Community Feedback on Our Rules and Policies
by Matthew on Feb 22, 2011 4:00 PM PST
in Lookout Landing News
Email
PrintWhat a slow day. Back from the long weekend, with winterful weather abound and little to no news substance to digest, today is dragging along. So it seems a perfect time to get some community feedback and not in the way of my usual poll form.
For the past two months or so, Jeff and I have drafted and redrafted a post to streamline the rules here at Lookout Landing. Essentially, we'd prefer there to be fewer rules and for them to be easier to find and digest. Right now it is a bit spread out over too many different posts and some of the problems at the time of those posts have disappeared while others have surfaced.
This has been an ongoing process and the general aim is to encourage more of a process to posting (i.e. related to height limits on images see: this and this) than a checklist of rules to abide or specific mistake to avoid. Before we finalize anything however, we would like feedback from the community. For reference, the general list of rules is housed in the "Membership Agreement" widget on the left sidebar of the main page below the AL West Standings widget.
Please note that this is not the third annual LL QC thread, that's coming later. Those threads are aimed specifically around the community experience and while the rules and standards of Lookout Landing play a big part in that, we're trying to separate the feedback here. CougCenter has a recent spate of posts relating to site policies and how they are enforced and I think they do well to encapsulate the scope of discussion that I'd like in this thread. See their threads here, here and here if you are interested.
Examples of what is relevant here would be discussion of the current set of rules; which can go, which need to be reworked, if any new ones need to be adopted, etc. Also, enforcement of said rules and anything related to that. If you have specific examples, links are always helpful. If you feel uncomfortable discussing any of this in public, we encourage you again to e-mail both of us (both is better than just one) privately using the links at the bottom of the site.
I cannot emphasize that last point enough. I respond to each and every LL-related e-mail I receive to the best of my ability. It's a method of contact open and available to anyone.
249 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Perhaps some type of rotating sergeants at arms duties for policing threads?
Sometimes it can be a little cluttered with critical comments and helpful pointers. I realize there there are flags and mods. I do believe participating in a community comes with the responsibility to adhere to the rules of the community, and also to encourage others to do so (the more general and the fewer rules, all the better in my opinion so good luck with this endeavour)
Yet the internet being what it is… this is a tough area to get a handle on . Allowing individualism, maintaining the uniqueness of a rather unusual community, allowing room for new people, there’s a lot to consider and I’m not creative enough to come up with an elegant solution.
by Kermit. on Feb 22, 2011 5:09 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Don't try to make Jeff's jokes better, because they're never better and in fact the constant poor imitation of the joke can make the original joke less funny
by OlSalty on Feb 22, 2011 5:28 PM PST reply actions 12 recs
Good point
Everyone thinks they need to match Jeff’s unsurpassed comedy with their own pun, but that needs to stop. You’re not as funny as Jeff, so don’t even try.
I think this is an overly-harsh stance.
Lots of the worst threads were ones where Jeff actually asked people to try, and most people were probably not actually thinking they were making it funnier, but rather just playing along.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Feb 22, 2011 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 8 recs
My stance is against the idea that people are trying to make Jeff's jokes better.
Sometimes they’re just playing along with a quip, or making a joke that’s still funny but not as funny. The idea is to make sure your post brings something to the table. That should be the focus. Whether or not that has to do with playing off of Jeff’s jokes is irrelevant.
...and now I'm here
Not just Jeff's jokes
If you like something on LL, appreciate it for what it is, rec it, and call it good. Doesn’t matter where it came from or who authored it, if you didn’t author it, don’t try to improve on it.
While I respect the general sentiment...
I think this is awfully vague as a rule. What if someone has something genuinely funny to add? Often times a reply to something is what leads to the true funny in a situation.
And how would you enforce the rule? Obviously some things are annoying additions and some things are comic gold that dramatically enhances the original. Are we going to require that the mods judge the difference and delete everything that doesn’t meet that standard?
If we want to include this idea, maybe a guideline more along the lines of:
We try not to avoid trying to improve others jokes. This doesn’t mean you can’t post something if it’s really funny, but consider whether you’re really adding anything first.
I never said it should be a rule nor that it should be enforced as such
your last sentence is spot on – if you think of something, try to determine if it actually adds something before actually posting it.
