spanishomelette Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I've notice that Art has not replied in the thread. I think he already temp banned himself. However, to Henry's point he was trying to get all's attention... not to himself, but to the new audio . The rule was created to prevent attention who oars from taking over the board. In any case might I suggest changing the title to "might reveal", and then in the post body state something like "if you play the stream backwards hahaha"...Still an attention getter without the ethical questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 Guys, The problem with some of you is you don't understand the rules yet you're quoting them to the people who do understand the rules. The false and misleading thread description was put into place SPECIFICALLY to maintain the integrity of the board as it relates to breaking news or information. We had a spell where people were posting false posts and angering most of the board for it so we had to stop it. This is advertising a feature of message board interaction as the Redskins.com Audio link suggests. The day I make a post that we just traded for John Abraham and put a "Just kidding," next to it, trust me, that'll be my last day here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Spanishomelette gets it. I agree though that this thread has been completely de-railed from it's original purpose. We'll have to try it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 But, NOW, since this is a conversation outside the scope of the intent, I have to start a NEW thread for the intent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winning Season Please! Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 This is very true, because noone other than Art is assigned the task of informing the membership of the opportunity to participate in our newest feature.I can't believe that in trying to ensure you all know about this cool new FREE opportunity we're providing, Art is getting attacked for his method of delivery. I guess next time we'll just hope you see it. Who said that because it is "FREE" the title must be misleading. I, and probably 90% of other members DON'T care about this issue of this issue because we can see the meaning, but we care about the principle of the matter. Nobody is attacking ART. I think ART is great and his posting is 99% of the time right on, BUT I saw a thread a couple weeks ago locked becuase of a misleading tread title that the person posting did in error. The MODS response was "Rule Breaker, Two Week Suspension, Hope It Was Worth It." COME ON! Grow up please. If a person is going to get ripped by a MOD because he made a mistake even after he appoligized and corrected his post, the a MOD should not break the rules and have the excuse of "it was a joke" or "it was to get your attention about a feature we are offering you." Guess what, if I throw a rock off of an overpass into your windshield and then say "Well, I was just trying to get you to look at my sign for free chicken at KFC, and besides, it was just a joke" I am still going to jail. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 This entire thread has me completely confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 SO is right on. Guys, please, try to grasp the very concept that we really do know what we intend the rules to mean and each was implemented to address very specific problems. We even had a rule at ONE point that suggested members realize we do know the rules. Honest we do. We're trying to build an audience between this show and this site. Having a little fun with it, flirting with young ladies who aren't really interested in dating any of us, making fun of Larry Michael, poking fun at ourselves. This is not by definition or interpretation a violation of the rule we wrote. The moment we let people, ourselves or anyone else, come here and post false news stories or the like is the day you run for the hills. The day we stop a little jocularity and fun in areas intended for JUST that is the day you should all run for the hills. Carefully balancing both is not always easy, or fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
318 SKIN Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 If you choose to ignore the spirit in which the rules are enforced in order to call out the staff, yes you should go away.Goodbye. It was kinda funny, but it's still misleading - the title caught my attention! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildbill Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 What a long strange trip its been........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 This entire thread has me completely confused. Of course you are confused...You are an Iggle fan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Weirdo Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Of course you are confused...You are an Iggle fan... I guess I just missed what started the thread. I have no idea what the hell this is about. People talking about misleading threads. What?? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winning Season Please! Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I guess I just missed what started the thread. I have no idea what the hell this is about. People talking about misleading threads. What??:confused: Original thread title was Dan Snyder reveales his Extremeskins sign-on name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I guess I just missed what started the thread. I have no idea what the hell this is about. People talking about misleading threads. What??:confused: The original thread title has been changed. If you look at the top of some of the earlier posts (in the title section) you will see what it used to be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 SO is right on.Guys, please, try to grasp the very concept that we really do know what we intend the rules to mean and each was implemented to address very specific problems. We even had a rule at ONE point that suggested members realize we do know the rules. Honest we do. We're trying to build an audience between this show and this site. Having a little fun with it, flirting with young ladies who aren't really interested in dating any of us, making fun of Larry Michael, poking fun at ourselves. This is not by definition or interpretation a violation of the rule we wrote. The moment we let people, ourselves or anyone else, come here and post false news stories or the like is the day you run for the hills. The day we stop a little jocularity and fun in areas intended for JUST that is the day you should all run for the hills. Carefully balancing both is not always easy, or fun. Man up and take the hit. 1) If SO's post was right on, you would have temp banned yourself already. 