UPDATES TO THE CHARTER

Neil3030

Please read this post.

Things are getting too prickly around here and this new initiative is an extension of what's been implemented on other boards which have dealt with similar issues.

From now on, please adhere to, and report any suspicions of breaches of, these new groundrules for what will henceforth be considered personal abuse.

Not sure some of the new rules make sense.

For example, the reference to personal abuse of organisations. That surely impersonal. Nor is there any criticism exemption, as exists for players. So we cannot, say, slam the Ravens or the NFL for the way they handled the Ray Rice matter? That seems excessive.

Personal abuse against players again seems excessive. So from now on, we can't say Meriweather or Suh are dirty players, that being a character attack, and we must say they are players who have repeatedly played dirty?

Surely a rule involving personal abuse against other posters, along with rules about trolling, repetition and the like, should be enough?

SantryRed

So you can't accuse teams of cheating anymore or discuss teams that may be cheating? Seriously? That seems way over the top and a complete over reaction to the deflategate thread.

What about proven cheating like the Patriots with the spying?

Btw, this isn't an attack on the Patriots before some people obviously pick it up like that. But I just find that new rule way to excessive.

EDIT: on further thinking, it genuinely feels like pandering to the biggest supporting base on this forum with this rule. As we all know it is to do with the Patriots.

I assume the Browns thread and Rodgers thread should also be locked so? They're still on the top 2 pages.

poldebruin

I agree with Conor74, this new amendment is over reaching and unnecessary. Character attacks are only an issue if part of an ad hominem argument. Plenty of players have major character issues, sometimes worthy of attacking. On the minor side of the scale, Josh Gordon is a fool for running afoul of the league drug-testing policy. Adrian Peterson is guilty of whipping his 4 year old son with a branch. Johnny Manziel is immature and a waster (thus far).....all these are fair comment imo.

Connor is also correct in saying that organisations can't be victims of a personal attack. There was plenty of vitriol being thrown around about the NFL and Roger Goodell recently. Much worse than what we have seen in recent days. Nothing was mentioned then and rightly so.

Maybe I missed something in the Daflategate thread - were posts removed? From what I could tell most posters were being reasoned on both sides, and I was enjoying the discussion. Surely problem posters should have been dealt with on a case by case basis?

Finally, as to the thread being locked, I think we're all suffering from deflategate fatigue, but locking a thread in the midst of one of the biggest stories of the NFL (whether you agree it should be or not) until the official report comes out sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion (maybe dangerous is overstating it somewhat, but you get what I mean)

Edit to add: I completely agree to these reminders - but feel they are covered by the flamebaiting, trolling and provocation in the original charter.
Personal abuse against other posters, including the nature and style of their posts.
Personal abuse against fans, including name-calling, racism, accusations of preciousness, paranoia, defensiveness, etc.

Realt Dearg Sec

There should be a rule that for every post someone puts up about cheating or ball inflation, they have to have at least two posts actually dealing with football (three if you're posting about how another poster doesn't understand the issue as well as you do or is a hypocrite for some reason). It might balance up the size of that thread as against the actual superbowl thread, and give people a chance to cool the jets over what is, ultimately, not a very important issue.

I would be happy to nominate someone else to police this.

poldebruin

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

There should be a rule that for every post someone puts up about cheating or ball inflation, they have to have at least two posts actually dealing with football (three if you're posting about how another poster doesn't understand the issue as well as you do or is a hypocrite for some reason). It might balance up the size of that thread as against the actual superbowl thread, and give people a chance to cool the jets over what is, ultimately, not a very important issue.

I would be happy to nominate someone else to police this.

I agree there does seem to be a dearth of non-deflated football talk on this of all weeks. Even finding good articles seems impossible this week. Journalists who aren't talking about it, are writing about how tired they are of it, which is equally as tiresome.

That said, we can't complain because an issue is generating so much discussion whether we think the issue is important or not. It is what it is.

I remember the Tim Tebow thread from a couple of years ago - people were getting so hot under the collar that people were even discussing him and that so much time was being devoted to him, the thread was so long, people asked for that thread to be locked if I recall.

Neil3030

Not having a go at Neil3030, but here is an example of a post that could not be allowed here...by Neil3030...

Neil3030 wrote: »

Yeah... guiding a fractious ego-maniacal Chelsea team to a European final and probable Champion's League spot, impeccably rotating his squad through a hellish schedule, all while the fans persistently berate him with vitriol. What a mountebank... :rolleyes:

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that type of post at all, just puzzled why it's fine on the soccer forum and banned here.