You're right, sorry, Pdb!
I kind of conflated your post and the first one, which I think was partly or largely in jest. Oops!
That's a tricky situation, it took a good amount of time before I felt comfortable goofing in threads
Developed some relationships, got a sense of peoples style and then it was a little easier to pick spots to mess around with regulars. I’m still not entirely comfortable with enough people to try and mix it up with everyone. The nice thing is that the community as a whole has been fairly forgiving for misfires.
I don't think it should be a rule, either
And yeah it doesn’t specifically apply to Jeff necessarily, he is just the most often imitated. But it’s something people should be aware of (especially new posters) as something to try to avoid.
To explain it a little better, for example if you are making the exact same joke Jeff just made in the body of a post, in the comments of that exact same post, that is generally a good way to hasten the death of a joke. People who repeat jokes without putting in the effort of originality or attempting to understand what humor their audience has or hasn’t heard before aren’t really contributing in the way I think most of us would like to see, and it’s a type of posting that increasingly becomes a problem as the readership grows and more and more new people come around and try to do the same thing.
Can this apply more specifically to puns please?
by Mariner John on Feb 22, 2011 11:17 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I hope the policy on puns is clear by now
but in case it’s not: puns, like all similarly “so bad it’s funny” jokes, are funny only in extremely limited quantities.
Think of them like CSI: Miami openers. They are not funny. However, from time to time it’s funny to go watch this and make similarly corny liners to your friends because oh man those are just so hilariously bad. But if all you do is post the equivalent of the first 90 seconds of CSI Miami then you are not funny.
Note, if you think puns are actually funny on their own standing then you might be a bad poster.
This is exactly what I mean.
They are funny in certain instances and when used by certain posters but one pun tends to lead to other plays on words and it just becomes awful.
by Mariner John on Feb 22, 2011 11:32 PM PST up reply actions
Yes.
Doug Fister/Justin Smoak puns are a dime a dozen, and nobody with a shred of dignity should attempt to make them. Put some effort into your punning if you absolutely have to make one.
Note that this isn't applying to anyone specifically.
It happens a lot.
by Mariner John on Feb 23, 2011 9:43 AM PST up reply actions
I was wondering whether there are any editorial rules regarding the content of the FanPosts and the FanShots above and beyond the basic:
“No politics, no religion, no chatspeak (e.g. lol, ur, brb, +1), no trolling and no unwarranted hostility. Please capitalize and use comprehensible grammar.”
And I do understand the difference in purpose between the FanPost and the FanShot, so I am not talking about that.
"Remember to use a subject line" should be added.
2010 Safeco Field Record: 2-1 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 12-5
That part of the reason I asked.
It seems to me, if the post doesn’t violate any rules but content is just not very good it is easy enough to ignore. Unless there are rules regarding content, that is.
Yeah. I was being more descriptive than prescriptive.
I’m not sure if “be interesting and thoughtful” needs to be in the rules.
I don't really have a problem with any of the rules we have, and don't really need others.
No matter what the rules are we’re going to have a lot of people come in and break them and get pissy. Even with fewer rules I don’t know if it will make a difference because the rules that we should definitely keep (no chatspeak, capitalizing) are the ones people break the most.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Feb 22, 2011 7:51 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Beltre is not overrated.
I feel much better now, thank you. Please continue with the great site.
"I don't really like pitchers." - Nelson Cruz
I think there should be a rule to mod Robert.
But seriously we should try having someone that is simply a mod. I think asking you and Jeff to moderate such a big site and write is a little too much. We try to police it as a community but everyone ends up piling on. If there was just one person who is supposed kindly correct offenders it would make the community more appealling to new posters.
by Kirk on Feb 22, 2011 8:05 PM PST via mobile reply actions 11 recs
I agree with almost everything you wrote.
I know in the past I’ve given Matthew a short list of names that I thought would be good choices. I don’t think it’s fair towards Jeff and Matthew to have to monitor everything themselves, and this seems like a reasonable way to help relieve the burden.
I tend to think the right people are usually the ones that are doing the correcting.
I have been reading LL for a while now and when I notice someone breaking the rules I keep myself from correcting them. I wait for someone more important (for lack of a better term) to make the reply even though I could just as easily.
by d0nkey on Feb 23, 2011 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
General flag question.
