There are a lot of stupid people were I live...actually, there are a lot of stupid people on this planet and I have traveled through it a number of times. I feel that in saying, "Wow, he got a red for that play? That was stupid", is now offensive to about 80% of our population so we should not do that either. Can't say "dumb" either as it may be offensive to dumb people - many of those out there as well. My point is - where do we draw the line and who draws it? Serious question.
Thanks. But I think your view also captures the problem for the moderators who seem to want to collapse the distinction between the two forums. In the initial post of this thread, they recognize that this forum was supposed to be pretty much a free for all. That's fine. But then they need to let it breathe. Either this forum is pretty much all things go outside of racism and such, or N&A must be sterilized of humor. Or they might as well, as it seems they want to do, collapse them.
They should. People in N&A have forgotten how to enjoy the team. People down here have forgotten their minds. The split seems to be polarizing the discussion, from too uptight on one hand to absurd on the other.
I wouldn't come close to calling that over the top, though. Really. And that's despite the fact that there are some arguments made--however ironically--in that post with which I disagree.
Your post is a fair example. The first example ascribes a quality to an action.No worries IMO. Your second example ascribes that quality to people,which is not cool,really. Neither of those words carry the stigma as the r-word though,which was used for years as a coded means by eugenicists to incarcerate,sterilize,abandon,sedate,shock,mock and murder those who were fitted with that label.
You are welcome to rationalize the use of "gay" however you like, its of no importance to me. I was just trying to help you understand, clearly you understand but disagree. Carry on..
Your agreement with points of arguments should have nothing at all to do with moderating how those points are made.
i do want to say that all these ideas are good, but i also want to add that i do not want to this forum become so strict that new posters cannot feel free to post without understanding the BS culture first. further, there's nothing that makes this forum more unreadable than when posters go on bashing how stupid the thread is. i believe that should be strictly a moderator's job. sure, there will be a crazy thread every now and then, but we do not need a few renegade posters to attack the poster and put all the pictures of "ah jeez not this shit again" and such. that, to me, is what could ruin this forum. in other words, if you do not like a thread, do not post in it how you do not like it. As far as moderators, if you see a poster starting to habitually break the rules, i would send him or her a friendly reminder of how things work here. there's no need to be an asshole because we can all be honest, bigsoccer is a place very different than the real world and it does take time to get use to. which i would like to add as a comment i would make to all posters, treat people how you would treat them to their face. Also, what about the chance of having another sub-forum meant for all banter so that you could just dump the "crazy threads" in there????
It doesn't. Nor did my statement make any implication that it did. I pointed out that I did not agree with some aspects of the argument being presented because it is frequently suggested that there is a double standard, wherein the pro-Bradley point of view (and that post is at least modestly pro-Bradley) is given preferential treatment. So my reference to my agreement or lack thereof with the intent of the post was an attempt to innoculate the rest of the discussion from that percption. It wasn't a statement about my calculation of the degree of problem posed by the irony. To be more direct, I think your frustration threshold is way too low if the post in question seems like it's over the top. It seems to me to be well-intentioned shorthand with a little bit of wry humor thrown in. If it's a little redundant, that's very likely just because the whole argument is going a bit stale: sides have long been formed and the data has been sifted thoroughly for quite some time. And other posts you've asked us to look at have been similarly mild. You're asking us to micromanage discussion to an extraordinary degree--to the extent that it would simply kill off most if not all conversation--if you expect us to cull posts like that one.
You're missing the point, I think. The question is how to differentiate the two forums. It seems you don't want to be overly strict in N&A. That's fine. But then what is the point of USA Men? A place to say who is pretty?
Of course we don't want to be overly strict...anywhere. Moderation is already stricter in N and A than it is in USA Men. The core question posed by this thread is: where should the limits for USA Men be placed? Personal attacks allowed? If so, what kind? Do people want mods joining redundant threads together or not? That kind of stuff. You seem to be developing a separate but related argument, in which you also seem to be making a case for radically changing the standards for moderating N and A. My problems with that is are: First, we're not getting too many complaints about the standards in N and A. Some, yes, but not too many. Second, I don't see how the example you've offered provides any kind of a basis for moderation. I'd call what you're suggesting Draconian but for the fact that I don't really see any consistently enforceable logic extending out from that example. The person making the objection is an outlier (nobody else seems to think it's a problem). The basis for the objection being made is unclear (how is it over the top? what are the general (objectionable) qualities of which we should see this post as a specific example?). And the impact on the thread being decried is as far I can see non-existent (the discussion was not really disrupted in any way by the post).
I think there is a problem with certain threads which are started in US N&A that do not really involve news or analysis of fact, but only are there based upon the strictness of the moderating. Sort of like US N&A is the only place you can get a serious and on topic discussion going without it being thread-jacked. Perhaps initial posters could indicate the level of strictness for the thread they are starting? This may have been brought up previously, but I don't recall reading it. EDIT: I also agree with some previous posts that swearing should be allowed in a moderate fashion. Often times it is a great, although crass, way of placing emphasis.
