who you are talking to.

 

Pete: You're trolling. I won't be wasting anymore time here, but I'd suggest you quit while you're ahead.

 

Here's the problem with the way you decided to go with this. He's asking you to take the perspective of someone who is black to look at a situation from a different vantage point. Instead of doing that, or saying, "I am black and this is how I feel" which would have been a powerful position and would give us a very unique perspective, you instead decided to play games. Now, look at your response and tell me what value it adds to the debate? Or is it designed to antagonize? Don't just defend yourself over this. Why did you respond the way you did? I'm very interested, since to me it appears that you were just trying to be disruptive to the debate.

 

Christ I'm sure there's a log of my complaints about his posts. I've already admitted that I report them. Can we see those? I unfortunately don't remember all of the situation's where I've felt he is abusing his power and pulls these tricks out of his ass (decides YOU are off topic and YOU better stop, or THAT part of the discussion is over because HE says so, even if you are asking him calmly about it... You better stop and he doesn't care about his contradiction that you pointed out....

 

Edit.. actually the heated pm was not from this discussion., But from months ago. I apologize.

 

I've done a lot of digging through posts in the admin system today. If I get some time later, I'll try to dig up your reported posts regarding Pete.

[Guest]

So everything is fine then, because he doesn't break forum rules.

 

Again, you have many posters here telling you that the way he talks to us is viewed as baiting, which many of us got sick of. We were asked to voice our opinion to help fix a problem, yet it's seemingly falling on deaf ears.

 

I'm gonna step away from this thread. It's going no where, and nothing is going to get fixed because we're being told he doesn't break forum policy. That's great, but he has steered people away from contributing here. So, leave it the way it is. At this point, I give up.

 

That's right. If he doesn't break forum rules, there is no problem. This forum is not for everyone. It's for a specific subset of Rangers fans who want to engage in debate about the Rangers. Baiting is against forum rules, but we've yet to receive evidence, only complaints, of it occurring with Pete.

 

There were two issues brought up in this thread. One is that newer users may feel intimidated by the level of debate. The other is that there was a perception of a double standard. We have found that the first issue is legitimate. We just don't have a clear manor to address that yet. We're actively trying to see if there is a possible way to address it. The second issue doesn't exist as far as we can tell from evidence. It honestly seems like personality conflict. We can't moderate that. It would be unfair.

 

Imagine that a handful of users were complaining to us that you baited them all the time. We asked them for examples, but they couldn't provide any. When we said this, we were told that we were deflecting from the issue. Were told that posters like you were keeping them from participating. How should we respond? Should we ban you because of their claims?

 

Quite frankly, and I'm speaking for Phil because I think this is his take, if the manor of debate we engage in left us with 10 active users because that was all the demand there was for the vigorous and full debate he wants for his forum, then that's what it would be. We're not going to fundamentally change the forum just to get more users. It would be easy to do it, too. We could selectively ban anyone we thought was costing us more users than they gained. We could stop conversations we thought might be too intimidating or off putting. We could turn the forum into fluff if it was just about getting as many users as we could. It won't be happening.

 

So if this forum isn't to your, or anyone else's liking, that's not something we can fix. If you walk into a fine steak house and expect a Whopper and some greasy hours old french fries, you're going to be disappointed.

[Vodka Drunkenski]

Not for nothing but I remember Pete and I got into a heated argument once that we BOTH got a warning or infraction (can't remember which it was). If you guys can find it, you are more than welcomed to post it if it helps as evidence.

 

 

LGR

[RichieNextel305]

That's right. If he doesn't break forum rules, there is no problem. This forum is not for everyone. It's for a specific subset of Rangers fans who want to engage in debate about the Rangers. Baiting is against forum rules, but we've yet to receive evidence, only complaints, of it occurring with Pete.