I’ve been here since 12/09 and I don’t think I’ve ever flagged a thing, mainly because I was never sure what the parameters were. Am I supposed to only flag things that break site rules (chatspeak, lack of subject line, etc.)? And do regulars flag these things on a regular basis in large numbers? I usually just pass over them when I see them, but again, curious what the norm is. Is flagging supposed to extend to comments I vigorously disagree with (for being jerky or something), to annoying posters (even if they are regs. in the community), or to funny comments in jest?
I generally skip flagging the more pedantic things like lack of subject line and chatspeak
those can be pretty easily called out in the thread. I generally flag things when they are:
1. Blatant trolling that serves no purpose
2. Ridiculously off-topic more so than can be called out in a thread
3. overly political/controversial
Otherwise, if I see something that bothers me, mostly I can ignore it because I know that it’ll be corrected by somebody and I prefer not to add to a pileon.
by pdb on Feb 22, 2011 8:31 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Although this is better saved for the upcoming QC thread
You make a great point when you mention ignoring something. If you don’t like a post but the post doesn’t break any rules, just ignore it.
by tootthekazoo on Feb 22, 2011 8:46 PM PST up reply actions
Good advice,
but I would recommend flagging even the pedantic things. Reason being is that said flags help us keep a track record of a user. So if someone constantly uses chatspeak, but is only corrected in the threads, the mods can miss that it’s habit.
by Matthew on Feb 22, 2011 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 6 recs
I feel like this needs to be green.
I have always just ignored everything and I will start flagging things now. I never wanted to bother the mods with flagging something that seemed minor.
Also, is there a way to check what stuff of our own has been flagged? So that we can not make the same mistakes later?
There is not and I speak for several people when I express gratitude that there isn't.
If you make a grievous mistake, you will get notified one way or another. Being able to read your own flags isn’t necessary
This might be a stupid question,
but do you receive notification if you have been flagged?
Writing from beautiful Yuma, AZ
by Ballard Erik on Feb 23, 2011 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
Per your last question,
it would be great if you would flag comments that break site rules and feel free to flag comments you disagree with. Please do not flag funny comments in jest.
"Feel free to flag comments you disagree with." Really?
I understand that you want flags to help build a track record of a user. Do you really want “This was succinctly stated, well-reasoned and respectful, but I disagree with it” to be part of that track record?
No, not like that.
I meant more in the “(for being jerky or something)” sense.
And in those cases, adding an explanation to the flag is most helpful.
I'm in favor of more flagging.
Instead of replying to a bad comment, which in turn could lead to piling-on, just flag it and let the mods clean up. Nip the potential flame-bait in the bud.
Correct me if you feel differently:
Since we cannot always trust Matthew and Jeff to be online at every single second of the day, someone should be able to reply to a post in a corrective manner. One or two doing this is fine. If it’s more, stop. Don’t let three, four, five people try to stop it. Rec the original corrective authors, flag the offending post and let it go.
More important than changing the existing rules, to me
is consistent, explainable application of the existing rules. No matter which mod, no matter which commenter, there needs to be consistency around the rules as they currently exist. I understand there are a lot of posters, and a lot of things that need to be policed, but if the rules are not consistently applied then there’s no point in having rules at all.
I have violated the site rules in the past, and every regular commenter probably has as well. All I’m asking is that things do not get to the point where mods or regulars go “Oh, that’s (commenter X), they are doing what they normally do” even if “what they normally do” violates the site rules/regs.
by pdb on Feb 22, 2011 8:27 PM PST reply actions 10 recs
I second this
reason being, I don’t post often but I read almost everything. It seems to me that sometimes more regular posters ‘get away’ with things that new posters would get read the riot act for doing. Maybe they aren’t getting away with it, but I guess the point is I don’t know for sure.
Writing from beautiful Yuma, AZ
by Ballard Erik on Feb 23, 2011 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
I see this has been mentioned more than once, my apologies.
Please ignore.
Writing from beautiful Yuma, AZ
by Ballard Erik on Feb 23, 2011 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Is there a rule on long signatures.