Obviously, we cannot use the words "fractious ego-maniacal" to describe an organisation or group on this forum, nor can we tarnish the fans of any team as people who might persistently use vitriol.

That seems over the top. If busier forums can manage it, why can't this one?

Bateman

I find it amusing that the forum is basically having a bit of a meltdown over the deflated balls thing. If people don’t want to talk about it, don’t contribute to the thread.

If the thread is busy and it is at the top of the forum, that to me means that people want to talk about it – if they didn’t, it wouldn’t be at the top of the forum.

It’s also highly amusing that people can’t state facts such as that the Patriots are a cheating organisation, when this is a proven fact.

Do we effectively have a situation here where a little New England mafia (who in fairness, might all be high-volume contributors to the forum) have gone crying to the mods like babies and cause these totally unreasonable rules to be implemented? I’m asking a question here and not saying this is what has happened btw.

kryogen

If something has been proven there is no problem, it is the unproven/unfounded accusations that seem to be the issue.

Explain how it is a fact that the Patriots are a cheating organisation, if it is a proven fact there shouldn't be an issue.

Discussion of the spying itself would be fine, saying that the Pats were done for cheating in relation to that would also be fine surely, but to say the entire organisation is a cheating one, and its a proven fact is a dumb thing to say, and is going to provoke a response, which 9/10 is the purpose for posting something dumb like that, when you are posting to get a response, a rise from others that is called baiting, which is not allowed as per the charter.

eagle eye

I have to admit I think these new rules are going a bit too far. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying you don't like a franchise or a specific player.

Adding something about him like an unproven reason for not liking him is going too far though.

For example Big Ben is a good example. Saying you don't like the guy over the Lake Tahoe or the Capital City Nightclub incidents for me is fine, but coming out and saying that he is a rapist or anything like that would be very wrong imo.

I often have said I don't like the Ravens and it goes all the way back to them moving out of Cleveland and leaving those people with no football team. I don't think there is anything wrong with that?

Some of the stuff that has been going on here recently though is just going beyond the line. In the thread that has been closed there was a lot of stuff about how the Patriots were cheats and pretty much 'once a cheat always a cheat' type stuff. I don't think that is fair at all and I don't think it was fair to Patriots fans to have to put up with it. It really does seem like baiting to me.

poldebruin

kryogen wrote: »

If something has been proven there is no problem, it is the unproven/unfounded accusations that seem to be the issue.

The problem with this reasoning is that much of what we love to discuss on a fans forum is speculation and what ifs.......if we restrict it to what can only be proven a lot of the fun and discussion goes away.

The fact is that this is not just a big story in American Football circles, it has crossed over into mainstream media .

...yet we're now told we can't discuss it, on of allplaces, an American Football forum. Now, my guess is the thread seemed to be winding down naturally by all accounts

kryogen wrote: »

Discussion of the spying itself would be fine, saying that the Pats were done for cheating in relation to that would also be fine surely, but to say the entire organisation is a cheating one, and its a proven fact is a dumb thing to say, and is going to provoke a response, which 9/10 is the purpose for posting something dumb like that, when you are posting to get a response, a rise from others that is called baiting, which is not allowed as per the charter.

I agree with what you're saying here - it is already covered in the existing Charter. But I'd hate to go down the road of people reporting posts left right and centre. Your own post in calling the previous post dumb is an example what might not be allowed under the charter too.

kryogen

I agree, I also think the new rules are a little too stringent, but something certainly needed to be done and rules can be tweaked or whatever over time if there is consensus surely

poldebruin

eagle eye wrote: »

Some of the stuff that has been going on here recently though is just going beyond the line. In the thread that has been closed there was a lot of stuff about how the Patriots were cheats and pretty much 'once a cheat always a cheat' type stuff. I don't think that is fair at all and I don't think it was fair to Patriots fans to have to put up with it. It really does seem like baiting to me.

I think most of the posters on the forum would "recognise" that line of argument and reasoning as invalid and it generally undermines the rest of any of the posters point. for me it marks out the posts that are to be taken seriously or not. Surely just reporting the offending ones is enough?

Adamcp898

I think there just needs to be infractions issued for comments whose only purpose is obviously to goad other posters as well as all the back-handed insults and petty crap.

I know that's terribly broad and is difficult to put into words in a charter but a sweep of infractions for those kind of comments would clean this forum up a lot faster imo as I think this updated charter is basically saying that nothing bad can be said about anyone or anything ever. Our version of the blasphemy law if you will

Mr. Guappa

But if the Deflategate thread is locked where can all the haters go to apologise for jumping the gun??

helimachoptor

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

But if the Deflategate thread is locked where can all the haters go to apologise for jumping the gun??