 

There were two issues brought up in this thread. One is that newer users may feel intimidated by the level of debate. The other is that there was a perception of a double standard. We have found that the first issue is legitimate. We just don't have a clear manor to address that yet. We're actively trying to see if there is a possible way to address it. The second issue doesn't exist as far as we can tell from evidence. It honestly seems like personality conflict. We can't moderate that. It would be unfair.

 

Imagine that a handful of users were complaining to us that you baited them all the time. We asked them for examples, but they couldn't provide any. When we said this, we were told that we were deflecting from the issue. Were told that posters like you were keeping them from participating. How should we respond? Should we ban you because of their claims?

 

Quite frankly, and I'm speaking for Phil because I think this is his take, if the manor of debate we engage in left us with 10 active users because that was all the demand there was for the vigorous and full debate he wants for his forum, then that's what it would be. We're not going to fundamentally change the forum just to get more users. It would be easy to do it, too. We could selectively ban anyone we thought was costing us more users than they gained. We could stop conversations we thought might be too intimidating or off putting. We could turn the forum into fluff if it was just about getting as many users as we could. It won't be happening.

 

So if this forum isn't to your, or anyone else's liking, that's not something we can fix. If you walk into a fine steak house and expect a Whopper and some greasy hours old french fries, you're going to be disappointed.

 

Well, then I guess enjoy the same 13 posters posting in every thread.

 

I understand forum rules and sticking to them. But when there is a fundamental issue that many users are asking you guys to address, that won't be addressed simply because forum rules aren't being broken, then there simply isn't anything left to say. The way he confronts people isn't right and never was right. His power trip moments have long been over the top.

 

But again, it's falling on deaf ears. So I'll continue to lurk, because the biggest issue this forum has ever seen, his behavior toward others, will never be corrected. Even after you all have witnessed a decline in the way this place used to be.

 

Hope all is well, and thanks to all who have contributed on both sides of this argument. I'm going back to lurking, like most have.

[Pete]

I think it's time that Dave took a break here, and I step in for myself.

 

The first thing I'll say is that we do not confuse lack of traffic over the summer, combined with power users having changes to their personal lives that limit posting, with "the board is dying."

 

Secondly, I've read all the posts here. Ironically, it comes on the heels of me talking to the staff about not wanting to post much anymore. I was really turned off by the political and Kaepernick threads. That said, there have been many completely valid points made. Points that I've thought about, points that the staff has discussed internally as a group.

 

Regardless of how much I continue to post in the future:

I will not stop moderating just because someone isn't capable of scrolling by my posts. I put too much time and effort behind the scenes, and the staff has expressed a desire for me to stay.

I will not stop challenging opinions. However, I will make an effort to be much more relaxed in my interactions with other users when debating.

I won't moderate debates I'm currently involved in. It seems that users don't like being told they've broken a rule (or are about to) by a person that they are engaged in a debate with. Fair enough.

 

I'm a work in progress no different than anyone else here, so I heard some legitimate feedback and I'm open to working on some things.

 

However, there was some feedback posted that I'm just not going to be able to let go by un-checked. Some of it is really just perspective and context. For example, the Dude claims I "threatened" him that PMs were moderated. What happened was that I received a PM calling me an arrogant prick. Rather than go back at him, or infract him outright (which is well within reason), I simply replied back that he should relax, and things said via PM can be disciplined. So I'm giving him a pass by not reporting the post for discipline, and he sees that as a threat. What do you guys think of that?

 

And Richie...I did a lot of research back on reported posts when this thread was going down. What I noticed was that you have had an issue with every moderator on the staff, except for Chris and Chappie. You even had an issue with Jules, who's a multi-time Nicest Poster award winner here. In addition to the staff, you've had long running feuds with Blue Line Station, Bretzky, Keirik, Scags, and a number of mini-scuffles with Vodka and others. All of the reported posts contain the same key phrase you're using here. "A lot of us are tired of this guy." Every. Single. Time.

 

So my question to you is...When you finally rid the board of me, who's next on your list? BLS is gone. Betzky is gone (of his own doing), Keirik rarely posts. Who's the next user "a lot of us" are tired of? It always seems to be someone.