Occaisonally someone has a 5 liner (more on other SBN sites) and it just makes it difficult to read threads.
by aussie_chop on Feb 22, 2011 8:32 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
There's no hard and fast rule as different SBN sites have different posting rules and such
but long sigs are kind of annoying and most people that start SBN posting with LL tend to stay away from them.
There is not currently a rule
but it’s a good suggestion for a rule.
I’m also trying my best to badger the tech team to create a user option to show/hide signatures just like you an with avatars. If you agree, feel free to email SBN’s support and tell them you would like that feature!
Just be glad this isn't a forum with those half page animated monstrosities.
Dawg! He put da team on his back!
You can always email the support team
But we’ll consider having a SBN suggestions thread so that the community can cull ideas
I agree this should be an official rule
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
The first rule of Lookout Landing is...
by appleshampoo on Feb 23, 2011 3:14 AM PST up reply actions
I like the rules and policies here.
They make LL one of the premier online destinations in a sea of chatspeak and trolls. With regards to the enforcement, I’d like to commend Matthew and Jeff for the job they’ve done. It’s important to adhere to the rules, and I believe they are fair though can be somewhat firm to new posters unfamiliar with the site (Note: that’s not a bad thing; it’s critical to maintain the integrity of the site even with new posters). Something like a site primer would be phenomenal.
I know I’m the one being alluded to in Matthew’s links, but I think overall that’s just a minor mishap: The rules regarding image size aren’t all that clear and no one seems to complain when Robert or when a more established member of the community posts something within the limit, though still larger than necessary. With regards to this, I think a “spirit of the rules” post would also do wonders to clear up less obvious nuances within the community.
M's fan in the Bay, soon to be LA
Correct me if I'm wrong...
But isn’t there a note in one of the established site/posting guidelines about being aware of your place in the community? ie, that more established posters will do and say things that may be so well received if you say them.
It's a bit more nuanced than that
The main thing in those established guidelines is that you shouldn’t just snark your way into the community. If you’re a new poster, the community doesn’t know your sense of humor yet, so something you intend as funny could end up coming off being really dickish.
So new posters have a bit of burden on them to understand that something that sounds funny in their head might come off as being really annoying or snarky when it’s their first or second post here, since nobody around the site really knows that person’s sense of humor after one or two posts.
All rules come with a "Robert + mods" clause.
I am not sure if this is a good or right thing, but it is one I have come to understand as a member of the community here. That said, with regards to your image reference, as long as it’s under 300 pixels* in height, you will not be moderated for it. You may be asked to make it smaller in the future (as a general rule, I always set the height to 275, preview it, and if it’s still readable, post it—that way I’m a full 25 pixels under, but still satisfactorily large that it’s noticeable on pretty much all resolutions), but that’s a judgment call. It’s also what the preview buttons are for.
*And this is a very clear rule, just add height=“300” to your image source tag, and you’ll be fine.
Not really though.
Images should be as small as possible while remaining easily visible. That’s the problem with hard-and-fast rules; people need to be better at exercising their own judgment.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 22, 2011 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I cannot disagree with your subject line strongly enough
I have met Robert, and I like Robert. But Robert, like me, is not a mod – he’s just a member of the community, and is subject to the same rules as the rest of us. That was my point up above – nobody is exempt from the rules, nor should they be. Me, Robert, Aaron C, nobody. Rules are rules, and they should be enforced as such.
by pdb on Feb 22, 2011 9:14 PM PST up reply actions 7 recs
I disagree to a certain extent.
Rules are rules, but at a certain point I think people earn a longer leash. Rules should be enforced more strictly with new users, because if they can’t follow fairly basic rules then they’re probably not going to fit in here very well.
But people that are known in the community can get away with more. That’s not really unique to LL; that’s kind of the way it is everywhere. And really, it’s not that certain posters ‘get away’ with stuff; they just don’t get permanently banned for it. If I post a 1,000 pixel image, it will be hidden. If you make a political joke, you’ll probably get a warning. If another well-known poster were to maliciously troll another team’s blog, at the very least they’d be boxed. There is enforcement, it’s just less overt.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 22, 2011 9:19 PM PST up reply actions
You're right but my point was also about the length of that leash
And that’s purely subjective, of course, but still. There has to be a point at which even long-time posters get shut down or called out (privately of course), otherwise the rules have no real meaning or teeth.
