It all boils down to whether or not the limited good to be gotten from the rule is worth the trouble required to enforce it (keeping in mind that the limited nature of the good is not unique to this rule, but rather more a specific instance of the common condition). Look, I personally couldn't care less whether people post spoilers or not. If I'm that interested in not knowing the result of a game I plan to watch later than everybody else, I'm not visiting the site until I've watched it. Apparently some people do, though, and it's for their benefit the rule exists. Is pleasing these people worth the trouble? (Never mind the fact that they won't be completely pleased because rule or no rule there will be spoilers. That just puts them in the same boat as everybody else. The best result to be hoped for is the spoilers are kept to a bearable rate.) It depends on how many of them there are compared to those in the opposite camp. It also depends on the relative degree of caring about this issue in each group. Looking at it as a disinterested observer, I just don't see a big problem with the rule. My impression is that there aren't nearly as many spoilers as you suggest, but then I've never been a mod and I freely admit I could be wrong. And I honestly don't remember ever seeing a spoiler I thought was posted for the express purpose of "spoiling." The closest seem to me to be those that are designed to gloat (the recent US Mexico qualifier comes to mind—“Woohoo! Gooch makes Borgetti his beyotch!” or something similar). So on the basis of that (ad hoc) assessment, my sense is that the rule is better off where it is, simply because more people will be happier if it stays. However, if somebody convinces me that the cost of enforcement is higher than the benefit derived for that subset of users with the peculiar habit of visiting web sites about soccer with the expectation of not seeing information about soccer, then I’ll change my mind. Likewise, if somebody takes the trouble to argue that the collective pleasure/benefit to be derived from posting scores in titles is equal to or greater than the collective pleasure/benefit derived from not seeing them, then I’ll change my mind. I'm willing to accept the contention that it doesn't happen as often as it seems to me. I think the other part of the argument stands though. As I suggested above, when I see spoilers generally what happens is somebody calls the poster on it, the poster either says “huh?” and gets an explanation or “oh crap, you’re right” and apologizes, and sooner or later a mod moves in to delete, admonish, etc. The only real fireworks come when somebody calls the poster who put up the spoiler by saying something like “hey dickhead, thanks for ruining my evening, don’t you know some of us are at work and can’t…” which decreases the likelihood of a simple apology and increases the likelihood of a defensive response in kind. So unless I’m totally overlooking an underground movement to piss in people’s cream of wheat by posting spoilers, my interpretation of all this is that the really disruptive stuff comes not from the spoilers themselves, but from disproportionate reactions to them. But, as I said, I just don’t get the whole visiting BS but not wanting to see scores thing, so perhaps I’m underestimating its impact. Or actually, what I don’t get is the whole treating the not-seeing-of-scores as a God-given right thing, which is somewhat rarer than the latter. Okay, so I just literally bored my dog to death, poor thing, with this post, and he was semi-literate at best. I'm going to go iron shirts now.
I disagree with this. I basically see the R rule as a courtesy. It's one that I choose to follow as I believe that important or not it is a courtesy. I think for that very reason that we shouldn't going around banishing peole when they aren't as courteous. Having it be a hard and fast rule with strict penalties is just foolish for something that should really only exist as a strong suggestion. I understand that in the age of Tivo and given that with so much MORE soccer available on TV now, especially often at odd times it's completely respectable for someone to want to be able to come on here without seeing the specific result of the game they're waiting to see. That given that we're in such an information rich society if it's something you stumble across on while visiting a soccer website well then tough nuts. Hence, I think it makes the most sense to keep the R policity as it is or even loosen it to a degree where it's considered a strong suggestion. For my oppinion it's more obnoxious seeing people pissing at each other for pages and pages in a thread about not using an R than it is actually having a result spoiled.
no one deleted anything. we had a hiccup. read my announcement. please report your post - nothing in this thread has ever been deleted manually.