 

The fact is we don't like each other and never have. That's OK. We don't have to. But what you've never mastered is respect for the staff. That goes back to WBB (we have a few of the same mods). That little cursing problem you had? When we asked you to tone it down, you didn't just "work on it". It was a PM battle which I'm happy to post here, where at the end of the day all we did was ask you to follow the rules and understand that sometimes a person you don't like might issue you a warning or an infraction, and to just take it and move on. But you never do. It's always the other guy that's wrong.

 

It really doesn't surprise me that when Dave says rules aren't being broken, your response is "I don't care", because you've never followed or respected the rules or the staff.

 

So you know what? I have some good feedback here from a handful of users that I respect, and I'll use that to grow and try to provide a better online experience for myself and others. But what I won't do is take feedback of people who've never followed our rules or showed a shred of respect for any of the staff here.

[RichieNextel305]

I personally think the longest running joke is that the most confrontational person on this board, who takes pride in winning "argumentative user" awards, is somehow in charge of moderating a forum. A forum consisting of members who have no respect for him.

 

You list the number of users I've had spats with. How many have you had spats with, Pete? I'm sure it's probably around triple the amount anyone else on here has. And you're a moderator. What does that say for you?

 

Again, forum policy is forum policy. And I get that. And while I've never mastered respect for the staff, you've never mastered getting off your high horse and getting over whatever power trip being a moderator here gives you. I won't even say you're wrong for the reasons you go after people, such as me. You're wrong for the way you actually go after them, and the way you go after them in an almost threatening way.

 

And for the record, I do not give permission to you to post my PM's with you. I was clear where I was fine with my disciplinary actions being posted here. But, private messages will be kept private messages.

 

Just know that this place has turned into a circus, and an empty one, mainly to do with the way you treat people. People last here weeks before either being booted or walking away because they grow tired of your act. You can say what you want about me; I have changed. I haven't had an issue with anyone here in a long, long time. Largely because, like others, I grew tired of this place. Because every left turn by some is a warning, where others can do as they please and bait and contribute to fights because they can never not get the last word in. I even told Phil the last issue I had, and you can ask him yourself, that I was gonna give myself a time out from this place. I decided to do that because I had it up to my ears with dealing with the same policy. You live and die by it. I get that it's there, and for good reason. But just because something isn't in the policy doesn't mean that it should be turned a blind eye to. Sure, its a rule to not curse. Cursing excessively sucks. I get that. I fixed that. But while it's not a forum rule to be a confrontational, annoy, pain in the ass, it doesn't mean that you can be that. And more than one person in this thread has already said that, in not so many words.

 

You're right. I've never liked you. You've never liked me. That's the lay of the land. And I agree. I don't really care. I don't know you from a hole in the wall. I don't have to like you. You don't have to like me.

 

It doesn't surprise me that this is the response, really. Forum policy is all that this place lives on, and it turns a blind eye to any other issue going on. It's a place where you can sneakily throw the first punch, but it's the guy who reacts who gets called out on it. It's happened time and time again.

 

I was right when I decided to stay away from this place. I'll still read, and contribute here and there. But, strictly because of you, I, like obviously others, will just avoid contributing the way I used to. I've had it with the fights, with the baiting, with the nitpicking, with the same rhetoric where unless it's forum policy, it's good to go. This place has turned into a circus. It's turned into not even forum, but a group chat mainly, between 15 people. Is that because of my cursing? Is it because you don't believe I follow forum policy? Is it because of me? No. The answer is that it's because enough people have realized that you are a confrontational, annoying person that, because of your position as a moderator, have to tolerate. We can't even block you to not deal with you. We are forced to deal with your bullying tactics, power trips, baiting and overall annoyance.