While what you're saying has some merit, on the other side of the coin I do think it should be pointed out
that LL as a whole has improved a great deal in this aspect over the past few years. I remember a time when this place use to have a serious clique problem and was not very welcoming to anybody who wasn’t part of certain groups. For the most part that problem has vanished in my opinion.
RIP Dave Neihaus.
Sorry, but I don't think that your first point should be the case anymore.
I’d say there was a time that I’d agree with you 100%. Being a member in good standing of this community – or any community – does and should afford them more rights, as they’ve “earned their place” in a way.
But that can only be true when the place is otherwise welcoming. Far too many established members have gone into comment threads that they didn’t like recently and made statements along the lines of “Everyone in this thread that commented before me is a retard,” insulting every single person in the thread before them indiscriminately. That’s ridiculous.
That type of indignation is why I don’t think it should be okay for longstanding members to break the rules anymore just because they’ve been here a while. Because far too many are taking the idea that they can get away with more to their heads, as though it makes them more important than others, and thus free to insult anyone they see fit if they don’t approve of their commenting style.
Most of the users I’m referring to I like – as posters, and presumably as people – so it’s not as though I’m angrily wanting various regulars to leave, comment less, or even necessarily change their commenting style. Not at all. But I’m getting tired of established regulars coming into threads and making “every one of you sucks” statements, granting themselves the right to insult everyone, all at once, simply because they’ve been here longer. Until the longstanding regulars calm the hell down, or at least voice their disagreements to the specific people they’re referring to rather than grouping everyone together and calling them all stupid, I don’t think they should be granted a longer leash, because it seems like most are abusing it.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Feb 22, 2011 9:55 PM PST up reply actions 13 recs
Then be specific to people. Don't call everyone a retard all at once and think that's okay.
This is a great example. I hated this comment so much it became memorable. Most of the people in there were enjoying themselves, then a regular comes in and insults every single person there all at once like they’re of some authority. That’s crap. Unless they’re a mod, figure out a constructive way to do this or don’t do it at all and let the mods sort it out.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Feb 22, 2011 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It was a thread I was participating in and it was mostly vanilla and to docile for a GT. I was hoping to spur some GTE out of everyone, myself included.
Comments in gamethreads are rarely serious and, though I’m sorry I offended you, that was not the aim of the comment.
As I mentioned, I don't have a problem with the people that are posting them, so it's not like I am angry at you specifically for the comment.
But blanket comments that insult everyone in a thread without pointing out specific people or addressing a specific issue are very common, and they shouldn’t be. We would blow up if a new poster or someone not in good standing came into a thread and made a statement like that, no matter what the intention. While I’m generally all for treating established members and unestablished members differently, as one does in regular society generalized insults show that sometimes that gets abused.
I’m not wild about when Jeff does it either but in his house he can do what he wants.
...and now I'm here
I think that a large number of them happen because we haven't found a polite way of saying
“The following people are making really unfunny jokes and need to take a break”
Not an excuse, but that’s my general guess
Your CSI Miami thing was brilliant.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Feb 22, 2011 11:21 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
`
“Far too many established members have gone into comment threads that they didn’t like recently and made statements along the lines of "Everyone in this thread that commented before me is a retard," insulting every single person in the thread before them indiscriminately. That’s ridiculous.”
Links please. Via e-mail if you want to do it privately.
I dislike the concept of different rules for "experienced" posters
Seems way too much like the way some pitchers get a bigger strike zone because they are stars and some batters get a smaller strike zone. Rule should be enforced consistently.
by New England Fan on Feb 23, 2011 2:56 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I didn't say I agreed with it; I said it's the way of the world.
I’d love to see these rules applied to everybody, including Jeff and Matthew. I’m a big fan of one rule for all. I really, really am. But I think everyone here has come to recognize that there are exceptions, there are people with longer leashes. And that’s something newcomers to the community have to recognize. Newcomers adapt to the community, not vice versa.
It's definitely on the newcomers to adapt to society.
However, members of the group who HAVE adapted should theoretically be BETTER posters, right?
