Jump to content


Matt's Photo

Matt

Member Since 04 Jun 2002
Offline Last Active Dec 19 2014 08:52 AM
****-

Posts I've Made

In Topic: LGW Moderator Problems

16 October 2014 - 12:27 PM

 I remember new threads on signings/trades being discouraged during free agent frenzy and the trade deadline, and I found it hard to participate in the discussions when the thread are too long to follow and make an informed post.

 

This is exactly what I want to change. I have no problems at all with trades/signings having their own threads. Doesn't matter if it fills up the front page because the ones that are deemed comment-worthy float to the top, anyway.


In Topic: LGW Moderator Problems

15 October 2014 - 09:21 PM

Would anyone like to address my concerns?

 

We have. Repeatedly. But you've chosen to drone on like it hasn't already happened. 

 

 

Maybe it'd be possible to let the person know before you change it. It would give them a chance to rework or reword a post in a way that would be more suitable.

 

While it sounds nice in theory, it would only work in rare instances. When it comes to personal attacks and such there's no time given since things can spiral out of hand (and it's against the forum rules anyway), but for others you're still working in a time-based fashion where a member may no longer be signed in, etc.. In some instances, sure, it could work, but mostly no.

 

 

No -- just split a thread when part of it is no longer about hockey and move that part to the non-hockey forum.  Or, you know, lock the thread if you have to.  But leave the offending posts as they are, if for no other reason than as examples of bad behavior so people understand and so you don't seem unaccountable to the community for the decisions you make.

 

I don't think this would "ruin the thread for everybody."  New threads pop up all the time.

 

This has been done in the past and I personally don't have a problem with it. 'Offending' posts would be handled as they would normally. Attacks on other members, etc., have no place here -- even in locked threads.

 

 

Looking through the recent deleted posts, they're all things that we wouldn't be split into a new thread, like insults, but in the right instance I guess it could work.  It's definitely something we've done in the past, it just doesn't seem that often that a thread splits into clear enough, substantial enough topics to split.  But it's something we could keep in mind. 

 

fellow mods?

 

I'm not a fan of giving free passes to people that have actively derailed threads. Myself and all of the moderators here shouldn't be babysitters to topic progression here as I feel that members should know when a topic is going off the rails and needs to have its own thread started. The Abdelkader example above makes it easy. Someone just has to take the initiative to go "hey, this should be it's own thread" and start it. Heck, even plop a link in the original thread pointing to the new one so those that wish to continue to discuss it go there. It shouldn't require moderator handholding to know when to pull the plug.

 

There have been threads that I've split in the past -- the bulk of them are offseason or trade-rumor/re-signing related where the situation can change every few days. I'm not a fan of mega "All Offseason Signings Thread"-type deals. They're a mess. There's no way I, as a casual visitor, would want to click on that thread and try to find the reaction to a signing three days ago. Those should be separate topics. I've broken up massive all-in-one topics like the Parise/Suter fiasco a few years ago whenever it hit significant 'news' benchmarks, just so it's easier to navigate.

 

This isn't something new. I do feel, however, that members here to have some level of responsibility to know the basic forum etiquette here as well.


In Topic: LGW Moderator Problems

15 October 2014 - 03:49 PM

I do think it's important to note that all mods are not created equal.  For example, haroldsnepsts seems much more reasonable than vladdy16.  I know, as fact, that vladdy16 has edited posts and even whole subjects not because they broke forum rules (which are excessive anyway) but because he or she simply did not approve of the formulations -- in fact, a long time ago I was banned for seven days for politely pointing this out.  Check the history if you can, rather than just assume your mods are beyond reproach.

 

Sorry, no one needs you to point out that all moderators are not created equal.

 

If you find the forum rules "excessive" then all I can do is simply suggest you post elsewhere where you're not so heavily oppressed on a day-to-day posting basis. It must be a struggle for you, I know, but you're not obligated to post or be an active member here.

 

I'd love to see the polite dialog you had as well. But why should I bother, right? Because according to you -- and your apparent inability to read my previous posts in this thread -- I just 'assume (my) mods are beyond reproach.'


In Topic: LGW Moderator Problems

15 October 2014 - 01:57 PM

 

We're talking about the forest.  It's the principle of deleting and editing posts that is offensive.  Especially editing -- you should take away the moderators' ability to edit posts.  That should never happen.  I can't understand someone who isn't basically repulsed by altering the content of what another person said, no matter how dopey or "tactless" the content.  A forum, like the world in general, is about personalities.