2) It is by definition a violation of the rule. 3) Judging yourself by the same means you judge others is the only way to maintain the respect of the membership. So man up and take the hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 Man up and take the hit. 1) If SO's post was right on, you would have temp banned yourself already. 2) It is by definition a violation of the rule. 3) Judging yourself by the same means you judge others is the only way to maintain the respect of the membership. So man up and take the hit. Todd, No, it is not, by definition a violation of the rule. Because the definition is the one the staff assigns to it. And that definition does not encompass such posts. I am judging this the same way I'd judge anyone else along THESE lines. One reason we do leave the rules fairly generic is to judge the intent behind them as well. For example, we rarely do anything to a person who makes a post that would violate the rule other than change the post title and close the thread. It's more for repeat folks, or a series in which it gets out of hand. In any case, the respect of the membership must take into account the people who run and maintain the site understand the rules of the site and what falls into trouble areas and what does not. As it happens this thread was treated largely the same as any other "misleading" thread would, in that it had the title changed. We ultimately left it open so people who felt differently could say so, which would be taking whatever hit is deemed necessary. I'm just comfortable knowing what the rule was written to attend since I helped write it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Todd,No, it is not, by definition a violation of the rule. Because the definition is the one the staff assigns to it. And that definition does not encompass such posts. I am judging this the same way I'd judge anyone else along THESE lines. One reason we do leave the rules fairly generic is to judge the intent behind them as well. For example, we rarely do anything to a person who makes a post that would violate the rule other than change the post title and close the thread. It's more for repeat folks, or a series in which it gets out of hand. In any case, the respect of the membership must take into account the people who run and maintain the site understand the rules of the site and what falls into trouble areas and what does not. As it happens this thread was treated largely the same as any other "misleading" thread would, in that it had the title changed. We ultimately left it open so people who felt differently could say so, which would be taking whatever hit is deemed necessary. I'm just comfortable knowing what the rule was written to attend since I helped write it . Whether or not the person with the power to hit the little button has the integrity to self-enforce has nothing to do with the validity of the claim. It is a clear and direct violation. That it was written by moderators doesnt make it magically backflip and spin around on its head at your bidding. If you are unable to humble yourself and see that its the case, then don't expect to get support from the membership going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streater101 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I've notice that Art has not replied in the thread. I think he already temp banned himself. I LOL'ed at that. I get very agitated by misleading threads. This one didn't really bother me at all, but in principle, I have to agree with the angry mob on this one. Theres really no point in dancing around semantics trying to prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 I know if I did this, I would be repremanded. Fair is fair for everyone, if that makes sense. Either way, the ad for the new feature is no longer what it was supposed to be. I think this thread should be closed and a real advertisement for the feature should be put up. Questions might actually be posted No, you really wouldn't, other than to say you shouldn't be promoting the Redskins.com Audio show :0. Guys, I seriously hope you don't believe the community is so dead to a little fun that you can't have a little fun. No, you can't say we signed Cato June in the subject field, then write, "I really hope we do anyway." But, say you were writing about the salary cap and you wrote, "Redskins are over the cap and have to release 10 players..." then went on to explain how goofy all that criticism was, or, to say it wasn't true, we'd probably have room. Remember now, I'm a former headline writer. My best was when Eazy E died and I had a one column, for line header. My header was, "Eazy come, Eazy go." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 Whether or not the person with the power to hit the little button has the integrity to self-enforce has nothing to do with the validity of the claim. It is a clear and direct violation. That it was written by moderators doesnt make it magically backflip and spin around on its head at your bidding.If you are unable to humble yourself and see that its the case, then don't expect to get support from the membership going forward. Todd, I would humble myself in an area of accurate concern, but, I'm sorry if I don't believe you that you understand the rule I wrote better than I do. You can SAY it's a violation, but, it isn't. Never was. Never will be. There's room to have a little fun within threads. There isn't room to report false news leading people to cite ES as the source and embarrass the site for being unreliable. The WHOLE point of the rule was to prevent this site from getting embarrassed