New rule

[Poppa San]

Suggestion LTF, if this is a football forum can we eliminate all political discussion and enforce this rule, it gets out of hand at times

We have an opt in politics area and sometimes politics impinge on the gridiron. So all political discussion is a non-starter. We do try to limit the drift that way to the area set up for it. [/moderating]

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

and not even good stuff, like the goal was cut short because Pettine called x instead of O or King played this as poorly as you could, or a reason why or why not kicking a FG vs taking 1 shot at the endzone was good or bad. just the run of the mill, we suck, everything sucks, it's all a failure waaaaaahhhhhhhh.

While I understand your frustrations of having to read things that go against what you believe, I guess I am left wondering who decides to censor these people from particular threads and how those decisions are made? I understand this is a privately owned website and the first amendment doesn't apply, I just want to understand the rules.

For example if someone starts a thread "Rodgers Is the Clear Cut MVP". Should I not comment on the thread if I don't agree with the OP's statement? Maybe start my own thread of "Rodgers is Clearly Not the MVP"? Expecting, if anyone disagrees with me, they will immediately be removed from my thread?

 

[PikeBadger]

Whats the square footage of a paranoid room

Here? About the size of the East room in the White House.

 

[longtimefan]

nobody was banned. In fact they were directed to a **** and moan thread to let it all out. Every single thread posted on in the past 2 days has people that regularly do nothing but moan and new ones out of the woodwork here to just ***** and moan. The board is full of it. One thread someone wanted to just say it's been fun. Took like 1 post to turn it into another place to *****.

and not even good stuff, like the goal was cut short because Pettine called x instead of O or King played this as poorly as you could, or a reason why or why not kicking a FG vs taking 1 shot at the endzone was good or bad. just the run of the mill, we suck, everything sucks, it's all a failure waaaaaahhhhhhhh.

Zero issues directing them to the kiddie table when they're not old enough sit with the adults once and a while.

Ty for at least understanding the reason behind it.

 

[Mondio]

While I understand your frustrations of having to read things that go against what you believe, I guess I am left wondering who decides to censor these people from particular threads and how those decisions are made? I understand this is a privately owned website and the first amendment doesn't apply, I just want to understand the rules.

For example if someone starts a thread "Rodgers Is the Clear Cut MVP". Should I not comment on the thread if I don't agree with the OP's statement? Maybe start my own thread of "Rodgers is Clearly Not the MVP"? Expecting, if anyone disagrees with me, they will immediately be removed from my thread?

nobody was censored, nobody was banned, nobody had their tickets taken. I read everything on this forum, even the stuff I don't agree with. there is zero issue from me with telling a few of the biggest whiners the internet has ever seen that are never here with anything more than we suck, this sucks, they all suck we need championships, being told to go ***** in another thread. Seriously, take your pick.

Their posts are still there, they're still here, they're still posting. Sometimes kids need guidance. I think it was pretty obvious.

 

[longtimefan]

The op wanted a positive thread...we have numerous people *****ing in every damn thread we have.

Whats harm in having one thread that people can at least think about the good stuff?

 

[longtimefan]

yes I gave them a time out for few hours on that thread

Its been lifted

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

nobody was censored, nobody was banned, nobody had their tickets taken. I read everything on this forum

Their posts are still there, they're still here, they're still posting. Sometimes kids need guidance. I think it was pretty obvious.

Obviously, you didn't read everything or actually understand what was done.

yes I gave them a time out for few hours on that thread
Its been lifted

Thanks for clarifying. Doesn't really explain it, but it is what it is.

 

[Mondio]

Ok

 

[longtimefan]

This was one of those cases I felt the message would get lost in 1st page..
(Yes I know threads go off rail sometimes in 2 posts)

imo. a heart breaking loss, the wounds still fresh.
someone wanted to make a different spin thread on the numerous posts already talking about the idiot coach, Gm and idiot players.

I felt this was no diff than merging two threads under same heading... (Yes I know not same but principle same ball park)

again I felt it was going to be the same **** as all the other threads..I felt this should be different and if people wanted to ***** there were plenty of other threads.