Patriots thread :pac:

poldebruin

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

But if the Deflategate thread is locked where can all the haters go to apologise for jumping the gun??

Really....in a thread discussing changes to the Charter and posters conduct?

Mr. Guappa

poldebruin wrote: »

Really....in a thread discussing changes to the Charter and posters conduct?

I just think that locking that thread was not necessary. Stamp down on the baiting for sure, but not allowing discussion of a huge topic in the NFL right now seems very excessive.

SantryRed

eagle eye wrote: »

Some of the stuff that has been going on here recently though is just going beyond the line. In the thread that has been closed there was a lot of stuff about how the Patriots were cheats and pretty much 'once a cheat always a cheat' type stuff. I don't think that is fair at all and I don't think it was fair to Patriots fans to have to put up with it. It really does seem like baiting to me.

WTF? So what if you don't think it's fair, it's some people's belief (and not mine btw) that the Patriots consistently try to bend (and sometimes break) the rules in trying to win. It can kind of be likened to people's belief that United always got soft penos and decisions given to them because of Ferguson and because of who they are.

My problem with this forum over the past year is that the biggest collection by a mile is Patriot fans. And when some of them come to a consensus over some things, it is seen as baiting if you have the opposite view. (again, I'm not saying all Patriots fans, but again, the same thing can be seen when someone has the opposite view in a United/Liverpool superthread on the soccer forum).

The closure of the deflategate thread is nothing short of ridiculous. People getting their knickers in a twist because people want to talk about it, and then posting on such thread, moaning that the post count is so big, when they themselves are posting on the thread. There was ridiculous outrage on both sides, some over the top suggestions that the Patriots should be banned from the Superbowl (which is ****ing stupid for a petty offense) to Patriots fans getting equally as outraged that people were discussing the fact that rules were broken.

It still should never have been closed. No reason why a note couldn't have been made by a mod to say that people should discuss the topic and nothing around that, rather than it being ridiculously shut until the enquiry is over.

clear thinking

I agree with the general sentiment that restrictions and the thread locking are OTT.

A ban on trolling or instruction from mods to take it to PM's would have been sufficient.

It is not as if the deflate-gate thing is sub judicae and our speculation on NFL and public domain club and media statements will have any effect.

I don't disagree with the personal abuse thing, eg between posters, or saying Bellick is an XYZ; but the latter would be covered by trolling if it wasn't an accurate statement (he is a cheat, as proven in the past, but there is no evidence of cheating this time by way of example), and the former by a warning or ban for that poster.

I thought most of the thread was very interesting fwiw, a few eejits shouldn't baby and bathwater the situation.

It's amusing that the only locked thread was one with the rather careful "Pats accused of underinflating balls" title.

The ones screaming "is Aaron Rodgers a Cheat" or "Are the Browns Cheats" remain open. They seem far more provocative.

A cynic might wonder were they started by a Pats fan and if that had a bearing...

Bateman

Basically what has happened here is that Patriots fans have decided they don't want the deflation thing discussed anymore and they have gotten their own way, with the thread being locked. That is breathtaking in terms of non-Patriots fans knowing their place on the forum.

This seems to me to be a lazy alternative to moderators actually moderating.

SantryRed

It's pretty ironic that the only posters to like the thread being locked are all Patriots fans. Again, showing the disparity.

Areyouwell

SantryRed wrote: »

WTF? So what if you don't think it's fair, it's some people's belief (and not mine btw) that the Patriots consistently try to bend (and sometimes break) the rules in trying to win.

I don’t share such misguided beliefs and I am Colts fan. Believe me, I’d really love to believe it, because nobody has suffered as much at their hands in recent years that we have. But the facts speak for themselves, the Patriots have been consistently the most dominant & winningest team in the NLF since the Brady & Belichick partnership began. People are entitled to their misguided beliefs all they want, but facts are facts and the stats speak for themselves. Of course I’d wish Belichick & Brady would feck off and retire and hopefully they’ll go through many, many losing seasons. But I certainly wouldn’t lower myself to the level of vindictive hate and such pettiness for a rival & dominant franchise. Tbh, I love Football too much to do that to myself.

Bateman

Areyouwell wrote: »

stats speak for themselves.