DK asked me to look at this thread and see if I had any input to give. One thing I had to clear up here first: This account is misrepresented. I'm not the mod who made this decision, but it certainly looked like a good one to me. In fact, your post which says that the first touch in MLS is horrible was not infracted or binned. It's still right here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=22264554#post22264554 for the world to see. Now, making broad generalizations about league play in a match play-by-play thread is subject to interpretation concerning the sense of showing respect for the posters who are looking for commentary about that game, not a threadjack about general league quality. But since it was subject to interpretation, it stayed. The problem was your personal accusation concerning the first person who did anything other than agree with you. And that poster didn't even really disagree with you, so much as point out that your post was not a germane contribution to a matchday thread. This (ironic, given your claims about the toleration of dissent) was apparently enough to go personal. And it's largely about respect for the audience. It's usually not hard to tell the difference between when an audience is being disagreed with and when it's being disrespected. It's not that hard to tell which side of the line you fell on in that instance. OK, that out of the way: I'd prefer to live in a world where people using sarcasm to make a point would still have to come out and make their affirmative point, reason being that when you try to break down a sarcastic argument, the poster will always have the option of accusing you of putting words in his mouth. But that's because he didn't actually say anything affirmatively, and thus has basically forced you to do that. . . . but I'd say we have a lot bigger fish to fry. Merely getting slurs out of the discussion would be a good start. (I consider 'moron/retard/idiot' to be slurs. In a sense they go beyond the garden variety ad hominem attacks, because they are 'inferior being' accusations. I still think they should get pinged by the autocensor; we've got increasingly obscure ethnic quasi-slurs that nobody ever actually uses going into the censor, when far more obvious ones are appearing with alarming regularity.) That's a good point. I come around here less, and I'm a little confused about the border between the two forums. I can give this forum some of the guidelines I go by to get at the distinction between MLS:N&A and MLS:G, and y'all can judge what applies and what doesn't. 1) N&A means news and Analysis, not News or Analysis. Think of it, if you like, as News. . .and Analysis thereof. Which means that an N&A thread should be based around a news fact, an event that took place. In the Internet Era, an 'event' will usually have a link to it, so I'm usually hoping to see one in the OP. Sometimes I'll go and grab said link and stick it there. 2) Following this, your personal opinion is not news, unless you're such an important person that your opinion itself can influence events. You're not the editor of the New York Times, so don't editorialize the title. Tell us something that happened, and then if you have an opinion on that, put it in the body of your post so that people can question/parse/agree with it or whatever. (Generally, for this stuff, I just change the thread title, unless the thing can't be changed into a straight news piece, and then it goes to General). I (and others have told me they do this as well) use N&A to get a run-down of the major events in the league and which people are talking about, so the N&A home-page where you see all the thread titles and post-counts should hopefully mostly reflect that. Generally, if it's a self-acknowledged opinion piece by nearly anybody, and there's any controversy at all, I slide it to General. I even moved a link to a Paul Gardner piece from SA to General because it's too editorialized. That's, to me, what General is for, more general opinions, and where editorializing in the lede is OK. Of course opinions are going to be expressed throughout a thread, but the hope is something substantial that informs is contained within the title and OP of a thread. Personal opinions about which players are good, predictions about the future, etc are general threads. Factual statements about who was signed, traded, who made the League Best XI go in N&A. The perception I've always hoped to at least limit is that N&A is the 'good forum' and G is the 'bad one.' So there are a lot of the more 'philosophical' threads deposited there, even if they are pretty intellectually stimulating. This used to cause acrimony, because people whose threads got moved took it as an insult, so the way I took to 'fudging' it was to leave it in N&A long enough for everyone to see it, and then moving it over, and once the discussion is really going people don't seem to care so much what subforum it's in. -- I don't know if this is of help to the US forums or not. The NT doesn't play anywhere near as many games as MLS does, so it is not going to generate nearly as much 'straight news'. But if there's value to be gained from it, feel free.
Oh, and one general comment: Please report offensive posts. You may be under the impression that the mods can survey all the posts in a thread to get rid of anything offensive. I assure you we can't, not without help.
That is, until they were used, and directed towards, lil' ol' me and my folk. Perhaps you could be proactive and add those egregious ones in there at your leisure. I have half a dozen that I am refraining from using towards the Mexican trolls. I can PM you the list and you can add them.