 

So, it is what it is. I was originally happy this thread was created, because I finally thought it'd be time we can, maturely, try to correct a wrong. It wasn't created to discuss forum policy, who has what on their infraction record, etc. It was created as a means to discuss why this place has died down seemingly over the last several months, even last year. Good points were brought up by more than a few posters, many of whom, like myself, used to contribute at a more regular rate. And just about all of us told you why we don't any longer. Yet, nothing will be done about it, and like it has so many times before, it's unfortunately fallen on deaf ears.

[Pete]

I personally think the longest running joke is that the most confrontational person on this board, who takes pride in winning "argumentative user" awards, is somehow in charge of moderating a forum. A forum consisting of members who have no respect for him.

 

Again, forum policy is forum policy. And I get that. And while I've never mastered respect for the staff, you've never mastered getting off your high horse and getting over whatever power trip being a moderator here gives you. I won't even say you're wrong for the reasons you go after people, such as me. You're wrong for the way you actually go after them, and the way you go after them in an almost threatening way.

 

And for the record, I do not give permission to you to post my PM's with you. I was clear where I was fine with my disciplinary actions being posted here. But, private messages will be kept private messages.

 

Just know that this place has turned into a circus, and an empty one, mainly to do with the way you treat people. People last here weeks before either being booted or walking away because they grow tired of your act. You can say what you want about me; I have changed. I haven't had an issue with anyone here in a long, long time. Largely because, like others, I grew tired of this place. Because every left turn by some is a warning, where others can do as they please and bait and contribute to fights because they can never not get the last word in. I even told Phil the last issue I had, and you can ask him yourself, that I was gonna give myself a time out from this place. I decided to do that because I had it up to my ears with dealing with the same policy. You live and die by it. I get that it's there, and for good reason. But just because something isn't in the policy doesn't mean that it should be turned a blind eye to. Sure, its a rule to not curse. Cursing excessively sucks. I get that. I fixed that. But while it's not a forum rule to be a confrontational, annoy, pain in the ass, it doesn't mean that you can be that. And more than one person in this thread has already said that, in not so many words.

 

You're right. I've never liked you. You've never liked me. That's the lay of the land. And I agree. I don't really care. I don't know you from a hole in the wall. I don't have to like you. You don't have to like me.

 

It doesn't surprise me that this is the response, really. Forum policy is all that this place lives on, and it turns a blind eye to any other issue going on. It's a place where you can sneakily throw the first punch, but it's the guy who reacts who gets called out on it. It's happened time and time again.

 

I was right when I decided to stay away from this place. I'll still read, and contribute here and there. But, strictly because of you, I, like obviously others, will just avoid contributing the way I used to. I've had it with the fights, with the baiting, with the nitpicking, with the same rhetoric where unless it's forum policy, it's good to go. This place has turned into a circus. It's turned into not even forum, but a group chat mainly, between 15 people. Is that because of my cursing? Is it because you don't believe I follow forum policy? Is it because of me? No. The answer is that it's because enough people have realized that you are a confrontational, annoying person that, because of your position as a moderator, have to tolerate. We can't even block you to not deal with you. We are forced to deal with your bullying tactics, power trips, baiting and overall annoyance.

 

So, it is what it is. I was originally happy this thread was created, because I finally thought it'd be time we can, maturely, try to correct a wrong. It wasn't created to discuss forum policy, who has what on their infraction record, etc. It was created as a means to discuss why this place has died down seemingly over the last several months, even last year. Good points were brought up by more than a few posters, many of whom, like myself, used to contribute at a more regular rate. And just about all of us told you why we don't any longer. Yet, nothing will be done about it, and like it has so many times before, it's unfortunately fallen on deaf ears.

I hope it's not lost on anyone that I've read the feedback and am open to making a few changes, while your reply is "I have changed. I haven't had an issue with anyone here in a long, long time. Largely because, like others, I grew tired of this place." So you don't have issues with anyone because you don't post as much. That speaks volumes.