Tried to post this last night ... ------ I warned you. I told you I’m a long-winded bastard. Well, too bad! Here goes … I first want to dispel a few myths. Myth #1: The [R] rule is obsolete and anachronistic. The [R] originated in the age of tape-delay and VCRs. Today we live in the age of tape-delay and TIVO. In short, nothing has changed here. In fact, watching soccer games on delay (either tape delay or via TIVO) is more common today than it used to be. So the contention that the [R] rule is obsolete and anachronistic simply isn’t credible. If anything today is becoming anachronistic it’s watching live television. The [R] is more relevant today than it ever was in the past. Myth #2: The [R] rule is not enforceable. The worst case scenario for spoilers is the World Cup. There are lots of games, they’re going on all at once, and everyone is posting about them. If there’s ever going to be a situation where the [R] rule is unenforceable it’s the World Cup. I am here to tell you (indeed, I already said this in this thread) the idea that you can’t enforce the [R] rule during the World Cup is complete nonsense. I have moderated a World Cup. In 2002 we managed to enforce the [R] rule just fine. Will it be harder this time? Maybe. There are certainly more people here than there used to be. But it really wasn’t that hard last time. We took appropriate steps to alert people to the rule, we made sure we were present on the boards, we set up all manner of spoiler-free threads to contain the bulk of discussion, and when needed we edited thread titles. In fact, I only remember having to yellow a few posters for posting spoilers during the 2002 World Cup. They were repeat offenders. (Trolls were another thing.) It’s simply a myth that the [R] is not enforceable. I will say this, however: back in the very early days of this board, when it wasn’t possible to edit thread titles, the [R] rule was truly difficult to enforce. It required mods to take basically draconian steps and delete whole threads. But now that mods can easily modify a thread title to removes spoilers and insert [R]s enforcing the [R] rule has become very, very easy. Also - One more thing on this note of enforcement, I don’t think there’s any need to penalize someone for innocently posting a spoiler. It happens all the time and it takes no time for a mod to fix. I read the mods board pretty thoroughly, and I’m hard pressed to think of anyone who’s actually gotten a yellow for such a thing. The only people who should be penalized (and usually are) are those who make it a point of posting spoilers – ie repeat offenders. Some Notes and Suggestions I’m actually a moderate on the [R] issue. Dark Knight is much more radical about this than I am. I believe there are certain practical realities on most boards that have to be brought into play here. On many boards yesterday’s results are the basis of tomorrow’s discussions. So results come up in a myriad of ways on a myriad of threads. The [R] is in place as a courtesy to those in the BigSoccer community who might want to watch the game, as we still say, on tape. Like all courtesies, its realization is imperfect. And I think everyone has to be aware of that, and people really do have to lighten up when they get a match spoiled. In fact, on the forum guidelines that I use on the DC United board and the FIFA and World Cup boards I make it very clear that if you absolutely want to avoid spoilers then you should avoid BigSoccer until you’ve watched the game. That's the practical reality and posters should realize that they take a risk of seeing spoilers when they come here. But it doesn't follow from this imperfect realization that the policy should be done away with entirely. But if we as a community can provide this courtesy most of the time to most of the people who want it then that’s something we should do for our fellow posters on BigSoccer. There are practical limits (and this is where I've clashed with dark knight in the past). After a certain amount of time I don't think it's practical or reasonable for posters to expect a match to remain unspoiled. That’s why I have long advocated – and I’ve gotten into big arguments with dark knight about this – a 24 to 48 hour limit after which a match isn’t considered spoilable. After 24-48 hours 90% of the people who were going to watch a match on delay have watched it. And if we can catch 80-90% of the spoilers on BigSoccer in those 24-48 hours then I think we’ve extended a really nice, community oriented courtesy to our fellow posters on BigSoccer. If we do all that and you get unlucky and have a match spoiled – well, you knew the risk. That happens. However (and this is big HOWEVER), I also believe that forums with unique circumstance (like the Yanks Abroad board) should be allowed to install more rigorous guidelines. It might require some effort to make posters aware of the differences, but it’s not impossible to make them aware of such things. We already do this out of necessity on the World Cup boards and during tournament play on the FIFA board. On those boards during knock-out rounds matches are only considered spoilable for 24 hours. After that we’ve gotta prepare for the next round's discussion, and that means putting team names in the pre-match thread titles. In short, the [R] rule is pretty easy to enforce, it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s ability to discuss topics, it takes precious little effort to avoid posting them, and it extends a courtesy to posters on BigSoccer – a courtesy, again, that is more relevant today than it ever was in the past. I could go on with this defense – I believe, for instance, that the [R] rule helps maintain a bit of civility here – but for now I’m going to leave it at that. I’d