Yes they do

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/nfl/2015-01-23/tom-brady-patriots-deflate-gate-performance-in-wet-weather-ats-record-colts-game

nasty_crash

the reason ppl hate on the pats is 1 - they win - 2 - they got caught before pushing rules to the limit! Even though every other club probably do the same thing! As a packers fan im neutral to the whole thing - but i do feel that locking the thread goes against the whole idea of boards!! To echo what some of the other guys have said there doesnt seem to be too many pats fans disagreeing with this - seems strange!!

Listening to podcasts from the nfl etc - its still an issue - and will be an issue until it is addressed - do the patriots get kicked from the superbowl - no(dont be silly) - will they be fined - yes - but the issue is that it hasnt been addressed as yet and thats why it is still being dicussed and allowed to be discussed!!!

Areyouwell

Bateman wrote: »

Yes they do

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/nfl/2015-01-23/tom-brady-patriots-deflate-gate-performance-in-wet-weather-ats-record-colts-game

Ah will you stop. What does some some speculative troll article justify? Ya, you guessed right , apart from s**t stirring, absolutely nothing.

Bateman

So you don’t want to discuss facts now all of a sudden.

OK, we move on.

Putin

Bateman wrote: »

So you don’t want to discuss facts now all of a sudden.

There are no facts in that troll article. Certainly is a fine work of fiction though.

Anyway, haven't you missed the point? Because I don't think this thread was set up to discuss that petty little issue. This thread was only set up to discuss the charter

UnitedIrishman

Think the best thing everyone can do is just step away from that deflategate tit-for-tat thread, draw a line under it and forget about the whole situation because it's the biggest load of bull over nothing. I know it's a forum and free speech and being allowed to give your view but that thread is just a cluster**** of repeated stuff over and over again, with people banging their heads off walls to get their point across.

Aside from that I haven't really found there much need for mods to enforce strict rules. The forum is one of the more enjoyable ones, especially compared to the likes of the soccer forum. Every now and again there is a divide between Pats fans and the rest over some issue - the rest think that the Pats fans feel their infallible and nothing bad should be said wrong about BB/Brady whilst the Pats fans feel that they're under constant attack and need to defend themselves from trolling from others. The truth is somewhere in a big grey area in the middle.

One thing I'd hope for the next week or so is that the Superbowl thread is just purely about the game, and any mention of deflategate should be an offence.

kryogen

Deleted User wrote: »

It's amusing that the only locked thread was one with the rather careful "Pats accused of underinflating balls" title.

The ones screaming "is Aaron Rodgers a Cheat" or "Are the Browns Cheats" remain open. They seem far more provocative.

A cynic might wonder were they started by a Pats fan and if that had a bearing...

At some point you might want to take a little break from the internet you know, it may surprise you to learn that some people can't check boards all day and mods presumably have other things to do then be on hand every minute or every day to close the threads as you see fit

ps, when has passive aggressive bull**** ever been productive?

poldebruin

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Think the best thing everyone can do is just step away from that deflategate tit-for-tat thread, draw a line under it and forget about the whole situation because it's the biggest load of bull over nothing.

Absolutely agree with every other point you made, but like it or not this is a huge story. The implications true or false, would be enormous for the Patriots and the NFL. People might be weary of it, but I ignore plenty of threads I have no interest in, I don't look to have the conversation shut down.

kryogen

Bateman wrote: »

So you don’t want to discuss facts now all of a sudden.

OK, we move on.

Lets discuss the fact that Brady is the best bad weather qb there has ever been, if this is news to you then it is pretty clear the extent of your knowledge/interest in the sport itself and what exactly it is your intentions are.

As if Brady playing well is poor weather is something new The mere fact that you think it is amuses me

Brady is the best cold weather quarterback in the league.

His quarterback rating in the cold weather — meaning 40-20 degrees Fahrenheit — is 107.4. In warm weather, meaning 61-80 Fahrenheit? 68.9.

Think of some of Brady’s most iconic games. What do they have in common? Snow. Cold. Brady blowing on his hands to warm them up. Bill Belichick’s trademark hoodie covered up by a parka.

Tom Brady has 46 games under his belt in cold weather with a 40-6 record. He's 29-5 at home and 11-1 on the road. He has a 10-2 postseason record inside those 46 games. He has thrown 85 touchdowns, 30 interceptions and he has been sacked 81 times. One of the most impressive facts is his 584 first downs, or an average of 13 per game.

Bateman

Putin wrote: »

There are no facts in that troll article. Certainly is a fine work of fiction though.

1) Did you actually read any of it? And
2) Do you understand what it says?

