StrangeSox

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:46 PM) Let's be honest, if we're going to go by the letter of those rules, the debate will be bland, humorless, and not mentally stimulating for anyone. Change the rules... This can also result in long-winded or passive aggressive insults and snark cloaked in a bunch of words as some people constantly try to walk right up to that line without going over it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:37 PM) It has always been our goal to stand as a group. A lot of that comes out where people came from before here where the perception was that people were routinely suspended for essentially personal grudges of individual admins/mods. It has always been our goal to interfere as little as possible and to keep the discussion as respectful as possible. It isn't an easy balance. There have been times where I have wanted to drop the hammer, when others didn't and vice versa. A solid discussion ensues about the specific instance and a decision is made as a group. If it makes it out the moderation team, there is always a good reason for whatever we decide. I promise you that much. I can honestly say while we may argue internally about specific decisions, it has worked well for the site as a whole. I will say this much about the Martin thread, the edited post wasn't the only one that brought up discussion. I'd venture to say everyone who posted in the thread violated the letter and intent of the filibuster rules at some point. First, let me say that I think you have done a very commendable job in achieving your goal of impartial and fair moderation. I think this still points out an important issue--decisions on what is or isn't over the line are simply handed out by the moderation group black box without talking to the poster in question and then informing the community as a whole as to what was over the line. Sometimes, as when Y2HH and I got ourselves banned with essentially a "go f*** yourself" exchange, it's crystal-clear as to what happened and why. If Y2HH or iamshack made a post that resulted in a suspension but it wasn't exactly clear as to why they were suspended, how are the rest of the members supposed to check that they're in line with policy? With a quadrennial stickied thread? On the other hand, I also understand not wanting to drag every member/post discussion out into the public and that finding a way to communicate issues without doing so isn't necessarily an easy task.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:20 PM) The moderation policies are all out in the open, and always have been. It is the discussion behind the enforcement of them that isn't, and won't be. If you were to receive a punishment of some sort we would tell you why you got it, but it wouldn't be public, unless there were extraordinary circumstances. It might not upset you, but trust me when I say this, you would be an exception to the rule. I feel it's only fair that, if mods and admins are discussing a specific member's posts, that that member is informed and perhaps even brought into the discussion.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:14 PM) SS, I'm sure you have a pretty good idea of what posts and posters push the envelope. They just discuss how to keep things productive, while allowing the most freedom of expression possible. I do not have a good idea if multiple posts within the Martin thread were over the line in the view of some mods and admins. I recall one post near the end having a mod's edit notes. I would like to have a better understanding. FWIW the other board I frequently post at is 100% openly democratic in everything. This has it's own negative aspects e.g. endless rules-lawyering, but everyone knows where individual moderators and admins stand on board policy and what is or isn't appropriate. That board is that way for board history/cultural reasons, and I don't believe that's necessarily the best policy for SoxTalk to follow. But that may give you some idea of where I'm coming from. I don't have a problem with the SoxTalk moderation and never have. I've been suspended once, deserved it and knew it when I hit "Add Reply." Something to consider is that while some may not like the loose moderation policies at SoxTalk and post less or leave because of it, others may not like a more heavy-handed approach. I do not view the moderators and admins as any different than the rest of membership, except they have a few more buttons to play around with. I mean this in the most positive way possible, in that I don't hold them to any different standard than I expect from anyone else and I haven't witnessed any biased moderation imo.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:08 PM) And for example, if you knew I felt you should be suspended for X, and it did or didn't happen, what would your thought be after that? If I were suspended, I'd be confused since I personally don't feel any post I made would be worthy of that. More importantly I would be upset that moderation policy discussions weren't been held out in the open or at least communicated with membership when it concerns grey areas or potentially grey areas. It isn't fair to membership to have unclear lines and boundaries. Honestly, I would not hold any resentment that you and other mods/admins may have a different interpretation of the rules than I do and that mods/admins have final say.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:07 PM) Technically the rules are posted very clearly at the top of the page, and everyone who posts in here has agreed to them. They are never followed by anyone (and I will be the first to admit, I am a part of that) so it makes deciding when to take action and what action to take much harder. No one wants to be the bad guy, and usually it just is ignored, and the insults and arguments roll on. Rules-as-written and rules-as-enforced-or-interpreted are never the same thing.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 07:01 PM) Without getting into to much detail, there was a discussion about some of the things that were said back and forth in the Martin thread, how and if they violated rules, and what should be done about it. This forum has been historically miserable to moderate. How is anyone to know what the board policy actually is if these things aren't discussed in the open or at least explained to members afterwards?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 06:48 PM) It isn't going to happen. We have found over the years that discussion of suspensions and warnings in pubic leads to much bigger and more personal problems down the road. I didn't mean suspensions and warnings. I was referring to NSS's statement that this forum has become difficult to manage and the discussions about the fillibuster in general. I was pointing out that I personally haven't seen this forum being difficult to manage or moderate. kap's post is not without merit, but I don't see how you can 'fix' that through rules and moderation.

How would moderation change that?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 06:15 PM) That's an interesting idea too. To be completely honest, the people that run this site don't have time to do extensive programming or upgrades. That's one of the big issues. Tapatalk support would be awesome. As would a working search function. I understand the time constraints thought, and these are more board technical questions and not board culture questions, which is what the OP seems to be about.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) Would it be possible to make the discussion open to the rest of the users? To clarify, I was referring to the discussion among admins (and mods?) that NSS is alluding to. Open moderation is always a better policy imo, and it's hard to know exactly what I'm supposed to be responding to if I don't really understand what concerns admins have. I can't recall very many warnings or suspensions being handed out back here. I haven't seen posts that have been edited by mods for content aside from one very recent one, and I don't remember threads being locked or posts deleted. I guess I don't really know what the supposed problem back here is.

Would it be possible to make the discussion open to the rest of the users?

boo.

eat a dick phoenix

Cry some more about uncalled penalties phoenix.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:42 PM) no wonder Corey said something. Smith stuck his face in Sharps face as he went to stand up forKane and Toews. I'm surprised he didn't take another dive as Crawford came up

way to keep control NHL!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:38 PM) Oh hey a penalty happens in front of the ref, AND it gets called. but they missed the blatant hold on Toews on the series before that

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:31 PM) Coyotes Announcers Take on The "Clean Hit" by Torres. According to the Coyotes broadcast team, that hit on Hossa was "clean" and that there was "nothing wrong with it." He maintains his retarded opinion, despite the fact that he points out that Torres hit Hossa in the jaw (which is attached to the head). "as clean of a hit as you'll get" "I don't have a problem with this" moron

Seemingly every ex-NHL player or coach on twitter strongly disagrees.

these were some seriously pathetic PP's

penalty on torres. Really nice job by the 'hawks staying composed with him out there.

Seeing reports that the media is being blacked out on Hossa and there was a police escort to the hospital

KANER!

LOL@NHL