Talk with the Admin, February (2005) edition

[board]

Folks,

There are a few issues that have come up that I would like to address.

If you are suspended, I will always send an e-mail message to the address we have on file detailing 1) just what rule or rules you broke to deserve your break and 2) the length of your suspension. We want you to know what you did wrong, so you can avoid doing it in the future.

If you do not receive this explanation message, it is due to some problem on your end, like a spam filter or some other e-mail snafu. You are responsible for making sure you can receive our messages. If we are not able to communicate with you, your account may be permanently disabled, so make sure that the e-mail address you signed up with is current and active.

I am also making a minor change to our policy for handing out suspensions. In the past, I have allowed the first infraction to go by with a simple warning. Starting now, however, the first infraction may result in a week's suspension.

If the rule that is broken is using a word that you didn't realize was not allowed, I'll probably stay with the warning before taking more serious action. (But note: if you replace a letter with a symbol to use an illegal word, I will assume that means you know the word is not allowed and so immediate suspension will likely result.)

Be warned: I may suspend someone for a personal attack, and I won't accept "I didn't know I wasn't supposed to call him a moron" as an excuse.

I recommend everyone go read over the rules right now, even if you think you know them. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse!
http://www.uscho.com/FAQs/?data=board_guidelines

If you haven't had a chance to read Joe Bertagna's latest guest column, I recommend you look it over (http://www.uscho.com/news/2005/01/24_009725.php).

The article is about this year's rules crackdown. Sometimes I think of this job as Fan Forum Admin as being a referee, and there were some parts of Joe's article that are applicable to what I do, even if he didn't intend them that way:

If you watch all levels of play from youth hockey through our college game, you are exposed time and again to players getting called for obvious violations of the book who routinely throw their arms up in shock that they are being penalized.

If you could interview these poor souls, you would discover that in many instances, they won't argue that what they did was not a violation of the rules. They just can't believe the ref called it. They expect things to be let go as part of the game.
We've instituted a bit of a rules crackdown here too, and so if you get whistled for a penalty, don't be surprised if you know that a rule has been broken. As I've said many times before, the fact that you saw someone else get away with breaking a rule doesn't give you license to do the same.

If you have any questions, ask away, and I'll answer as best I can.

---
USCHO.com Fan Forum Admin
http://www.uscho.com/FAQs/?data=board_guidelines

[GreatLakerMohawk]

I was curious about the selective enforcement on the language violations. I know there was a poster on the D-I boards getting away with dropping f-bombs all over the place meanwhile a poster here on the Cafe was apparently suspended for calling Scott Peterson, a public figure who I don't believe posts here, a *********.

I know that sometimes things are missed and let go - but that seems like the sort of thing that can't be let go.

Oh and can you please give us the use of a certain four-letter word that begins with "d" back - blurring that out while some other words are allowed seems a little...well, dumb really.

[Bruce Ciskie]

I probably shouldn't ask this, since I violated this rule myself last week because I thought it would be a funny thread, but I feel compelled to seek clarification, so here goes: Has the rule on posting pictures been relaxed at all?

[mattyt02]

I probably shouldn't ask this, since I violated this rule myself last week because I thought it would be a funny thread, but I feel compelled to seek clarification, so here goes: Has the rule on posting pictures been relaxed at all?

I'm pretty sure that was violated by half the board a couple weeks back

[unofan]

in the case of a certain 'd'-word that rhymes with whoosh, or other words deemed offensive, why cant you just **** it/them out like the four-letter words?

Which also begs the question, as a GLM noted, why is the 4-letter d-word ****'ed out at all. Comeon, this isn't 1940 anymore. I guarantee more people are offended by sucks or other allowable terms than that one.

[bronconick]

I was curious about the selective enforcement on the language violations. I know there was a poster on the D-I boards getting away with dropping f-bombs all over the place meanwhile a poster here on the Cafe was apparently suspended for calling Scott Peterson, a public figure who I don't believe posts here, a *********.

I know that sometimes things are missed and let go - but that seems like the sort of thing that can't be let go.

Oh and can you please give us the use of a certain four-letter word that begins with "d" back - blurring that out while some other words are allowed seems a little...well, dumb really.

That, and warnings being given out for simply using the letter "f" instead of a word. :confused: If we're talking in hockey terms, that's the equivalent of two minutes for roughing on well, a check.

[board]

I was curious about the selective enforcement on the language violations. I know there was a poster on the D-I boards getting away with dropping f-bombs all over the place meanwhile a poster here on the Cafe was apparently suspended for calling Scott Peterson, a public figure who I don't believe posts here, a *********.

The person dropping F bombs has been suspended, I believe. Unless someone else has posted something that I missed.

I can't think of any instance where using the word "*********" raises the level of discussion, so that word has been banned. Don't use it.

I probably shouldn't ask this, since I violated this rule myself last week because I thought it would be a funny thread, but I feel compelled to seek clarification, so here goes: Has the rule on posting pictures been relaxed at all?

Generally speaking, if I see it, I'll nuke it. If I sense a recurring pattern from one poster, I'll warn you to cut it out. Unless, of course, the posting of pictures is done to deliberately violate one of the other rules, like making a personal attack or using profanity. Those will get you an immediate suspension.