Edit

In other words it was disrespectful to the op who wanted it to be positive

 

[melvin dangerr]

We have an opt in politics area and sometimes politics impinge on the gridiron. So all political discussion is a non-starter. We do try to limit the drift that way to the area set up for it. [/moderating]

I did not know that MOD, think I’ll opt out of the political side of the forum, no matter how much its joined at the hip

 

[Deleted member 6794]

nobody was censored, nobody was banned, nobody had their tickets taken. there is zero issue from me with telling a few of the biggest whiners the internet has ever seen that are never here with anything more than we suck, this sucks, they all suck we need championships, being told to go ***** in another thread. Seriously, take your pick.

Their posts are still there, they're still here, they're still posting. Sometimes kids need guidance. I think it was pretty obvious.

Actually two posters weren't allowed to post in a thread anymore because they didn't agree with the original poster.

What's the point of having a forum if there's no discussion being allowed??? As I mentioned above if that spills over to other threads around here it will be a pretty boring place to visit in a heartbeat.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

yes I gave them a time out for few hours on that thread

Its been lifted

Does this mean there is a moderator permanently on duty 24/7 ?

 

[Mondio]

Actually two posters weren't allowed to post in a thread anymore because they didn't agree with the original poster.

What's the point of having a forum if there's no discussion being allowed??? As I mentioned above if that spills over to other threads around here it will be a pretty boring place to visit in a heartbeat.

actually they were put on a thread ignore meaning they could see every other stinking thread on the forum and even post in them to **** and moan except the single one somebody started to say, "hey, it's been fun" nobody was banned, nobody was denied their right to complain on this board. Nobody was banned and in fact it appears that was only temporary too.

So, tell me again who was banned for having a different opinion. Sometimes kids need guidance. They got some.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

actually they were put on a thread ignore meaning they could see every other stinking thread on the forum and even post in them to **** and moan except the single one somebody started to say, "hey, it's been fun" nobody was banned, nobody was denied their right to complain on this board. Nobody was banned and in fact it appears that was only temporary too.

So, tell me again who was banned for having a different opinion. Sometimes kids need guidance. They got some.

Calm down, calm down.

 

[Mondio]

Calm down, calm down.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

actually they were put on a thread ignore meaning they could see every other stinking thread on the forum and even post in them to **** and moan except the single one somebody started to say, "hey, it's been fun" nobody was banned, nobody was denied their right to complain on this board. Nobody was banned and in fact it appears that was only temporary too.

So, tell me again who was banned for having a different opinion.

Both of them were temporarily banned from posting in a thread.

In my opinion it sets a dangerous precedence for moderators to allow banning other posters in different threads solely based on disagreeing with the original poster.

 

[Mondio]

Both of them were temporarily banned from posting in a thread.

In my opinion it sets a dangerous precedence for moderators to allow banning other posters in different threads solely based on disagreeing with the original poster.

You’re just sore because you got moderated. Nobody was banned lol. Quit with it already.

I’ve been here quite a few years, so have you. This happens frequently right? Didn’t think so.

what happened was pretty clear and the moderator gave his reasoning. It’s fine if you disagree. But the Camper isn’t going to get much sympathy for posting the same thing in 49 other threads numerous times and told to leave one alone and go post in the 49 other threads all he wants.

you know what else is dangerous? Letting the loudest whiners dominate every thread with the same message.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You’re just sore because you got moderated. Nobody was banned lol. Quit with it already.

I’ve been here quite a few years, so have you. This happens frequently right? Didn’t think so.

what happened was pretty clear and the moderator gave his reasoning. It’s fine if you disagree. But the Camper isn’t going to get much sympathy for posting the same thing in 49 other threads numerous times and told to leave one alone and go post in the 49 other threads all he wants.

you know what else is dangerous? Letting the loudest whiners dominate every thread with the same message.

It's obvious why LTF did it and in a way, I understand it and might have done it myself, but that doesn't make it right. So for you to keep trying to justify it, just doubles down on it.

