What the h*ll is going on around here?

[E. Wolf]

Show me where its in the rules to be friendly to fans a poster does not like. I doubt its in there.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I thought you were done ?

 

[Half Empty]

"Don't like what I'm saying?
Put Me On Ignore"

Done

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

"Don't like what I'm saying?
Put Me On Ignore"

Done

That's a shame

 

[E. Wolf]

"Don't like what I'm saying?
Put Me On Ignore"

Done

Who is this directed toward?
I will note no one has cited the specific rules or guidelines mandating that folks be friendly to rival or even enemy fans.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Who is this directed toward?
I will note no one has cited the specific rules or guidelines mandating that folks be friendly to rival or even enemy fans.

BECAUSE I DON`T HAVE TO. Get over it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I like the way Billy usually handles the issue. A warning and a little humor usually does the trick.

However, I don't think the discussion needs to be "friendly". A dissenting Supreme Court justice (however disingenuous one might believe him to be) described his opponents' arguments in a recent majority opinion as "pure applesauce" and "jiggery-pokery", i.e., complete nonsense. That's not very friendly, and hardly collegial. But if it's the language of the Court, it should be good enough here. Insults to the person, not the argument, is where it should cross the line.

Example:

"Your argument is masterbatory." That's fine by me.

"You ******. I bet you stroke it with a picture of yer mum. You should have balls cut off." That's not OK.

It should be pretty simple. The "rules" don't need to be cluttered up with poppycock and balderdash.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Who is this directed toward?
I will note no one has cited the specific rules or guidelines mandating that folks be friendly to rival or even enemy fans.

Personal Attacks:
We have had a rash of situations pop up that should be addressed again.

We are not going to tolerate name calling or personal attacks on other people just because you disagree with their point of view.

THERE IS THE RULE !

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I like the way Billy usually handles the issue. A warning and a little humor usually does the trick.

However, I don't think the discussion needs to be "friendly". A dissenting Supreme Court justice (however disingenuous one might believe him to be) described his opponents' arguments in a recent majority opinion as "pure applesauce" and "jiggery-pokery", i.e., complete nonsense. That's not very friendly, and hardly collegial. But if it's the language of the Court, it should be good enough here. Insults to he person, not the argument, is where it should cross the line.

Example:

"Your argument is masterbatory." That's fine by me.

"You ******. I bet you stroke it with a picture of yer mum. You should have balls cut off." That's not OK.

It should be pretty simple. The "rules" don't need to be cluttered up with poppycock and balderdash.

Thank you.

IF a visitor comes here shooting crap "Have at it", they will be booted very quickly but if they are polite and have a valid argument, we ASK for the sake of the forum to keep it polite, nothing more.

 

[HardRightEdge]

We are not going to tolerate name calling or personal attacks on other people just because you disagree with their point of view.

I've never read the rules until just now. They say exactly what I've been saying. This is not that hard.

Getting back to the original post in this thread...where in the rules does it say posts "that say nothing new" or are off-topic are not permissible? My quick skim of those rules finds nothing of the sort.

 

[E. Wolf]

Personal Attacks:
We have had a rash of situations pop up that should be addressed again.

We are not going to tolerate name calling or personal attacks on other people just because you disagree with their point of view.

THERE IS THE RULE !

Try actually reading the thread that I took the trouble of finding. There are no personal attacks in that thread. The thread was not locked for personal attacks. It was locked because it was not welcoming to and creating a friendly environment for visiting fans. Don't make me go back and actually quote line and verse.
Replying "Because I don't have to" and "get over it" makes you look like petulant child and wholly unable to actually address my grievances. That means I win.
Is this forum ruled by the indivudal whims of a few moderators or is actually governed by rules that ensure fairness and even handedness?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I`m a bit confused here...

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Try actually reading the thread that I took the trouble of finding. There are no personal attacks in that thread. The thread was not locked for personal attacks. It was locked because it was not welcoming to and creating a friendly environment for visiting fans. Don't make me go back and actually quote line and verse.
Replying "Because I don't have to" and "get over it" makes you look like petulant child and wholly unable to actually address my grievances. That means I win.
Is this forum ruled by the indivudal whims of a few moderators or is actually governed by rules that ensure fairness and even handedness?

I`m done discussing this with you E. Wolf. If you have an issue with it, please take it up with the senior moderators, and particularly the one who locked the thread. You can feel free to report me too. I`ve lost interest.

 

[E. Wolf]

I`m a bit confused here...

Boy I am really having to hold my tongue here. There are so many things I want to say but I cannot. No matter. I am sure you will be able to discern what they are by your miraculous supernatural abilities in telepathy. It is almost too easy.
Be that as it may, I will make this easy even for you.
See this thread, this one right here:

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/welcome-pat-fans.56588/#post-584200

It is the thread I referenced in my first long submission to this thread which I objected to. I asked for a reason why it was locked, based on rules and guidelines (as opposed to an arbitrary, capricious whim). Your response was no personal attacks. There are no personal attacks here. He said the Patriots and their fans have been losers when not cheating, which is pretty much a true statement, or at least a fair one.
Here is the comment by the moderator:

Way to show how friendly our forum is

Thanks

Btw that was a sarcastic statement for 2 of you

Not locked for personal attacks. Locked because some do not receive fans of teams they do not like Fred Rogers in his wonderful neighborhood.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Thank you.

