I hope the "respectability" and "credibility" of the new WSI junior is worth it.

I won't debate why WSI does what they do, but if this were the case, this thread would have been closed long ago. Think about it.

 

We don't want to keep seeing the players bashed. They might suck, and we can talk about how they suck, but to degrade and defile is crossing the line.

 

PM us if you have that much of a problem.

Amen to that. The infantile posts directed at players and other posters has to become a thing of the past. Call it censorship if you want to. Because we are damn well gonna put a stop to it. Don't bring up your constitutional right to freedom of speech unless you are willing to go the Supreme Court with it. Freedom of speech on a privately operated message board is a myth.

 

We give quite a bit of latitude here. More so than your 'average' message board. But then, we don't want to be 'average'. But there has come a point to where we have decided that we have to draw a line. Things were getting out of hand. We are hoping we all can settle into a happy medium and live happily ever after. We also hope you all appreciate what we are trying to do and try and live within the spirit of the rules as opposed to the letter of them.

Basically we feel that the type of posters that are awesome reps for the site and knowledgeble people will have no issue. If a person really wants to tread that line and test the admins and mods, then there's probably not going to be a whole lot of people defending that poster anyways.

You trying to tell me something babybearhater?

thats one of 2

I was kidding about this being wsi jr., that's why it is in green.

 

How about this scenario.

 

LF Everett

CF Pods

Rf Die

DH Gload

1B Pop Up Paulie

 

 

I see you are newish here.  Leave the nicknames out of the players, please.

 

Is this degrading? defiling?

 

Yasny wrote:

"Don't bring up your constitutional right to freedom of speech unless you are willing to go the Supreme Court with it. Freedom of speech on a privately operated message board is a myth. "

 

You are the only one that brought it up. I claimed no such thing. I said it was censorship. Do you disagree?

 

If you guys are interested in being able to rub elbows with players and being on the good side of Sox management type folk then more power to ya. I hope you get the attention/special treatment/access you are looking for.

If you guys are interested in being able to rub elbows with players and being on the good side of Sox management type folk then more power to ya. I hope you get the attention/special treatment/access you are looking for.

 

We're a hell of a lot more worried about losing exceptional posters who think this place is a s***hole. The staff is on good terms with people we know within the Sox, and the players. We're not worried about that.

Whoa, we can't give the players nicknames like Pop Up Paulie? That goes a little too far, doesn't it?

 

Should the poster credepopsup have to change his name?

This needed to be done a lot sooner.

 

Best of luck with the cleanup, fellas! You do a fantastic job.

Whoa, we can't give the players nicknames like Pop Up Paulie?  That goes a little too far, doesn't it?

 

Should the poster credepopsup have to change his name?

Actually, Milkman, I brought that up for discussion. I think the consensus is you're right on that issue. We just need to be careful...

 

Thanks for the comment, though.

Love the new policy, but have a couple of questions:

 

1)We can't personally attack players. Sorry if this sounds smart-ass but does this apply just to White Sox players or all MLB players (i.e. Sosa, Torii, Bonds...)?

 

2)Wouldn't it be wise to remove the "I'm with stupid" emoticon from the smiley's list? Using it can't lead to anything good...

 

SFF

Love the new policy, but have a couple of questions:

 

1)We can't personally attack players.  Sorry if this sounds smart-ass but does this apply just to White Sox players or all MLB players (i.e. Sosa, Torii, Bonds...)?

 

2)Wouldn't it be wise to remove the "I'm with stupid" emoticon from the smiley's list?  Using it can't lead to anything good...

 

SFF

Personally, I think it should apply to all players, but that's me. Good question, though. We'll discuss it. But please remember that the "intent" is to keep things from being degrading or vulgar, not necessarily, "Torii Hunter sucks". So, IMO, the vulgarity should cover everyone.

Edited August 30, 200520 yr by kapkomet

Personally, I think it should apply to all players, but that's me.  Good question, though.  We'll discuss it.  But please remember that the "intent" is to keep things from being degrading or vulgar, not necessarily, "Torii Hunter sucks".  So, IMO, the vulgarity should cover everyone.

Piggybacking here (need a smiley for that). Does this policy apply to topics outside of baseball. For instance, a few weeks back, there was a Natalie Holloway thread where one poster repeatedly said that she was a slut and got what she deserved, etc. Is this crossing the line? I thought it was idiotic, but I didn't attack the poster personally, I just said I disagreed with his ideas. Oh, and I mentioned that I hoped that he never had kids. (

 

I think it's going to be very hard to be fair and consistent with the new policy. I don't believe I've ever crossed the line and attacked another poster, and I agree that it should not be tolerated, but I kind of think players and others in the media are fair game. Do I like to see posters here attacking players? No. However, if I see that, I just ignore it. I don't see why that would be censored.

Admins/Mods, Great Idea!

 

This was much needed. I'll be interested to see how the game threads turn out with new policy in effect

 

Again, Keep up the good work!!