Several issues are getting discussed, I agree. 1. Is there a content standard for N&A as opposed to USA Men? 2. Is there a decorum standard for N&A as opposed to USA Men? With regard to the first point, the moderators made clear that there was a content standard when they moved the primary discussion of Bradley's performance to USA Men. Similarly, the issue of nepotism was moved to USA Men. Also it is generally ok to vent in USA Men or to talk about how pretty players are. So content is a difference. Some threads are ok in one place but not the other. As for the second, that you let highly aggressive rhetoric take place here, but not in N&A (at least that seems to be something you all say is true), suggests that not only is there a content distinction but a "manner of discussion" distinction. This is something to which Susaeta has drawn attention. He thinks N&A needs to relax. I pointed out a post that to me seemed not to fit the more strict mood I was under the impression you aimed to enforce. I received rep for pointing out the issues that post can bring about, so I'm not alone in seeing the potential problem. Be clear: I didn't say it was unacceptable - I asked if it was and explained why it might not be the best post if the goal is serious and honest discussion. But now you say that you don't want the style so policed. Ok. Clearly, we don't want racism and epithet tossing idiocy to be the spirit of USA men. But at the same time if you let people act like assholes, you have to let people call them assholes. This is the "would you really say this in that way" test. If a poster is allowed to be incessantly rude and doesn't pay attention to that which he responds, the other posters should be free to call him an asshole. This is a bright line distinction between revealing personal information or calling someone a ****** or retard. Unless we are worried about hurting assholes feelings, I suppose.
Yes there is a content standard in N & A, but the conclusion you’ve drawn based on the fact that the nepotism thread was moved from N & A to USA Men is wrong. Speaking as the person who started the first nepotism thread in N & A and who spent a great deal of time reading the subsequent 3 (or 4?) versions of it that ran in N and A, I had zero concern about the fact that nepotism was discussed in that forum. The problem with the nepotism discussion is that it’s bottomless. Evidence about Bob’s motivation for playing Michael is so varied and diffuse that there are two substantial, durable sides and they moved toward no consensus. As frequently happens in that situation, the participating members of each side got frustrated with one another and some members from both sides, not just one, trended toward ad hominem attacks. Not bad ones, typically, but ones that violated the tighter decorum standard that is in play in N and A. Faced with a situation where we were beginning to have to either ding regular posters for that kind of thing or change the standards of the forum or move the thread to a forum where the standards allowed the new tone of discourse, we chose the third option. I think this suggests that the distinction you are making between topic and behavior does not work in practice. So theoretically, at least, it’s possible that a new incarnation of the nepotism thread could be restarted in N and A if we could get people to agree not throw poo at one another in it.* Seems unlikely. Seems like they’ve grown to enjoy the style of debate that exists now, in this forum. That’s fine. The topic is still being debated. There are just more image files to go with it. *And to be honest, the other factor is us mods. Certain threads generate a hell of lot work and complaints and this is one of them. I doubt there’s a USA mod going right now that would view a return of the nepotism thread to N and A with fear and loathing, for that reason alone. How highly aggressive is one of the things up for discussion. Certainly, more aggression is allowed here now. The question is how much more should be allowed. No. I said the style of that particular post does not preclude its being both within the standards we’ve enforced all along and contributory to serious discussion. I said further that context mattered, however, and that persistent repetition (for example) might actually change the import of that particular example. It’s not that we don’t want to police style, it’s that you disagree with us about where the style line should be drawn. Drawing the line where you seem to be suggesting is both radically different from anything we’ve claimed to be trying to do and highly impractical. While I’ve never claimed to be perfect, I don’t think the inconsistency you’re suggesting really exists. Is it possible for you to explain more about why you think that post is problematic? Yep. That's one of the issues under discussion. I said something very similar in a discussion among the mods on this topic a couple of days ago.
Maybe more sticky threads for popular topics? I'm not sure if shoehorning discussion into select threads is very fun but it would clean things up. Maybe a timeout date on threads. Like after 3 or 4 months of inactivity they cant be bumped? I've seen some threads come back from the grave that were started before I even joined. This can clog the forums with more threads. My biggest problem with the forums here is when a topic comes up on one forum with excellent discussion within it, then someone decides it's a good idea to start the very same topic on another forum. Very annoying really. (US Men and US Men NA for example) These forums are pretty popular. Don't fix it if it isn't broken? I really don't know but If I become inspired with a brilliant idea I'll check back in.
Me too. And as noted in the "context matters" follow up to the comment you've cited, I said that we do bring that preference to bear in News and Analysis. We just don't do with with isolated sarcastic/ironic posts from users who have a substantial track record of doing exactly what you state you'd like them to do. There are, for example, people who've been banned from the forum for not taking their fellow posters seriously enough to provide them with anything but sarcasm.
I guess 12 months wasn't long enough for you? Of course, in my absence, I've noted that a lot of the posters that I used to consider fairly level headed are the ones who have engaged in significant goalpost moving discussions, irrational solutions to problems, etc. It's like this place missed someone who pointed out bullshit. But really, if there is going to be change/improvement in the moderation around here, why is the "where are you Mikey" thread not locked/canned?
That statement is a follow up to a question about the News and Analysis forum. In it, I am referring to the fact that certain posters have been banned from the News and Analysis forum--not USA Men--for resorting so much to sarcasm that it's clear their intent is just to antagonize other posters and derail the conversation in a thread. Sarcasm is not usually considered an issue in USA Men, unless it's associated with something else.