Having a longer leash for experienced members can actually make the situation worse because it makes newer commenters think that stuff is ok. Role modeling, man, role modeling.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
by HititHere on Feb 23, 2011 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Can't stress this enough
The cruise ship that is LL is slowly turning in this direction, but when a new poster posts something that isn’t up to snuff, it’s up to those of us that have been around a while to educate, not beat the crap out of, new people who just want to be part of the zany, wacky, thrill-a-minute world that is LL.
by pdb on Feb 23, 2011 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
At the same time regulars could be a little more accepting of things that are different
And if something isn’t properly formatted or precise to some standard or another I’d prefer to see people roll with it and throttle back on correcting people to the proper form before any other discussion has a chance to get started.
I don’t even know what the proper form is but I do know seeing the first comment on the innocuous fanposts (and I’m not talking about the blatantly trolling/lazy/insulting ones) pop up as a friendly “howdy stranger but I can tell you’re new since this isn’t how we do things around these parts” frosts my ass a little bit.
It absolutely kills any chance for anyone else to find something in that post to remark on while simultaneously kicking off the exact. same. conversation about fanpost standards that’s I’ve nearly memorized at this point. Stagnation, that’s what worries me.
by Kermit. on Feb 23, 2011 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Also posting up a fanpost doesn't cost anybody anything. No broken bones or profuse bleeding either
If someone tries something funny and it tanks it doesn’t bother me a bit. Or if they mess around with some stats and try their hand at analysis and do it badly. Maybe they’re new and I personally don’t have a sense of their timing, rhythms, what have you. Or I haven’t met them and cannot put some key physical things with the words on the page, a voice or mannerisms that really sell a story. Or perhaps if they suck at stats and someone has the knowledge they need, instead of busting their ass they could just teach that shit (and there’s a few that do and I love ’em for it) or at the very least point them to resources they need to progress.
People that haven’t written a lot don’t have the experience under their belt to have developed their writing voice yet, especially with instant feedback from a live audience. With the treatment some people have been given I’m not surprised they’ve quit posting entirely or hardly at all, which annoys me as now I’ve been preempted from the enjoyment of watching them develop. Which I find interesting.
by Kermit. on Feb 23, 2011 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 7 recs
This is probably not related to what you're saying,
but it’s close enough that I feel like mentioning.
People that join LL and make a fanpost right away* almost universally irritate me.
*Excluding those that are created to link to something or in that vein.
by Matthew on Feb 23, 2011 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah but you also keep it to yourself
And quite a few of those are the horrible run on sentence types that have no point, except “I’m here! Love ya’!”
Also my comment has a hostile tone that really distracts from the point I’m trying to make.
Does anyone have actual examples of experienced posters getting a much longer leash that they can share?
Because, again, there’s moderation that goes on behind the public’s eyes and I am offering to shed light on specific examples if they are bothering people or fostering these sorts of perceptions.
I do not think anybody should have that right because it's an annoying habit
and it doesn’t help new people who are trying to learn and abide by the rules.
There is no "Robert + Mods" clause on Lookout Landing.
Due to Matthew and Jeff having additional means of contacting me I can promise you that I get reprimanded just as much if not more than any other poster on this site, it just is not done publicly in cases where they feel that much more quiet moderation is appropriate. It is true that I push the LLimits at times but rest assured that if I ever go too far I get called out and punished just like anybody else if not more severely .
If people want to use me as an example of what’s ok or not on LL that’s fine, I have a thick skin and know my pLLace. But let it be clear that I don’t get any more preferential treatment than anybody else on this site.
I think a lot of people might think there is a "Robert + Mods" clause because
While you and several other well-respected members get private reprimands, other people get jumped on publicly for seemingly more minor infractions. This goes along with what pdb said earlier, which was for more equal enforcement of all rules. It likely shows favoritism when some people get publicly flamed for something while others get no such treatment, even if they’re getting torn a new asshole via email or otherwise.
by tootthekazoo on Feb 22, 2011 9:55 PM PST up reply actions
We get called out privately because we aren't idiots and know the difference between getting a warning and a banning
We also then don’t go to other blogs complaining about how Matthew is a Nazi for banning us for not using the subject line.
Obviously I was implying nothing and assumed that there was something being said to people privately when necessary
But again, there have been situations where it has seemed that a person has been stepped on publicly while potentially stronger infractions by others go publicly ignored by the mods.