 

I'm not going to go back and forth. I've said my piece, and Dave has done a fantastic job of dispelling the rest of the baseless accusations. I won't continue to reply to you in this thread, but if anyone else would like to further discuss anything with me, feel free to PM me. Dave has spent enough time on this, Phil has spent enough time on this, and everyone else has spent enough time on it.

 

My posts are down, I have some things to work on and will continue to do so.

The season opener is tomorrow.

This board should be focused on hockey and not a soap opera.

[RichieNextel305]

Of course, because it's a thread focused on issues people have with you, so it shouldn't be focused on. Got it. Great. Great job, mod.

 

What also speaks volumes is the fact that you have no problem listing who I've had issues with. What about you? How many people have you had issues with, Pete?

[Guest]

I personally think the longest running joke is that the most confrontational person on this board, who takes pride in winning "argumentative user" awards, is somehow in charge of moderating a forum. A forum consisting of members who have no respect for him.

 

You list the number of users I've had spats with. How many have you had spats with, Pete? I'm sure it's probably around triple the amount anyone else on here has. And you're a moderator. What does that say for you?

 

Again, forum policy is forum policy. And I get that. And while I've never mastered respect for the staff, you've never mastered getting off your high horse and getting over whatever power trip being a moderator here gives you. I won't even say you're wrong for the reasons you go after people, such as me. You're wrong for the way you actually go after them, and the way you go after them in an almost threatening way.

 

And for the record, I do not give permission to you to post my PM's with you. I was clear where I was fine with my disciplinary actions being posted here. But, private messages will be kept private messages.

 

Just know that this place has turned into a circus, and an empty one, mainly to do with the way you treat people. People last here weeks before either being booted or walking away because they grow tired of your act. You can say what you want about me; I have changed. I haven't had an issue with anyone here in a long, long time. Largely because, like others, I grew tired of this place. Because every left turn by some is a warning, where others can do as they please and bait and contribute to fights because they can never not get the last word in. I even told Phil the last issue I had, and you can ask him yourself, that I was gonna give myself a time out from this place. I decided to do that because I had it up to my ears with dealing with the same policy. You live and die by it. I get that it's there, and for good reason. But just because something isn't in the policy doesn't mean that it should be turned a blind eye to. Sure, its a rule to not curse. Cursing excessively sucks. I get that. I fixed that. But while it's not a forum rule to be a confrontational, annoy, pain in the ass, it doesn't mean that you can be that. And more than one person in this thread has already said that, in not so many words.

 

You're right. I've never liked you. You've never liked me. That's the lay of the land. And I agree. I don't really care. I don't know you from a hole in the wall. I don't have to like you. You don't have to like me.

 

It doesn't surprise me that this is the response, really. Forum policy is all that this place lives on, and it turns a blind eye to any other issue going on. It's a place where you can sneakily throw the first punch, but it's the guy who reacts who gets called out on it. It's happened time and time again.

 

I was right when I decided to stay away from this place. I'll still read, and contribute here and there. But, strictly because of you, I, like obviously others, will just avoid contributing the way I used to. I've had it with the fights, with the baiting, with the nitpicking, with the same rhetoric where unless it's forum policy, it's good to go. This place has turned into a circus. It's turned into not even forum, but a group chat mainly, between 15 people. Is that because of my cursing? Is it because you don't believe I follow forum policy? Is it because of me? No. The answer is that it's because enough people have realized that you are a confrontational, annoying person that, because of your position as a moderator, have to tolerate. We can't even block you to not deal with you. We are forced to deal with your bullying tactics, power trips, baiting and overall annoyance.

 

So, it is what it is. I was originally happy this thread was created, because I finally thought it'd be time we can, maturely, try to correct a wrong. It wasn't created to discuss forum policy, who has what on their infraction record, etc. It was created as a means to discuss why this place has died down seemingly over the last several months, even last year. Good points were brought up by more than a few posters, many of whom, like myself, used to contribute at a more regular rate. And just about all of us told you why we don't any longer. Yet, nothing will be done about it, and like it has so many times before, it's unfortunately fallen on deaf ears.