rather address the matters Jesse wrote about because they seem to me what’s really at issue here. Stuff Jesse wrote - The petty stuff. Jesse, if you don’t like the results of the polls then why are you posting them? If you’re not taking them as representative (at least in some way) of the community at large then I can’t understand why you posted them in the first place. On that same note, you have no way of knowing from these polls and discussions whether a majority or minority of posters on BigSoccer supports the [R] rule in some form. It’s clear that the “vocal minority” who do participate on these threads oppose the [R] rule. The “vocal majority,” on the other hand, support the [R] rule. Now there is a big, vast “silent majority” that hasn’t expressed themselves on this thread in one way or another. But these threads, in themselves, provide no basis for divining the views of that silent majority. I would suggest, however, that sometimes majorities are silent because they’re perfectly happy with the status quo. In this case the [R] rule is the status quo. (And maybe it’s best to be careful that nobody disturb that majority from that silence.) So much for that. Stuff Jesse wrote - The more important stuff. This is the basic problem: Jesse wants BigSoccer to grow and expand and offer more. He thinks the [R] rule hinders this ambition. His response (in this thread) has been to ask if we can ditch the [R] rule. I don’t think that’s a good question because it assumes that the [R] rule and Jesse’s ambitions are mutually exclusive. And maybe in Jesse’s mind they are. My question is whether they have to be mutually exclusive. Maybe there’s another way. The [R] rule serves a purpose (now more than ever). It seems to me the better approach is to seek an option that preserves the best of the [R] rule while also allowing BigSoccer to offer more services. I don’t know what you’ve got in mind for this new and “improved” BigSoccer (yes, as you know I’m always skeptical – even more so since the newsbot fiasco). But perhaps it’s as simple as segregating the boards from the additions. I don’t see why people would have a problem with that. It’d be no different than avoiding all the soccer news websites. You’d just have to bookmark (as it appears many already do) some page on the boards themselves. I think that’s perfectly reasonable. That’s only possible if the boards are segregated (at least by a click, as they say) from the additions. But that segregation doesn't have to go both ways. The boards could be integrated into the additions, but the additions couldn't be integrated into the boards. For instance, the homepage which might not be subject to the [R] rule, could still feature BigSoccerLive. But if the integration worked the other way (if, for instance, tables and news feeds were integrated into the boards themselves) then you’d have an [R] rule conflict. Anyway, if the board remains segregated from the additions then GPK has it exactly right: “One extra clickeroo” and everyone’s happy. Well, not Mike Lastort. But he’s never happy. Andy Mead’s pretty curmudgeonly too. Last words - for now Anyway, I hope what I wrote in that last section helps this discussion move in a positive direction. Maybe the [R] rule can and should be modified, maybe it has to be tweaked to allow for the additions Jesse wants. That’s a discussion we can have, but nothing about that discussion says we have to consider ditching the [R] rule entirely. The [R] rule still serves a purpose. It's a courtesy we should aim to provide. Again, the question we should focus on is how to keep the best of the [R] rule while also allowing BigSoccer to grow. Lastly, bungadiri, if all we’re after here is collective pleasure then I suggest Jesse shut down BigSoccer and start up BigPorn.
Accept my apologies for a poor phrasing. I meant a vocal minority, in that only 100 people cared to vote, not that the poll representative or unrepresentative. I believe I already said in this thread it isn't mutually exclusive. I find it surprising that people find it suprirsing that we talk about this once a year. I think once a year is perfect timing to reflect back on what we've learned as we grow and to anticipate what is going to happen when a major event is coming our way. (servers, sigh) That is all I'm trying to do. Have you noticed I haven't expressed my opinion on the R rule? There's a lot of assuming my take.
No problem. You haven't? What I wrote there was based largely on this line: That line seemed pretty clear to me.
Please show me where anyone said it was obsolete and anachronistic for the reasons you state? It's obsolete because results of soccer games are all over the place these days - radio, tv, internet, etc. THAT'S what makes the [R] rule stupid. Nice strawman though. I would contend that anyone who has recorded a soccer game with plans to watch it later as if it's live is pretty damned stupid to log on to a site named "BigSoccer." No, actually, let me amend that. Anyone who has taped a game who doesn't want to know the outcome and then logs on to this site prior to watching it is a total mouthbreathing-knuckle-dragging idiot.
Keep the rule. There is no need to get into long winded debates about it either. The simple fact is that more people than normal will be watching games on delay, with the advent of Tivo, DVR and torrents. It is also unrealistic to blame people wanting to post on BS, for other posters stupidity in spoiling a game. Everyone should know the rule and it makes sense. If you don't want to know a score, then by all means avoid news broadcasts, sites that will explicitly show scores and threads with the [R] tags. It shouldn't mean we are forced to avoid the entire BS community, just for the sake of a few ignorant pricks.