 

It would appear you're not grasping the nature of what editing a post here entails. Vladdy and harold have done a good job explaining it. It isn't picking out bits of posts that aren't agreeable, or don't make sense, etc.. -- it's never that. Removing a portion of the post that included a quoted post that was removed? Yep. Removing a personal attack? Yep. Tried to work around the curse filter? Sure. Other than that... no.

 

Find something a bit more worthwhile to find offensive. Like socks with sandals. 


In Topic: LGW Moderator Problems

15 October 2014 - 08:22 AM

There was a thread about 4 or 5 years ago that somehow, spontaneously, amazingly, evolved into a 3 page running joke using players names as puns. It was completely harmless and was in no way offensive or insulting to anyone. It was the funniest thing that has ever happened around here. It got deleted.

Can we have that one back? I still think about it sometimes...

 

Honestly, this sounds hilarious but I don't recall seeing it (which isn't entirely surprising since I'm not poking around every day).

 

 

 

Too many posters I liked have come and gone since then because of these petty internet arguments.  I miss a lot of their posts.  

 

What's disappointing is that on a good number of those users we broke our own '3 Strikes' guideline in trying to keep things in line because some of them I considered valuable members. But continually violating the rules of the forum can't be ignored in the end. There were plenty of warnings and a monstrous amount of discussion among the moderators before decisions were made.

 

 

Matt, do you honestly not think this is creepy?

 

I understand deleting -- but never, ever editing -- a post if it contains something illegal or an image that isn't "family friendly," but you do not need to try to purify threads so that they contain only "respectful" hockey talk.  I wouldn't read this forum almost daily if I didn't want to read about hockey, but I want to read a forum, not a blog.  Lock -- or why not just move -- threads if you must, but do not, if you're an adult man or woman, delete or edit posts.

 

'Creepy' is the last word I'd use to describe that. And it's not about keeping the discourse on here "respectful" -- you can get heated, get animated... That's fine. But at least do so with some tact. Being an "adult man or woman" is a plainly ignorant way of putting it -- the moderators and myself have years upon years doing this job. Removing a 'page' from a thread isn't some huge deal -- 99% of the time it's because the topic at hand was derailed, quoted comments of something that had to be removed followed, etc., etc.. These aren't "yeah, I think that post sucked"-type removals. That doesn't happen.

 

I have a feeling that some of you don't see the forest for the trees in the respect that your off-topic banter or derailment of threads makes it more difficult for casual (or new) visitors to follow along or try to jump into a topic mid-thread. I don't want the site to be clique-ish where potential new members are turned off from joining because they don't feel a part of the club. In small doses I have absolutely no problem with it, but when it starts to dominate a thread it either 1) needs to get dialed back, or 2) the thread needs to get split or a new one started.

 

 

That sounds great. But typically in a situation like this you wouldn't be having a conversation with a few people only to have some random person jump in in the middle of it and start saying

 

"You guys started off talking about this, and now you're talking about that. That isn't allowed!" 

"This topic has been discussed at length already (possibly by people that aren't you), I'm putting a stop to this discussion and you guys can't talk about it anymore!"

"No you can't discuss that, move your conversation to something else"

"Oh, this topic again! I'm sick of reading about this (and I'll just assume that since I'm tired of it no other fan of this team would want to discuss it anymore either), I'll just gonna pretend you didn't want to talk about and shove it back to the bottom of the barrel!"

"I know you just spent 15 minutes developing this well thought out and nicely worded opinion about something, but I'm now going to say it's invalid and nobody will ever hear it."

 

You're not being oppressed. Using the bar scenario, I would look at the off-topic derailment of someone jumping into a group conversation (where the discussion topic was already established) and trying to talk over everyone or change the subject.

 

Now, some of your other concerns (the "this topic has been discussed at length...", "... this topic again!...") I do share on occasion. Sometimes the idea of 'mega-threads' or bumping old topics from a couple pages down to merge with a new post (on the same topic) isn't the best -- particularly if there has been a significant change from the time the original thread was started, etc... Every time Jimmy Howard has a bad stretch in net doesn't mean we need to bump a 3-year old "Howard is Average" thread to continue the discourse. The main intention with the duplicate thread remove/merge was to fix situations where there would be five "HOWARD SUCKS", "Howard is the Second Coming of Our Lord and Savior" or "Howard ________" on the main page. 

 

_____

 

I do want to add: I love discussing things like this. There's no reason for people to get hot and bothered and keep things pent up when we can just talk about it. You guys can air your thoughts and concerns, and the moderators and I can explain the other side of the coin and see what we can do together to continually improve things.