Piggybacking here (need a smiley for that).  Does this policy apply to topics outside of baseball.  For instance, a few weeks back, there was a Natalie Holloway thread where one poster repeatedly said that she was a slut and got what she deserved, etc.  Is this crossing the line?  I thought it was idiotic, but I didn't attack the poster personally, I just said I disagreed with his ideas.  Oh, and I mentioned that I hoped that he never had kids. (

 

I think it's going to be very hard to be fair and consistent with the new policy.  I don't believe I've ever crossed the line and attacked another poster, and I agree that it should not be tolerated, but I kind of think players and others in the media are fair game.  Do I like to see posters here attacking players?  No.  However, if I see that, I just ignore it.  I don't see why that would be censored.

No, that's someone's opinion about a newsworthy event. Sexual innuendo about Timo and Ozzie isn't, and crosses the line.

 

Look, it's common sense. Most of you know what's right and not right, so use a little common sense and there will be no problems.

We're a hell of a lot more worried about losing exceptional posters who think this place is a s***hole. The staff is on good terms with people we know within the Sox, and the players. We're not worried about that.

Heads22 wrote:

Some comments and posts in game threads lately have gotten the staff talking. Watch for less and less tolerance from the mod team when posters make comments that Sox players "should have their arms broken" or when there is sexual innuendo made about a player. There is no faster way to discredit a website and its posters than with thoughtless comments. Believe it or not, players have read the site, and some have commented both to me and other posters that comments directed at players with the thought of an 10 year old leave many people disgusted, including the players themselves.You can show your displeasure with the play of the team. There is no reason to demean a player as an individual or send a "f*** You" their way, unless, of course, you want to be considered an idiot by the majority of intelligent posters here.

 

Alex

 

Who exactly is discrediting the site? Sox management? Sox players? Why should we care if they discredit the site? Isn't this a "fan" site? It seems that "outside forces" are putting pressure on this to be done. Am I wrong?

No, that's someone's opinion about a newsworthy event.  Sexual innuendo about Timo and Ozzie isn't, and crosses the line.

 

Look, it's common sense.  Most of you know what's right and not right, so use a little common sense and there will be no problems.

Ok, that makes sense.

I'll answer for him.

 

NO. We took it upon ourselves to clean this stuff up.

 

Is it NECESSARY on this site to defile and degrade people? NO!

 

Why is this such a hard concept - to respect people?

Who exactly is discrediting the site? Sox management? Sox players? Why should we care if they discredit the site? Isn't this a "fan" site? It seems that "outside forces" are putting pressure on this to be done. Am I wrong?

The posters are discrediting the site by making it unreadable, crude, crass and more about insulting the players for their mistakes than it actually being about the Sox.

 

I, personally, have enjoyed Pale Hose talk a LOT more since the rules were put into effect.

 

And I don't think any outside force is putting pressure on this site. It's more an issue of the people who run the site wanting it to be a respectful and thoughtful place to talk the about the Sox.

Edited August 30, 200520 yr by ChiSoxyGirl

The posters are discrediting the site by making it unreadable, crude, crass and more about insulting the players for their mistakes than it actually being about the Sox.

 

I, personally, have enjoyed Pale Hose talk a LOT more since the rules were put into effect.

 

And I don't think any outside force is putting pressure on this site. It's more an issue of the people who run the site wanting it to be a respectful and thoughtful place to talk the about the Sox.

Soxy, GMTA.

 

GMTA.

????

 

I'm not up on your hip Internet lingo.

Heads22 wrote:

Some comments and posts in game threads lately have gotten the staff talking. Watch for less and less tolerance from the mod team when posters make comments that Sox players "should have their arms broken" or when there is sexual innuendo made about a player. There is no faster way to discredit a website and its posters than with thoughtless comments. Believe it or not, players have read the site, and some have commented both to me and other posters that comments directed at players with the thought of an 10 year old leave many people disgusted, including the players themselves.You can show your displeasure with the play of the team. There is no reason to demean a player as an individual or send a "f*** You" their way, unless, of course, you want to be considered an idiot by the majority of intelligent posters here.

 

Alex

 

Who exactly is discrediting the site? Sox management? Sox players? Why should we care if they discredit the site? Isn't this a "fan" site? It seems that "outside forces" are putting pressure on this to be done. Am I wrong?

 

 

Other intelligent Sox fans have been discrediting the site. We isn't any pressure to do this except from within.

 

Of course, if we want to be part of more things like Core of the Core in the future, it doesn't hurt to be in good standing with front office officials.

Why is this such a hard concept - to respect people?

 

Because it's coming from you?

????

 

I'm not up on your hip Internet lingo.

 

Great Minds Think Alike. We posted about the same thing at the same time.

????

 

I'm not up on your hip Internet lingo.

 

 

GM usually means "Give me". I also know what T&A means, so draw your own conclusions...

 

Great Minds Think Alike.  We posted about the same thing at the same time.

Ahhhhhh. . .

 

But if great minds think alike, mediocre minds must also think alike.