This is why we all are armed with an ignore button. I would prefer to continue to decide on my own who I want to silence. If the Mods feel someone is violating the TOS, then yes, they should step in. Disagreeing in a thread isn't a violation that I am aware of.

So instead of looking at the emotions of this, which you seem to be overly focused on, look at the mechanics.

 

[El Guapo]

Some people take things too literal. If you really think that LTF and others are going to start censoring left and right, then you will have the right to leave. I can get behind the reasoning for it, but can also see the downside of it being a common practice going forward. Seeing as that this is probably the last time the Packers will lose a heartbreaking game, I don't think any of us have anything to worry about. It's a love fest from here on out!

 

[Mondio]

It's obvious why LTF did it and in a way, I understand it and might have done it myself, but that doesn't make it right. So for you to keep trying to justify it, just doubles down on it.

This is why we all are armed with an ignore button. I would prefer to continue to decide on my own who I want to silence. If the Mods feel someone is violating the TOS, then yes, they should step in. Disagreeing in a thread isn't a violation that I am aware of.

So instead of looking at the emotions of this, which you seem to be overly focused on, look at the mechanics.

they weren't silenced. Not even a little bit. They didn't have to switch platforms, they didn't have to make a new account. They didn't have to go anywhere else to be heard. and yes, taking threads off topic is. It's vague, and it needs to be. There is a ton of leeway in that and it's rarely applied. you know it, I know it.

They aren't censors, they're moderators. Sometimes kids need guidance and that's exactly what happened here. and I would rather read for myself than have someone decide what I should read or hear on my own in every single way in life. But they weren't banned, not even a little bit. and I can read their same message in every single other thread on this forum. even ones they made after they were supposedly "banned". They weren't.

if I felt a place was over moderated I'd leave. but I don't think it's.

 

[melvin dangerr]

I only ask about a banning because I did not know what the policy was, I treat this forum blog just like distraction entertainment, I’ve never had to use the ignore button, unless its over the top personal, but in my years I not thin skinned enough to be easily offended, I’m sure their are adults here and nobody’s perfect, treat this like any other don’t like it don’t participate, no outside force makes you come here sides after a few drinks a lot of this is quite funny

 

[pacmaniac]

I assumed it was an option/feature of this site and not a bug or it would have been changed.

As someone who participates in other Social Media platforms that all have a 2 way ignore feature, I much prefer that system. Keeps fighting and drama to a minimum. After all, some don't recognize just how obnoxious they are and that was why they were ignored in the first place, yet they continue to act as if that poster can and wants to interact with them. It's like putting your own ear plugs in for a heckler, but allowing him to still listen to what you say and continue to heckle you to everyone else in the room.

Mods preach "use the ignore feature", but until it actually functions as a 2 way one, it is nothing but a half ***ed attempt at a solution, in my opinion.

Agreed, other forums have the 2 way ignore feature, which is better.

If someone can still reply to my posts after I've ignored them, they might take my lack of response as "winning the argument". In that case, maybe I should take them off ignore and engage them to make sure they don't think that? But then that's the whole point of this "New rule" thread. The mods wouldn't like it if we keep engaging people we want to ignore. They should upgrade the forum's ignore feature to be a 2-way ignore.

 

[Mondio]

if you ignore someone, why do you care what they say or think?

It does create some issues the way it is, if someone starts a thread, it may be a good topic, but you won't see any of it even from the 30 other people you regularly banter back and forth with. I learned that one a couple years ago when I started a thread and then was told there already was one, and it was pretty active.

Since then i just scroll right past the ones I don't really care to read.

 

[Poppa San]

The mods wouldn't like it if we keep engaging people we want to ignore. They should upgrade the forum's ignore feature to be a 2-way ignore.

Moderators don't have the ability to modify the forum's settings at the level required for this. Only @Shaggy can do that. We discussed it at our last quarterly retreat in Cabo and decided to shelve it for now and to give the new rule a chance.