The Patriots went 31-29 ATS (52 percent) in dry-weather home games, but 10-5 ATS (67 percent) in wet-weather home games. Oddsmakers projected the Patriots would score an average of 28 points per game, whether the conditions were wet or dry. But the Patriots scored 35 ppg in wet weather vs. 31 ppg in dry weather. Their opponents scored 5 ppg fewer in wet weather home games.

Thus, their average win improved from 30.7-19.6 to 34.6-14.3. In other words, they went from winning games by 11 points to winning by over 20 points, despite being favored by 9 ppg in both scenarios.


and in the interest of clarity:

I always thought this was just “Bill Belichick and Tom Brady being smart and ahead of the game”.

This analysis does not prove or disprove anything

JaMarcusHustle

I would wager that the thread wasn't closed because of the topic in question but rather because of people's conduct in the thread itself and the fact that arguments were going in circles and discussion was long gone out the window. Nothing was being achieved and I can't imagine it was nice to moderate. Add that to the fact that we had some heavy spam and trolling yesterday and I can see why the mods would just say "feck this" and close the thread.

Neil himself said it will be reopened when an official statement is made. I don't see what the problem here is

It's Super Bowl week for fecks sake, there's plenty to talk about until that statement is made.

Adamcp898

Jesus even this thread is turning into tit for tat ****e.

Shame the deflategate thread has been shut now, as it's actually became a little more interesting than it had been with the advent of the Patriot's communicating their official stance on the matter and so not just days of people interpreting the interpretations of journalists.

kryogen

kryogen wrote: »

At some point you might want to take a little break from the internet you know, it may surprise you to learn that some people can't check boards all day and mods presumably have other things to do then be on hand every minute or every day to close the threads as you see fit

ps, when has passive aggressive bull**** ever been productive?

You might want to check up on the new rules there and amend your effort. Personal abuse, specifically commenting on the style and nature of others posts etc. are all banned now.

I won't respond in kind, others have speculated that issues for Pats fans seem to become issues for mods and I don't want to test that.

poldebruin

Well I've made my feelings known about the amendments to the charter. I still don't like the precedent closing the thread sets.
Regarding this thread, could we not stick to the topic at hand? If you want to discuss the Patriots cold weather prowess could you start another thread?

kryogen

Deleted User wrote: »

You might want to check up on the new rules there and amend your effort. Personal abuse, specifically commenting on the style and nature of others posts etc. are all banned now.

I won't respond in kind, others have speculated that issues for Pats fans seem to become issues for mods and I don't want to test that.

Are you sure?

kryogen

poldebruin wrote: »

Well I've made my feelings known about the amendments to the charter. I still don't like the precedent closing the thread sets.
Regarding this thread, could we not stick to the topic at hand? If you want to discuss the Patriots cold weather prowess could you start another thread?

I wholeheartedly agree, this was not the place at all for someone to bring up the Patriots, or Bradys (incredible) ability to get the job done in bad weather, but if someone feels the need to bring stuff up I feel entitled to respond.

poldebruin

poldebruin wrote: »

Well I've made my feelings known about the amendments to the charter. I still don't like the precedent closing the thread sets.
Regarding this thread, could we not stick to the topic at hand? If you want to discuss the Patriots cold weather prowess could you start another thread?

kryogen wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree, this was not the place at all for someone to bring up the Patriots, or Bradys (incredible) ability to get the job done in bad weather, but if someone feels the need to bring stuff up I feel entitled to respond.

if you two dont stop it I'm turning this car around

Neil3030

First and foremost thank you all for the feedback. I'll just give everyone my general thoughts to start off with - I started this forum for enjoyable discussion on the sport of american football. I did not start the forum so that people can have a medium for 'slamming' organisations and players that they dislike, or for sparking rows with fans who they don't like. Furthermore, I did not start the forum to favour fans of any particular team, or to offer them a place to gang up on anyone.

But over the years the board has descended into far too much of the latter, and not enough of the former. The new measures are to move us back to football related discussion. No other reason. Further, they are measures that have been employed in other fora, where similar issues have surfaced. The key concern is to avoid ad hominem, which I consider to be a gateway to bigger problems. So you call one team a name, next thing fans of that team take the hump, start getting defensive and snotty and next thing you've a row of several pages to clean up. Moderators are volunteers, and believe it or not, we have jobs and lives outside of settling arguments like this. So by restricting the personal abuse and ad hominem rules in the manner that I have, I am just trying to curb problems before they start and keep discussion on the sport of football.