All I (and most others, I’d imagine) ever ask for is consistent enforcement. Even a simple “Please stop” followed by an email would likely dispel thoughts of preferential treatment among members of the community
by tootthekazoo on Feb 22, 2011 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
In support of tootthekazoo:
I have an e-mail address in my profile, and I use it. I have been jumped on once by Jeff*, and I appreciated the feedback. But, if private reprimands exist, Jeff and Matthew have the means to contact me outside of a thread as well. I didn’t take offense to the instance, but if we have one banner rule here, then it should be forced equally on all.
This may come back to the idea of getting more mods on board. It’s not fair to ask Jeff and Matthew to contact any one of hundreds of members discreetly, but a broader team of enforces might allow for a more equitable and charitable form of rule enforcement. I wasn’t here when Coach Owens first came on, but I’ve read (via longtimers linking) some of his early threads, and the community’s interaction with him. Sometimes, really, the posters do the job of moderation on their own, and that is not always charitably. This can result in the image LL tends to carry as the “Nazi” site of SBN.
I love the rules, and I can take Jeff or Matthew occasionally setting me straight in a thread. And it’s nothing against you, Robert: really, I think your personality as displayed through your posts are testament of character and add an oft-needed lightheartedness to this blog (and Field Gulls), reminding us that we can be serious, but at the end of the day, we’re fans, having fun, caring about a game. My only point in this follow up post is a care that we ought to be a little friendlier and observably more consistent.
*In a game thread, about Rob Johnson sucking, which earned me a “fuck you.”
No, the rules do not come with a Robert + mods clause.
The rest of your comment was perfectly addressed by Aaron’s first reply.
Understood.
Because I didn’t want to type the same reply comment twice, see my reply above to Robert for further thoughts on the nature of enforcement.
I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to undermine the concept of you and Jeff as mods; you both do great work, and we appreciate it. But there is a perception that can be generated due to the nature of that enforcement.
Roberts moderator activity log is huge.
by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 23, 2011 8:53 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not even 5% of it fits in a Firefox window with the text reduced as far as it will go
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 23, 2011 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
There's no Robert + mods clause
the rule on image height is that you should make it the minimum size necessary to convey what the image is and the reason it was posted – this rarely requires more than 300 pixels.
The complaints you see are when people post a meaningless picture in a gamethread and it’s 600 pixels high
by seattlebruin on Feb 23, 2011 9:31 AM PST up reply actions
Perhaps he was referencing
the times where Robert has posted a wall of the same photo. He’s done that on a few occasions, and while each individual image was within the limits of the rules it is completely unnecessary to post a wall of them that combine to vastly exceed the image rules. He’s not done it for a while, but the times that he has did seem to be largely ignored by moderation, at least publicly. The overall theme I’ve seen from many comments in this post is that if one person is getting a public reprimand, everybody should get a public reprimand
by tootthekazoo on Feb 23, 2011 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
I've never seen one of those comments go un-hidden and if his moderation log is to be believed he has almost always been banned.
Public admonishments are generally for people that might not know better. People that do get boxed.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 23, 2011 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
I guess what I'm getting at is that boxing somebody like Robert without anybody in the community knowing about it
Means that nobody else has any way of knowing that it happened, so it may appear as though he went unpunished. Maybe more what is being asked for is some kind of transparency with the enforcement. I get that boxing somebody for something is very effective, especially when it’s one of our regulars. But if nothing is ever said publicly, how is anybody supposed to know he was punished when “lesser” (for lack of a better term) commenters will get a public slap on the wrists?
That’s twice I’ve seen a mention of a moderation log, but not everybody here has the ability to see that. That’s like the FBI having a large file on somebody but never releasing it publicly. Perception is reality, especially to people that are trying to establish themselves in the community.
by tootthekazoo on Feb 23, 2011 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
They can ask.
Instead of just assuming something went unpunished, one could ask.
The moderation tries to be even handed and fair, and we do attempt to take perception into account (see the Dewey lol subthread above for an example), but our first priority is not to make sure everyone’s feelings are assuaged. People need to take some of the burden onto themselves and speak up if they have an issue. This isn’t daycare.
by Matthew on Feb 23, 2011 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It's not about assuaging feelings, though
and nobody’s insinuating that this is daycare. It’s about people, all people, knowing where the limits are and seeing corrective actions take place when those limits are exceeded. For anybody.