 

I've been patient with you over this, but I'm done. I specifically said this is not a thread for a free for all on Pete. Yet you've doubled down. You've never "mastered respect for the staff"? Then how about you get the fuck out of here and find another forum to post on? One who doesn't care if you shit all over the place. This place is a circus? Then go. You don't like that there are rules you're expected to follow? Too bad. You didn't create this place, Phil did. You don't pay for the hosting or software costs for this place, Phil does. You didn't pay to have a custom mobile app put together that improves on the experience users have here, Phil did. He's created a place for people to talk and the thanks he gets and the thanks those of us who put tons of hours into managing this place and dealing with the shit people like you post because you can't control yourself, is continued disrespect for the few simple fucking rules that are asked of you? Then go.

 

You and maybe some others don't like Pete's way of debating? The answer should be, "too bad", not everyone has to like each other. Instead, Pete's offered to try to work on it. He doesn't have to. He hasn't broken any forum rules that I've seen. Yet he's going to change the way he posts to try to appease some people. And after saying that, your first reaction, rather than try to maybe admit you're part of your own problem here, is to shit all over him again? And shit all over Phil? And Jules. And Ray. And John. And Chris. And Jason. And Drew. And me.

 

Just go already.

[Niko]

I've read this thread and agree with many people in many regards. While not getting into it too deeply, because I simply don't care as much, lol, I will say I rarely, if ever post here anymore. It's mainly because my time is severely limited and my jobs and personal life make it so that I don't have the time to be as active as I used when threads get so much activity in such short time. However, this is still my number one spot for breaking rangers news, because somehow, a lot of you guys get info regarding this team before it even happens, or so it seems.

 

However, there does seem to be an elitist attitude among a lot of posters, or so I and clearly others, feel. There's too much discrediting of posters regarding a multitude of things that gets to be insanely frustrating. It's like "I don't care if you've played competitive hockey youwhole 40 years of existence and I haven't. My website of stats says you're wrong. You can't cite it. I'm right you're wrong."

 

Personally, between Keith, Chris and I there is about 30+ years of police experience. Yet, we're told we're wrong by a someone sitting on his lap top based on what they read on a site. And then we are essentially told in so many words that our real world experiences mean nothing because we can't provide a link. It reminds me of that meme that says "I've never done your job, but my book says you're doing it wrong", lol. It just grows frustrating and tiresome. If you're dealing with the same stresses you do at work in what is suppose to be your leisure time, you're doing it wrong.

 

And for better or worse, those type of experiences be it in the hockey parts of the forum or the non hockey discussions have soured me on the board as a whole. There used to be a time where everyone on this board was very friendly with each other and it was a pleasure to engage in a multitude of discussion. Those times are over. It seems everyone is either a liberal progressive or a conservative in EVERY aspect of the board and there feels like there's a clear divide among cliques. Board meet ups were awesome because there were so many people you'd enjoy watching a game with at the bar throwing a few back and making jokes. Now? Not so much.

 

I'm sure I speak for most posters that when you make a post, you can predict who's going to rep you and who's going to debate you with relative ease, and you know the points they'll rebut with. So in lieu of getting in long extended pissing contests, I try to post as little as possible.

 

I'll always go to the Rangers section and the around the NHL section to get breaking news be this board is aces in regards. But i can take or leave it any other regard.

[RichieNextel305]

I've been patient with you over this, but I'm done. I specifically said this is not a thread for a free for all on Pete. Yet you've doubled down. You've never "mastered respect for the staff"? Then how about you get the fuck out of here and find another forum to post on? One who doesn't care if you shit all over the place. This place is a circus? Then go. You don't like that there are rules you're expected to follow? Too bad. You didn't create this place, Phil did. You don't pay for the hosting or software costs for this place, Phil does. You didn't pay to have a custom mobile app put together that improves on the experience users have here, Phil did. He's created a place for people to talk and the thanks he gets and the thanks those of us who put tons of hours into managing this place and dealing with the shit people like you post because you can't control yourself, is continued disrespect for the few simple fucking rules that are asked of you? Then go.