IF a visitor comes here shooting crap "Have at it", they will be booted very quickly but if they are polite and have a valid argument, we ASK for the sake of the forum to keep it polite, nothing more.

I would say requiring an argument to be valid puts the cart in front of the horse. The whole point of a debate is to discover what is and is not valid. Polite? Why? Supreme Court justices are sometimes impolite to each other.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a post must be valid or polite.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I would say requiring an argument to be valid puts the cart in front of the horse. The whole point of a debate is to discover what is and is not valid. Polite? Why? Supreme Court justices are sometimes impolite to each other.

Nowhere in the rules does it say that a post must be valid or polite.

So do we need to add stuff infinitum ? I`m not having a go here HRE, its just something we would hope people understand. I wasn`t even the moderator in question.

 

[E. Wolf]

I never said it was about you, as much as I have come to dislike you given how flippant some of your responses to me have been. Nor has anyone as far as I can tell. The thread is about this forum's moderation policies generally. I am trying to give honest, constructive feedback in an effort create a better understanding.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I never said it was about you, as much as I have come to dislike you given how flippant some of your responses to me have been. Nor has anyone as far as I can tell. The thread is about this forum's moderation policies generally. I am trying to give honest, constructive feedback in an effort create a better understanding.

I`m sorry you find me flippant and dislike me. I have referred you question to higher moderation in the hope you will get the answer you want.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So do we need to add stuff infinitum ? I`m not having a go here HRE, its just something we would hope people understand. I wasn`t even the moderator in question.

I know you were not the moderator in question. I revisited the issue in light of the "following the rules" discussion. I believe the rules were written the way they were for a reason. They are consistent with my views expressed in this thread.

 

[TJV]

Being (admittedly) filled with hatred is certainly not against the rules but it can lead someone to post things like, “The Favre jihadists deserve hate and personal attacks, and far more besides…”, which would seem to lead one in the direction of breaking the rules and being involved in a relatively high percentage of threads which get locked. And to having problems with the mods.

It can also lead someone to start a very revealing thread called “reverse ignore” with this post: “It would be nice to have a reverse ignore feature, so that certain folks cannot view one's posts or rate them. Or maybe a limit on positive and negative ratings to once per thread.” Now why in the world would someone want that feature or to limit the number of ratings per thread?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I never said it was about you, as much as I have come to dislike you given how flippant some of your responses to me have been. Nor has anyone as far as I can tell. The thread is about this forum's moderation policies generally. I am trying to give honest, constructive feedback in an effort create a better understanding.

I have read and re-read that thread, and then read it again just to be on the safe side. Reading previous comments you have repeatedly made about it, what makes you believe he was singling you out as an offender there ?? I can`t see anything that would get you so riled up anyway.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Being (admittedly) filled with hatred is certainly not against the rules but it can lead someone to post things like, “The Favre jihadists deserve hate and personal attacks, and far more besides…”, which would seem to lead one in the direction of breaking the rules...

"Jihadist" is borderline name calling; I could see it being OK in the right context, but not in this one. Saying someone "deserves hate" would be a borderline personal attack...it says, "I hate you". Saying they "deserve personal attacks" is an incitement for others to break the rules; that's gone too far. Then there's, "...and more besides", which borders on a direct personal threat.

The clever avoidance of personal pronouns doesn't alter the meaning...this is name calling, a personal attack and a violation of the rules.

 

[E. Wolf]

Jihadist simply describes the irrational fanaticism of the other side. Its an apt description. I dont like Favre fans, at least not those of the turncoat sort who were and possibly stil are donning enemy colors. And i will not apologize for expressing my righteous contempt and disdain for them
The funny thing is you guys in your attempt to shame me are only making me smile. I stand by every word I wrote, and take satisfaction that it stick in your collective craw. You guys are actually quoting me. How often do people quote you?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Jihadist simply describes the irrational fanaticism of the other side. Its an apt description. I dont like Favre fans, at least not those of the turncoat sort who were and possibly stil are donning enemy colors. And i will not apologize for expressing my righteous contempt and disdain for them
The funny thing is you guys in your attempt to shame me are only making me smile. I stand by every word I wrote, and take satisfaction that it stick in your collective craw. You guys are actually quoting me. How often do people quote you?

TJV quite a lot actually...

 

[TJV]

And i will not apologize for expressing my righteous contempt and disdain for them. The funny thing is you guys in your attempt to shame me are only making me smile. I stand by every word I wrote, and take satisfaction that it stick in your collective craw. You guys are actually quoting me. How often do people quote you?

If you participated more in what this board is all about – rationally discussing issues related to the Packers – you’d know Bill, HRE, and I get quoted quite a bit. But it signifies nothing since it can occur to point out agreement or disagreement, or to expand upon the quoted text, or to display the foolish nature of the post.

BTW, why are you using words like "righteous contempt" and "disdain" instead of "hate" which you have thrown around abundantly and endorsed it's use with others? You’re proud of how hateful you are, aren’t you? And why did you start the “reverse ignore” thread? Were some others sticking it in your craw?