for the information it conveyed to the outside world. It was not a blank ban of ANY title not precisely true. You were here when we enacted that rule. I would think you'd remember the why behind it and the difference. But, if YOU can't support me in various things becasue you think you know the rules better than me, that's ok. I'll still love you in the morning. I'm just not going to say sorry to you becasue I won't let you tell me what the rules I wrote mean. For the record, this rule is DIRECTLY written to maintain the integrity of ES as a source of information for Redskin fans. That's why we demand links or sources and require confirmation as a community of any new bits. This way we maintain the informational integrity of items we may have before others. Joking that Erin is hot for a date, or that Snyder revealed his username is wholly different and does not fall within it. But, tomorrow, I am going to break the Andyman identity in a thread title, and, it won't be true either . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweezel Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 No, you really wouldn't, other than to say you shouldn't be promoting the Redskins.com Audio show :0. Guys, I seriously hope you don't believe the community is so dead to a little fun that you can't have a little fun. No, you can't say we signed Cato June in the subject field, then write, "I really hope we do anyway." But, say you were writing about the salary cap and you wrote, "Redskins are over the cap and have to release 10 players..." then went on to explain how goofy all that criticism was, or, to say it wasn't true, we'd probably have room.Remember now, I'm a former headline writer. My best was when Eazy E died and I had a one column, for line header. My header was, "Eazy come, Eazy go." Geez Art, this is ES. There is no fun allowed because the moderators will take it all away! Look, I understand the point and know that there was really no harm done, but with such a crackdown recently on the rules, people feel slighted. I really cannot blame them either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumodat Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Whether or not the person with the power to hit the little button has the integrity to self-enforce has nothing to do with the validity of the claim. It is a clear and direct violation. That it was written by moderators doesnt make it magically backflip and spin around on its head at your bidding.If you are unable to humble yourself and see that its the case, then don't expect to get support from the membership going forward. Agreed! And this type of stuff has been happening a little more often. For the most part, I am quite impressed with the mods and the moderation of this board. However, I agree that this WAS in violation of the rules and now a mod is trying to spin it. That is unfortunate. The members here ( the ones who have been here for a little while) try and guide newbies, and report rule violations. This is sending a clear message that the rules do not apply to everyone. It is unfortunate. That's all I've got. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Well, it seems the ninny nanny members just want to see Art squirm (don't hold your breath) even though they recognize why what he did is different from what the mods are trying to stop around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smitty71 Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 If you choose to ignore the spirit in which the rules are enforced in order to call out the staff, yes you should go away.Goodbye. I am new so just asking a question: Has their been problems with this member before? If we argure over things do we get kicked off? I am not trying to start trouble, I am just wanting to know how things work so I don't get in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Todd, I would humble myself in an area of accurate concern, but, I'm sorry if I don't believe you that you understand the rule I wrote better than I do. You can SAY it's a violation, but, it isn't. Never was. Never will be. There's room to have a little fun within threads. There isn't room to report false news leading people to cite ES as the source and embarrass the site for being unreliable.The WHOLE point of the rule was to prevent this site from getting embarrassed for the information it conveyed to the outside world. It was not a blank ban of ANY title not precisely true. You were here when we enacted that rule. I would think you'd remember the why behind it and the difference. But, if YOU can't support me in various things becasue you think you know the rules better than me, that's ok. I'll still love you in the morning. I'm just not going to say sorry to you becasue I won't let you tell me what the rules I wrote mean. Its too bad if you think you can't be told what the rule is. You've been told. You're a big boy. You can handle it. Tailgate style attempts at rationalization are just going to leave you empty inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 22, 2006 Author Share Posted March 22, 2006 Geez Art, this is ES. There is no fun allowed because the moderators will take it all away! Look, I understand the point and know that there was really no harm done, but with such a crackdown recently on the rules, people feel slighted. I really cannot blame them either. The crackdown has nothing to do with this, but, I don't blame anyone either. They can hoot and holler all they want. This thread is here for them. I really don't care. In the end, I'm right, because the only opinion that matters is the opinion of those who wrote the rules and enforce them. Todd is a longtime, GREAT member. But, he's flatly incorrect this was a rule violation. He can be incorrect and it won't diminish the esteem I have for him. Or any of the rest of you. At the end of the day the simple fact is the ONLY rule interpretation that matters is that of the staff. So, in an area you're sure we're in violation and we agree, you know you have us. When we disagree, at least allow yourselves to understand there MAY be a point opposite yours that is somewhat relevant . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.