There's no hidden agenda and no favouritism. They may be reviewed over time, but I want to give them a bedding in period of a few months to see how they get on. In the meantime, and there's no polite way I can say this - if you would rather engage in tribalist arguments, ad hominem or 'slam' people and organisations you don't like, I urge you to avail of a different website. The Internet is a very big place.

I'll now try and deal with a few concerns that were raised by some posters to try and clear up some ambiguity. If I don't respond specifically to your post it's because I felt I answered it elsewhere, but bring it up again if you are not satisfied:

For example, the reference to personal abuse of organisations. That surely impersonal. Nor is there any criticism exemption, as exists for players. So we cannot, say, slam the Ravens or the NFL for the way they handled the Ray Rice matter? That seems excessive.

Just to be perfectly clear on this - criticising and disagreeing with previous proven actions of an organisation is not abuse. So of course you can criticise and even condemn how the Ravens (and indeed the NFL) handled the Rice issue, Peterson's actions, etc.

It's when you extend that to sly digs that it becomes an issue. "The patriots have cheated" is a very different statement to "the patriots are cheats".

Personal abuse against players again seems excessive. So from now on, we can't say Meriweather or Suh are dirty players, that being a character attack, and we must say they are players who have repeatedly played dirty?

Over time I hope we'll find an equilibrium, but basically yes - you can highlight a players actions, but no name-calling. Depending on the context, statements like, 'he's a dirty player' may fly, but it will really depend on the tone and intent of the poster.

Surely a rule involving personal abuse against other posters, along with rules about trolling, repetition and the like, should be enough?

You would think, but the evidence (number of reported posts and personal messages I get from users complaining) suggests otherwise. The problem is in extracting the intent. Some posters have become very nuanced and adept at using insults of organisations to really just troll other users. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like how users go overboard in retaliation, but again, they have become very good at staying on the post just enough to avoid sanction. So we needed a clearer framework, and that's why the previous rules weren't sufficient.

So you can't accuse teams of cheating anymore or discuss teams that may be cheating? Seriously? That seems way over the top and a complete over reaction to the deflategate thread.

Well first off, it's not an over reaction to a particular issue, though deflate gate certainly provided a catalyst. The tone on the board has been a long standing concern and pain for the mods.

And as addressed above - you can discuss previous issues and proven misdemeanors without resorting to name calling. All we want to do is impose civility on all sides here.

on further thinking, it genuinely feels like pandering to the biggest supporting base on this forum with this rule. As we all know it is to do with the Patriots.

It really isn't. These measures will prevent majority fanbases from being abusive, just as much as minority fanbases.

Plenty of players have major character issues, sometimes worthy of attacking. On the minor side of the scale, Josh Gordon is a fool for running afoul of the league drug-testing policy. Adrian Peterson is guilty of whipping his 4 year old son with a branch. Johnny Manziel is immature and a waster (thus far).....all these are fair comment imo

The part I've bolded is pretty much the definition of ad hominem. It serves no function in debate other than to hype up people's emotions and for the time being will not be tolerated.

Connor is also correct in saying that organisations can't be victims of a personal attack. There was plenty of vitriol being thrown around about the NFL and Roger Goodell recently. Much worse than what we have seen in recent days. Nothing was mentioned then and rightly so.

The NFL and Goodell should be protected from vitriol, but not from criticism, that's what we're trying to do here.

Not having a go at Neil3030, but here is an example of a post that could not be allowed here...by Neil3030...

Wow, of all the quotes you could have picked, you've let me off pretty lightly! But you are absolutely right, I could have worded that less antagonistically. Actually this gives a nice opportunity to explain what I'm looking for in posts:

Yeah... guiding a fractious ego-maniacal Chelsea team to a European final and probable Champion's League spot, impeccably rotating his squad through a hellish schedule, all while the fans persistently berate him with vitriol. What a mountebank...

Could just as easily be worded as follows, and get the same message across without the name-calling:

Yeah... guiding a Chelsea team with a fractious dressing room and many extremely challenging personalities to a European final and probable Champion's League spot, impeccably rotating his squad through a hellish schedule, all while the fans persistently berate him with vitriol. What a mountebank...

That seems over the top. If busier forums can manage it, why can't this one?

Other forums operate on the exact same rules. In fact, the rugby forum have extended the personal abuse to referees, though i don't think that will be as necessary here.

It’s also highly amusing that people can’t state facts such as that the Patriots are a cheating organisation, when this is a proven fact.

If a certain organisation has cheated in the past, it does not mean that they are (currently) cheats, and therefore calling them a 'cheating organisation' serves no purpose but to troll. Why else would you bring it up?