97% of the time I don't have the result spoiled so why does that make me an idiot? Your argument that "results of soccer games are all over the place" also fails on this point. As I mentioned to Jim, I just don't get the contempt some people have for the watch later viewpoint.
This I can get down with. Suggest it. Point out some people might like it, but don't make it a rule. I had a longer reply that didn't get posted earlier, but this is the crux of my feelings - you are on a soccer site, you might see a soccer score, enter at your own risk.
I tape games myself that I want to watch later. I've never had a result spoiled. How do I do it? I don't log on to BigSoccer. I don't tune my radio into a sports or news channel. I don't watch a little bit of CNN or some other news station. I don't go to online newspaper sites. Why would someone be an idiot if they logged onto this site prior to watching a game? Well, think about it from this perspective. Pretend you taped a NASCAR race and wanted to watch later. Would you log on to http://www.nascar.com and expect that the results of the race you wanted to watch would not be on the site? I people getting cards on this site for posting spoilers isn't necessary because IMHO people who log on to here should be aware that scores might be revealed.
Just in case this is aimed at me, I'd like to state that I have no problem with the watch later viewpoint, and have always been perfectly happy to follow the no spoiler rule. What baffles me is when people sometimes (but not all the time) get bent out of shape in response to spoilers, for the reasons I've stated. That just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Not aimed at you and I agree with this sentiment. My Tivo failed to tape MLS cup 2 years ago when I was flying back into the country and I came on BigSoccer to see if there were any videos of the game -- the first person I went to PM to ask had "MLS Champions!" in their avatar. I was bummed, but it's not like I could get that upset about it. I just don't think it makes me an idiot when I can log on and 97% of the time I don't have the result spoiled. I don't feel like staying off BigSoccer for 9 hours until I can get home to watch a Fulham game that aired in the morning during a work day. This isn't MLSnet so I don't think your analogy holds water. The great thing about BigSoccer is that for the most part I can control what results I want to see. When I want to know results of lots of games, I go to a site like Nascar or ESPN or NFL or whatever. And I've said this before, but not every game is equal -- I'll absolutely stay away for critical USA games like qualifiers, but just about everything else falls in the category of -- I hope it doesn't get spoiled but [shrug] of varying degrees if it does. If you modified your idiot claim to - people who freak out if a result does get spoiled - I guess I'd agree, although I'm not as fast and loose with the idiot label I suspect. People very rarely getted carded for violating the Spoiler policy. Even though I argue this side, I do want BigSoccer to grow and I don't want to be on the side that prevents steps that helps BigSoccer's survival, but I'm still not clear that this is the case. I think it would be too bad if BigSoccer were like ESPN and you knew you would see results if you visit - because that would mean I would be staying away a lot more.
nah he was pointing at me i just simply find it quite odd to have people bitching about finding out results of a game that they taped, when they go to the site that will discuss that game before the game, during the game and long after the game
What he said! Sorry about the idiot epithet. I'll reserve that for the people who think Freddy Adu will go to Chelsea before he's 18 and the people who think Landon Donovan is a sissy.
Let's suppose it is a courtesy ... If someone keeps posting spoilers on - say the Yanks Abroad board - where that "courtesy" is very important to the moderators and the posters, then it's pretty safe to assume that guy's going to get a card or a forum ban eventually. Why? Because violating a "courtesy" is, in the end, behavior that's disruptive to the forum community. And when people disrupt the forum community there are punitive repercussions in the form of cards and bans. Violating the [R] rule, even if it's just a courtesy, wouldn't be any different. Again, dark knight is right. As it is people rarely get carded for posting spoilers. That's partially because most people on BigSoccer (with some notable exceptions, ahem) try their best to be courteous to other posters. But some posters aren't courteous at all. And for them it sometimes takes at least the threat of a forum ban or a card to curb their discourteous behaviour. You people arguing to make the [R] rule a courtesy instead of a rule are arguing for a semantic difference that won't make a lick of difference in terms of enforcement. An "[R] courtesy" would be identical in practice to the current [R] rule.
But I think we're discussing something different - not just semantics as Knave covered - but having news/results all over the site.
i'd say not being able to discuss the games on a site that discuss such games would be more disruptive
Huh? I don't follow. Nothing in the current [R] rule prevents people from talking about any game at any time.