Rule discussion

[TheTechGuy]

@CuseJacket Why does the site allow for members to call out players (18-21 year old kids) while deleting my posts that call out members?

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

@CuseJacket Why does the site allow for members to call out players (18-21 year old kids) while deleting my posts that call out members?

I have the same question. I received a reprimand last night for blasting another poster for uncalled remarks, and yet he just continued.

 

[TheTechGuy]

I have the same question. I received a reprimand last night for blasting another poster for uncalled remarks, and yet he just continued.

@CuseJacket I think many of us would like to know why memebers are allowed to disparage and call out individual kids on the team, while other members are reprimanded for calling out the members who choose to disparage individual players. @jwsavhGT please feel free to explain as well.

 

[John]

@CuseJacket I think many of us would like to know why memebers are allowed to disparage and call out individual kids on the team, while other members are reprimanded for calling out the members who choose to disparage individual players. @jwsavhGT please feel free to explain as well.

It's very simple folks. If you see someone breaking a rule, click on that "Report" link under the problem post. That's it. Done. Move on.

Replying to problem posts and calling people idiot or dumb is farthest from the right thing to do.

 

[TheTechGuy]

It's very simple folks. If you see someone breaking a rule, click on that "Report" link under the problem post. That's it. Done. Move on.

Replying to problem posts and calling people idiot or dumb is farthest from the right thing to do.

Hours ago, I reported the post above referring directly to Jerry Howard’s ability as “can’t block for squat.” Yet, it’s still there.

Also, you didn’t answer the question.

If the site’s opinion is that members individually calling out kids on the team does not qualify as a “personal attack,” then please make that statement.

If the site’s opinion is that members who call members that call out players “idiots” is a “personal attack,” then please make that statement.

If the aforementioned is true, please state why one is a “personal attack” and the other is not.

 

[John]

If the site’s opinion is that members individually calling out kids on the team does not qualify as a “personal attack,” then please make that statement.

This is being discussed internally by the moderators.

If the site’s opinion is that members who call members that call out players “idiots” is a “personal attack,” then please make that statement.

I think I made this pretty clear already; when you attack the person and not the point they are making, this is a personal attack. Counter the point they are trying to make, idiotic or not. Or better yet, just report the post.

If the aforementioned is true, please state why one is a “personal attack” and the other is not.

For me personally, I am erring on the side of open discussion. With the way this game is played, players and coaches will make mistakes and fans will be critical. Again, I am not speaking for the entire moderating staff but I think criticizing a player's play is not a personal attack. Probably a little bit of a too simple of an example would be "Player ABC didn't stay in his lanes, that was idiotic" vs "Player ABC is an idiot".

The very first question we need to answer is do we allow criticism to be posted about players and/or staff? We will welcome any feedback from the community but keep in mind we will never be able to guarantee a Utopian-like community here where everything is "perfect" whatever that may mean for you.

 

[herb]

I would like to know if the site encourages people posting under multiple usernames?

 

[herb]

And also if we are cool with dwags trolling, asking for a friend

 

[jwsavhGT]

@herb I would say the answer to both questions is no. If you suspect either situation is occurring please report the post.

 

[John]

And also if we are cool with dwags trolling, asking for a friend

Uh, perhaps you can privately message me... please.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

There is a big point here for us to focus on. Please please please despite how frustrating our game was stay behind our guys 100%. They don’t need our support as much when we’re 11-2. They need our support NOW. They need to know when they take the field we are yelling and screaming at the TV and from the stands FOR THEM.

 

[TheTechGuy]

This is being discussed internally by the moderators.


I think I made this pretty clear already; when you attack the person and not the point they are making, this is a personal attack. Counter the point they are trying to make, idiotic or not. Or better yet, just report the post.


For me personally, I am erring on the side of open discussion. With the way this game is played, players and coaches will make mistakes and fans will be critical. Again, I am not speaking for the entire moderating staff but I think criticizing a player's play is not a personal attack. Probably a little bit of a too simple of an example would be "Player ABC didn't stay in his lanes, that was idiotic" vs "Player ABC is an idiot".

The very first question we need to answer is do we allow criticism to be posted about players and/or staff? We will welcome any feedback from the community but keep in mind we will never be able to guarantee a Utopian-like community here where everything is "perfect" whatever that may mean for you.