 

You and maybe some others don't like Pete's way of debating? The answer should be, "too bad", not everyone has to like each other. Instead, Pete's offered to try to work on it. He doesn't have to. He hasn't broken any forum rules that I've seen. Yet he's going to change the way he posts to try to appease some people. And after saying that, your first reaction, rather than try to maybe admit you're part of your own problem here, is to shit all over him again? And shit all over Phil? And Jules. And Ray. And John. And Chris. And Jason. And Drew. And me.

 

Just go already.

 

'Nuf said.

 

Enjoy the glorified group chat this place has become.

 

Goodbye.

[Guest]

I've read this thread and agree with many people in many regards. While not getting into it too deeply, because I simply don't care as much, lol, I will say I rarely, if ever post here anymore. It's mainly because my time is severely limited and my jobs and personal life make it so that I don't have the time to be as active as I used when threads get so much activity in such short time. However, this is still my number one spot for breaking rangers news, because somehow, a lot of you guys get info regarding this team before it even happens, or so it seems.

 

However, there does seem to be an elitist attitude among a lot of posters, or so I and clearly others, feel. There's too much discrediting of posters regarding a multitude of things that gets to be insanely frustrating. It's like "I don't care if you've played competitive hockey youwhole 40 years of existence and I haven't. My website of stats says you're wrong. You can't cite it. I'm right you're wrong."

 

Personally, between Keith, Chris and I there is about 30+ years of police experience. Yet, we're told we're wrong by a someone sitting on his lap top based on what they read on a site. And then we are essentially told in so many words that our real world experiences mean nothing because we can't provide a link. It reminds me of that meme that says "I've never done your job, but my book says you're doing it wrong", lol. It just grows frustrating and tiresome. If you're dealing with the same stresses you do at work in what is suppose to be your leisure time, you're doing it wrong.

 

And for better or worse, those type of experiences be it in the hockey parts of the forum or the non hockey discussions have soured me on the board as a whole. There used to be a time where everyone on this board was very friendly with each other and it was a pleasure to engage in a multitude of discussion. Those times are over. It seems everyone is either a liberal progressive or a conservative in EVERY aspect of the board and there feels like there's a clear divide among cliques. Board meet ups were awesome because there were so many people you'd enjoy watching a game with at the bar throwing a few back and making jokes. Now? Not so much.

 

I'm sure I speak for most posters that when you make a post, you can predict who's going to rep you and who's going to debate you with relative ease, and you know the points they'll rebut with. So in lieu of getting in long extended pissing contests, I try to post as little as possible.

 

I'll always go to the Rangers section and the around the NHL section to get breaking news be this board is aces in regards. But i can take or leave it any other regard.

 

There is some validity to this if you're getting dismissed out of hand for anything, because your experience gives a perspective that others don't have. And I've repeatedly thanked you guys for it and brought up how you sharing your experience is a benefit to the forum. But if people are providing reasonable evidence to support their opinion which is different than your own, then that's kind of what we do here. Look at this thread. Between Pete, Phil, Jules and Myself, we probably have a combined what, 30 years of forum moderating experience? But people here have no problem questioning us. And we accept that. All we require is the same thing we require everyone on the forum, if you're going to disagree, explain why. And if it's a situation where you're making a claim that is more than just your opinion, support that with facts.

 

If the users complaining here had turned up dozens of posts by Pete where he's clearly over the line, we'd be discussing that now. Although, it would have already been dealt with. Other than that, the forum's owner, Phil, wants a place of robust and detailed debates. Whether it's Rangers stuff or elsewhere. So people are free to post without doing the work to support their opinions, but they have to accept that their positions may be challenged. Even if they have real world experience on the topic.