Do we effectively have a situation here where a little New England mafia (who in fairness, might all be high-volume contributors to the forum) have gone crying to the mods like babies and cause these totally unreasonable rules to be implemented? I’m asking a question here and not saying this is what has happened btw.

This is another great example, because you asked a legitimate question using the phrase "crying to the mods like babies" - this is the exact kind of behaviour we are trying to cut down on here - why not just say - "complained to the mods"?

And to address your question - absolutely not. Believe me, I would be LOATHE to give any team special treatment, especially a team that holds a majority of users. In my mind this will restrict and improve everyone's behaviour and cut out a lot of bickering from both sides of the ball.

I have to admit I think these new rules are going a bit too far. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying you don't like a franchise or a specific player.

Adding something about him like an unproven reason for not liking him is going too far though.

For example Big Ben is a good example. Saying you don't like the guy over the Lake Tahoe or the Capital City Nightclub incidents for me is fine, but coming out and saying that he is a rapist or anything like that would be very wrong imo.

You hit the nail squarely on the head, to be honest. And the new rules will encourage this practice, not restrict it.

The problem with this reasoning is that much of what we love to discuss on a fans forum is speculation and what ifs.......if we restrict it to what can only be proven a lot of the fun and discussion goes away.

Speculate all you want, the new rules will not preclude this. All I want to do is extend ad hominem to cover organisations and fans. So speculate that a team may have cheated, but back up your opinion with evidence and avoid name calling. That keeps you the good guy. If someone then responds to you saying that you are just trying to stir sh*t, the new rules will now see them sanctioned for attacking your posting style. Is this not fair?

I think there just needs to be infractions issued for comments whose only purpose is obviously to goad other posters as well as all the back-handed insults and petty crap.

I know that's terribly broad and is difficult to put into words in a charter but a sweep of infractions for those kind of comments would clean this forum up a lot faster imo as I think this updated charter is basically saying that nothing bad can be said about anyone or anything ever. Our version of the blasphemy law if you will

This is the whole problem we face as mods - trying to set clear rules for situations that can often be nuanced and subtle. I think I've made clear above that criticism grounded in evidence and logic are fine, while ad hominem is not.

WTF? So what if you don't think it's fair, it's some people's belief (and not mine btw) that the Patriots consistently try to bend (and sometimes break) the rules in trying to win. It can kind of be likened to people's belief that United always got soft penos and decisions given to them because of Ferguson and because of who they are.

Back up your belief, avoid name calling, and everything should be ok.

My problem with this forum over the past year is that the biggest collection by a mile is Patriot fans. And when some of them come to a consensus over some things, it is seen as baiting if you have the opposite view.

I want these rules to also protect minority fan bases. As I suggest above, if you present a supported argumemt that avoids abuse, and are if a majority fan base gangs up on you or your posting style, accuse your post as trolling or **** stirring, etc., they will be punishable under the extended rules.

The ones screaming "is Aaron Rodgers a Cheat" or "Are the Browns Cheats" remain open. They seem far more provocative.

Again, good examples. In future these threads will not be tolerated, unless they relate to a specific situation - "did rodgers cheat by doing X", "did the Browns do Y"

Basically what has happened here is that Patriots fans have decided they don't want the deflation thing discussed anymore and they have gotten their own way, with the thread being locked. That is breathtaking in terms of non-Patriots fans knowing their place on the forum.

This seems to me to be a lazy alternative to moderators actually moderating.

I have not received a single message or request from anyone that the thread be closed. And this "lazy alternative to moderators actually moderating" accusation is completely unfair. We are volunteers who give up our time to try and maintain order in the forum, it is not unreasonable that we try and make this job easier, where we can, while at the same time allowing the proper behaviour on the board - discussion of the sport.

And as it happens, the deflate gate thread may be opened again with these new rules in force, allowing a much clearer framework for more civilised debate on the issue. So watch this space.

Ah will you stop. What does some some speculative troll article justify? Ya, you guessed right , apart from s**t stirring, absolutely nothing.

FYI to people who think these new rules only favour the majority fan base - the new rules specify that this will get a warning under the comment about the article being used to sh*t stir. And to the poster in question, your options are to (1) report the post, (2) dispute the content of the article or (3) ignore it.

Anyway, haven't you missed the point? Because I don't think this thread was set up to discuss that petty little issue. This thread was only set up to discuss the charter

Commenting on the post being petty. Again, the new rules will cover this.