This site simultaneously facilitates discussion of a team with amateur athletes and provides anonymity to members.

During the delicate process of balancing open discussion and censorship of "personal attacks," please remember that your members enjoy anonymity while the players receive no such benefit. Moreover, anonymity for members provides an inherent defense to ad hominem attacks, which often provide context to an individuals perception and can be useful in contextualizing debate.

The main service your site provides is discussion of Georgia Tech athletics, which undoubtedly necessitates discussion of individual players. Banning all ad hominem attacks on anonymous members, who are free to openly denigrate amateur athletes by name, simultaneously places the benefit of discussion and context with the anonymous member making the assertion while preventing other members from questioning the source. Put more simply, the site allows anonymous members to question the abilities of amateur athletes while preventing anonymous members from questioning the abilities of other anonymous members.

Based on your response, it seems that this site values its anonymous members over the amateur athletes that this site receives credentialed access to for press coverage.

I look forward to reading the result of the moderator discussion.

 

[RonJohn]

I don't do anything to support the forum other than post and read, so I don't believe my opinion counts as much as the moderators. I am simply posting my personal feelings.

What bothers me is that the current rules:

No Personal Attacks.
Do not post personal attacks on other members, our former or current players, recruits, as well as the GT administrative and coaching staff. There are ways to disagree with someone or an idea but still be civil about it in public discourse. We are not like other fans that like to bark at each other. For a better definition of personal attacks, please see ad hominem and no personal attacks.

already state that personal attacks on: former players, current players, recruits, GT admin, and GT coaches: will be treated the same as personal attacks on forum members. I have seen posts that say a player should be in FCS football instead of FBS which I would consider a personal attack. I do understand the difficulty in deciding a point of where to draw the line in statements such as:

• QB A cannot throw better than a 5th grader
• QB A can't make a deep throw
• QB A consistently misses throws of 30 yards or greater
• QB A underthrew 3 of 4 passes of 30 yards or greater

However QB A should be in FCS seems to be an easy qualifier as a personal attack. We only have 3 or 4 FBS level players on the team seems to me to qualify as a personal attack on the players as a whole. I have defended CPJ quite frequently, but I would say that for coaches the standard should probably be lighter than it is for members and players. However, even those should be about professional attributes and decisions and not about intelligence level or the like.

 

[John]

while preventing other members from questioning the source. Put more simply, the site allows anonymous members to question the abilities of amateur athletes while preventing anonymous members from questioning the abilities of other anonymous members.

This is my only concern with how you've responded. I don't think calling someone an idiot is questioning the source.

On the flipside, I think that it's a noble cause for you to push for more protection for our student athletes and I honestly agree with it wholeheartedly because that is one of the key reasons why this site got started. At the same time, I think it would be unrealistic to prevent all criticism as I don't think we can all be rainbows and sunshines. Thankfully, we have some really caring and thoughtful moderators volunteering their time to help maintain civility in this community and I think we are coming to a consensus internally but I also plan to reach out to a couple members of this community to ask for their feedback as well.

For the time being, the original problem post has been dealt with and calling people an idiot is still definitely not allowed.

One last comment about moderation, I hope everyone here can understand and respect that there are oftentimes gray areas when it comes to moderation and I hope this doesn't turn into an excuse but we're not perfect either. This is one of the reasons why we continuously ask that you click the "Report" button under problem posts instead of replying to them. It makes cleanup A LOT easier. It may not seem like it but we're constantly removing posts; you just don't see it.

 

[TheTechGuy]

This is my only concern with how you've responded. I don't think calling someone an idiot is questioning the source.

On the flipside, I think that it's a noble cause for you to push for more protection for our student athletes and I honestly agree with it wholeheartedly because that is one of the key reasons why this site got started. At the same time, I think it would be unrealistic to prevent all criticism as I don't think we can all be rainbows and sunshines. Thankfully, we have some really caring and thoughtful moderators volunteering their time to help maintain civility in this community and I think we are coming to a consensus internally but I also plan to reach out to a couple members of this community to ask for their feedback as well.

For the time being, the original problem post has been dealt with and calling people an idiot is still definitely not allowed.