[board]

in the case of a certain 'd'-word that rhymes with whoosh, or other words deemed offensive, why cant you just **** it/them out like the four-letter words?

Which also begs the question, as a GLM noted, why is the 4-letter d-word ****'ed out at all. Comeon, this isn't 1940 anymore. I guarantee more people are offended by sucks or other allowable terms than that one.

Okay, I added the "d" words to our "dictionary" of disallowed terms.

As for your second point, the idea is to make this message board a family friendly place. Whatever a kid reads here, s/he should be able to repeat in school the next day.

That, and warnings being given out for simply using the letter "f" instead of a word. :confused: If we're talking in hockey terms, that's the equivalent of two minutes for roughing on well, a check.

It's a tough call, I'll admit. But if replacing one letter with a symbol is not okay (and it is not) then using an obvious shorthand to say the same word is also not okay.

I'd prefer it if everyone would make it easy on me and you, and simply use a different word choice.

For now, I've also added a couple of these shorthand notations to our disallowed word list. I'll warn people before I start suspending them for this, though, because it has been allowed before.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Since this is for asking questions:

What's a Beanpot?

[Strokey]

Yeah, I'm kind of curious why you banned Mav and jjcd for doing something 10x less inflammatory that others do. Just curious.

PS- Can I laugh at stuff here, or is that illegal too? And finally, can I get suspended for my thoughts, even if I don't post them?

[Bruce Ciskie]

And finally, can I get suspended for my thoughts, even if I don't post them?

I can think of a couple WCHA referees that might wish this to be true.

[Strokey]

I can think of a couple WCHA referees that might wish this to be true.


Yeah, and a couple of Hockey East ones, too.

[TerrierByAssociation#2]

Whatever a kid reads here, s/he should be able to repeat in school the next day.

Teacher: "All right, everyone take out your American Government textbooks..."

Student: "We all know you are a leftist dinosaur, a relic of failed liberalism, and you hate America. You might as well come out and say you are Fat Ted.

Liberals just can't be happy no matter what happens.

BOOM-SHAK-A-LAK!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:"

[Strokey]

Teacher: "All right, everyone take out your American Government textbooks..."

Student: "We all know you are a leftist dinosaur, a relic of failed liberalism, and you hate America. You might as well come out and say you are Fat Ted.

Liberals just can't be happy no matter what happens.

BOOM-SHAK-A-LAK!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:"


***! (oops, sorry admin)

[unofan]

Yeah, I'm kind of curious why you banned Mav and jjcd for doing something 10x less inflammatory that others do. Just curious.

PS- Can I laugh at stuff here, or is that illegal too? And finally, can I get suspended for my thoughts, even if I don't post them?
I forget the actual people involved, wouldn't be surprised if it was Earl Weaver, but it resulted in comedic gold.

Manager: Can you throw me out for what I'm thinking?
Umpire: Of course not.
Manager: Good. Cause I think you suck.

:D :D :cool:

As far as the whole "Think of the Children!!!" aspect, maybe it was just my family, but I'm pretty sure my parents were more angry whenever I said "That sucks" than when I said the four letter version of dam.

[bronconick]

As for your second point, the idea is to make this message board a family friendly place. Whatever a kid reads here, s/he should be able to repeat in school the next day.





Children now not allowed at 52 of 58 Division I arenas! :D

[Jimjamesak]

For now, I've also added a couple of these shorthand notations to our disallowed word list. I'll warn people before I start suspending them for this, though, because it has been allowed before.
I know on another message board I frequent they have a pretty strong filter but also delete any posts that try to get around it (such as l< for k in one word I know). But also they just delete the post and throw down a warning to the user. Seems to work fairly well.

[everyman]

When you say that kids should be able to read the boards and repeat what they read at school the next day, where does something like this fall:

they're gonna burn in hell for worshipping a false god.

It isn't exactly profanity, but I'm sure a child would be sent down to the principal's office for saying it to another student. Why is this allowed, but not calling someone a j-bag or d-bag, or even asshat, for that matter?

Things do get slightly heated from time to time, and I've been known to use the now-banned word ********* from time to time. I know it was wrong to use in the manner I did. My question is this: when does implying something become name calling?

For example:

1. person A calls person B a "*********".
2. person B tells person C "you remind me of a person I used to call a d-bag"

Now, person B isn't calling anyone a name, would they be suspended?

I'm afraid that this is going to get clamped down on so hard that it will go from obvious suspendable posts to people being afriad of lively debate, or even small disagreements. Almost everyone here has slipped at some point, so I guess I'm just wondering how far you're going to go with it. I also think it is a good idea if you put a word on the censored list before you suspend people for using such a word. If you're going to let it through the censor, then why would it be suspendable?

All this is going to do in the long run is make people be more creative in their insults. I'm reminded of a South Park episode where Eric called Stan a vas deferens.

[Bruce Ciskie]

Children now not allowed at 52 of 58 Division I arenas! :D

Based on what I heard from my buddy who got stuck in the Gopher student section on Saturday, I'm guessing Mariucci isn't one of the six.

[Strokey]

In all seriousness, how about a "smack" board where people can vent? I've seen many sites that employ such a tactic.