UPDATE: OK, a lot of posts since I started writing this so lets' just keep this thread as a feedback thread on the new rules. I will try to respond to further posts later on tonight

Chucky the tree

Any chance we can have a special Patriots forum separate from the NFL forum and then have the old rules for the NFL forum? Rules are disappointing tbh and really will take away the enjoyment and good spirit of the forum.

ya when you put it that way i think its fair enough to be honest and it should keep the forum more cordial. I do have two questions on the matter.

1. how will ye define the attacking an organisation/player rule. i for example dislike how the seahawk players carry themselves it is something that i will mention from time to time in context without giving examples on every occasion would this be an issue?

2.also staying on the seahawks i feel for example sherman gets away with absolute murder when it comes to holding the reciever (and i think its pretty common knowledge to be fair) if it state this will i have to back it up with pictures every time?

poldebruin

Thanks for responding Neil. The new rules will possibly make for more civil discourse. Hopefully we can all also apply some common sense, see humour where intended, give benefit of the doubt etc.

I still don't like the closing of valid threads though....

kryogen

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Any chance we can have a special Patriots forum separate from the NFL forum and then have the old rules for the NFL forum? Rules are disappointing tbh and really will take away the enjoyment and good spirit of the forum.

I don't see any need for that, the update to the charter isn't that bad tbh, just use common sense and don't be a dick, if people can't manage that then you probably won't miss their contributions.

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

Actually this gives a nice opportunity to explain what I'm looking for in posts:

Yeah... guiding a fractious ego-maniacal Chelsea team to a European final and probable Champion's League spot, impeccably rotating his squad through a hellish schedule, all while the fans persistently berate him with vitriol. What a mountebank...

Could just as easily be worded as follows, and get the same message across without the name-calling:

Yeah... guiding a Chelsea team with a fractious dressing room and many extremely challenging personalities to a European final and probable Champion's League spot, impeccably rotating his squad through a hellish schedule, all while the fans persistently berate him with vitriol. What a mountebank...

So I cannot say the Pats are cheats. That would insult the organisation.

But I can say the Pats have a dodgy locker room and many extremely challenging personalities that may push the boundaries of what is allowed, and all the while the fans persistently defend them?

Before Pats fans rush in, I am not asserting the truth of the paragraph above, merely getting clarification as to what is permitted.

The distinction seems rather fine.

kryogen

Its pretty black and white actually unless you are being obtuse.

If you back up the statement where is the issue?

To use your example, if you were to strut in and say, The Pats have a dodgy locker room etc and don't give any reasoning as to why you feel the need to state this or back it up with some form of evidence then I would imagine you will be in trouble under the new rules, but tbh you would be in trouble under the old ones too as its basically baiting/flaming/low level trolling

If you were to say the Pats have a dodgy locker room etc and you can see this because of x incident with x amount of players/staff and the other incident involving x and x then you are backing up your statement, no issue should arise from that, as long as your post in on topic.

kryogen

kryogen wrote: »

Its pretty black and white actually unless you are being obtuse.

If you back up the statement where is the issue?

To use your example, if you were to strut in and say, The Pats have a dodgy locker room etc and don't give any reasoning as to why you feel the need to state this or back it up with some form of evidence then I would imagine you will be in trouble under the new rules, but tbh you would be in trouble under the old ones too as its basically baiting/flaming/low level trolling

If you were to say the Pats have a dodgy locker room etc and you can see this because of x incident with x amount of players/staff and the other incident involving x and x then you are backing up your statement, no issue should arise from that, as long as your post in on topic.

Well that's clearly wrong anyway.

Because in the example that the mod gave, there was no explanation. He just described the Chelsea dressing room with no reasoning and no evidence.

So clearly that is not the position.

And again, there is no need for the comment reference to a poster being obtuse. The rules also apply to you and you can start observing them. You could have made your point without the commentary on the motivation of a poster.

kryogen

I don't think you are a mod are you?

Any chance you could just start reporting my posts instead of continually trying to get personal?

I called nobody obtuse so you are wrong there also, I have no interest in the example the mod gave, in a different forum, under a slightly different set of rule. Read Neil's post again where for further clarification on what will be acceptable here, in this forum.

Neil3030

Kryogen explained it perfectly. Just to add - at the time i posted that comment about chelsea it had been well documented that the previous manager (avb) had been completely undermined by the players, culminating ultimately in his dismissal. If similar reports emerge about the patriots then you could comment likewise on their locker room situation

And yes, the obtuse comment would be prohibited under the new rules, and the ensuing back seat moderation was covered under the old rules. So stop that both of you!