One last comment about moderation, I hope everyone here can understand and respect that there are oftentimes gray areas when it comes to moderation and I hope this doesn't turn into an excuse but we're not perfect either. This is one of the reasons why we continuously ask that you click the "Report" button under problem posts instead of replying to them. It makes cleanup A LOT easier. It may not seem like it but we're constantly removing posts; you just don't see it.

I do not want to draw this out too much, because I am sure you and your staff are busy. However:

Currently this site allows an anonymous member to post, "[Insert player name] is slow and cannot block." That is a statement that personally names a player and attacks a player's ability.

Currently this site does NOT allow an anonymous member to post, "[Insert anonymous member username] is an idiot." That is a statement that personally attacks an anonymous poster's intelligence.

Some might argue that, although both are personal characteristics, it is less offensive to post about physical attributes than intelligence. However, I believe the critical difference is that the named player enjoys no anonymity.

If this site's opinion is that member's may question other member's intelligence, but the term "idiot" is not appropriate, then that is an opinion I can understand, even if I do not share it. Though, that opinion would beg the question of whether members may state that other members are unintelligent, dumb, simpleminded, vapid, dense, etc.

 

[John]

I do not want to draw this out too much, because I am sure you and your staff are busy. However:

Currently this site allows an anonymous member to post, "[Insert player name] is slow and cannot block." That is a statement that personally names a player and attacks a player's ability.

Currently this site does NOT allow an anonymous member to post, "[Insert anonymous member username] is an idiot." That is a statement that personally attacks an anonymous poster's intelligence.

Some might argue that, although both are personal characteristics, it is less offensive to post about physical attributes than intelligence. However, I believe the critical difference is that the named player enjoys no anonymity.

If this site's opinion is that member's may question other member's intelligence, but the term "idiot" is not appropriate, then that is an opinion I can understand, even if I do not share it. Though, that opinion would beg the question of whether members may state that other members are unintelligent, dumb, simpleminded, vapid, dense, etc.

I'm going to ignore the player personal attack part cause I think that we're on the same page there and I think it'll be worked out.

If someone makes what you think is an idiotic comment and you really feel the need to respond, why not just ask for reasons why they think that instead of assuming they are less intelligent overall and name calling?

 

[AE 87]

For those who feel the need to make a personal attack against someone, preface the attack with, "If you were @AE 87, I'd say to you" ...

Personal attacks against me are allowed.

 

[TheTechGuy]

I'm going to ignore the player personal attack part cause I think that we're on the same page there and I think it'll be worked out.

If someone makes what you think is an idiotic comment and you really feel the need to respond, why not just ask for reasons why they think that instead of assuming they are less intelligent overall and name calling?

You stated, "I don't think we can all be rainbows and sunshine." When a member makes an attack on an athlete's personal attributes, that member opens themselves to attacks on their own personal attributes.

Please note that I have no problem with members' constructive criticism, and I would not go around randomly name-calling. I will be happy to rise above when you develop a policy that holds anonymous members to the same accountability that the anonymous members continue to hold Georgia Tech athletes to on this site. Until then, I am happy to continue posting as I have, and if the site bans me then the site bans me. Not worried about it.

I've said my piece, and I'll move on.

 

[John]

@TheTechGuy I am actually trying to get you to understand personal attacks even as a retaliatory measure, is not allowed. One does not justify the other; if it did, we'd have endless cycles of personal attacks.

I understand and duly note your concern about personal attacks against players. There is no question about that.

 

[TheTechGuy]

@TheTechGuy I am actually trying to get you to understand personal attacks even as a retaliatory measure, is not allowed. One does not justify the other; if it did, we'd have endless cycles of personal attacks.

I understand and duly note your concern about personal attacks against players. There is no question about that.

I understand that personal attacks, even as a retaliatory measure, are not allowed.

I am trying to get you to understand that a rule that allows anonymous members to personally attack athletes while protecting those who would personally attack athletes is overly protectionist. Specifically, use of the term “idiot” in that context. Not all personal attacks, obviously.

As I wrote above, I’ve stated my case. Your site your rules.

*As an aside, I do not like the phrase “personal attack” when discussing appropriate rhetoric. I have always felt “attack” has a physical connotation, when that’s obviously NOT what we are discussing. Perhaps “personally insult” would be better, but that’s just my subjective view.