We as a general community shouldn’t have to ask if the rules are being enforced – we should be able to trust that they are being enforced fairly for everybody, regardless of who the violator is.
So then, trust that they are?
I’m having a hard time understanding the complaint here in the abstract.
Let me try to explain
If there is a poster who “pushes the envelope” consistently, and keeps pushing that envelope, let’s say you address that privately. Fair enough, nobody really needs to know that. But then, after being warned, if the envelope KEEPS getting pushed, without comments getting hidden (which does happen), a tolerance is built up for that commenter, because ’that’s what they do’.
But if ‘what they do’ violates the site rules, and even after being gently warned they still do it, the community as a whole will lose trust that the rules are, in fact, being enforced.
Does that make sense?
Without actual examples, I am helpless to address this
I understand what you are saying, but am not aware of it occurring.
If the offendsive post is hidden, shouldn't that be enough?
I appreciate that these matters are handled privately
More to the point, a hidden post may go unnoticed for hours if the tab is left open
Hiding the comment doesn’t make it disappear until you reload the page and I’m sure I’m not alone in commonly leaving an LL tab open for a good part of the day. I certainly get what Matthew is saying above about not having to point out when a rule is being enforced but quietly boxing somebody for a few hours and hiding the offending comment will not be noticed at all by a large percentage of people, which leads to people wondering why “person X never gets punished for stuff.”
by tootthekazoo on Feb 23, 2011 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
I think you're missing the overall point here
PDB and myself have been asking for consistent enforcement of the rules for all members – no “longer leashes” and things of the like. If I’m a new-ish commenter and post a picture that is too big I may get jumped on for it but then if I see a large wall of photos posted elsewhere on the site with nary a mention publicly, I’m going to view that as preferential treatment, even if the other person is getting roasted via email by moderation.
I’m not saying that we should see that everyone is punished as a hard and fast rule, but if we’re going to see one person get punished then why shouldn’t we see all people get punished?
by tootthekazoo on Feb 23, 2011 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Because if it's a new user and they break the rules people can be led to believe the user didn't know the rule and needs to be reminded of it
It’s not the same with experienced users, and that is why they are treated differently.
Furthermore,
new users to SBN have a habit of mistaking a warning with a banning, storming off in a huff, joining other blogs and then trashing LL. So some of our moderation policy is not just about how the pubLLic might see it but about how the entire SBN community might see it.
I must say I was perturbed when I saw the 'you have been banned from Lookout Landing' box
Is there any reason that wording is used when it’s only a warning?
by Eyeball Kid on Feb 23, 2011 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
It did for quite a while say that you were banned
if I’m remembering right, the box started as a temp ban and warnings only came later
by seattlebruin on Feb 23, 2011 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
It did not.
I have screenshots dating back to 2008 and it orginally said “You have been issued a warning”.
The only time you see banned is when you get boxed
I've only been boxed once and it was quite a while ago
but it was definitely the second of those two. Either way, it’s good that there’s now a different one for warnings.
by Eyeball Kid on Feb 23, 2011 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
A boxing is different than a warning. A boxing is actually a ban
We just unban the user after a short stay.
By the way, contained in the linked thread is this
Click for readable
by Matthew on Feb 23, 2011 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I appreciate the concern over
which leads to people wondering why "person X never gets punished for stuff."
But at this time, making sure that casual users get it pointed out to them that every person X has been punished for every action Y is not something I am going to do. That is what I am trying to get it by saying that people need to take action unto themselves. If they’re wondering why person X was unpunished, they can discreetly ask Jeff or I.
I feel like the rules are spelled out. Is the problem you have that they aren’t? If people feel like they need to see the comment interactions to get a feel for what the rules are here, then that’s a communication problem on our end and part of what this thread is meant to bring up and we can work on finding ways to make them more clear. But I’m not going to make public announcements every time I hide a comment or issue a warning.
I feel like people should just proceed under the assumption that offensive or over-the-line comments will be dealt with
I can’t think of the last time that they weren’t.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 23, 2011 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
The rules are spelled out
I don’t necessarily have a direct issue with how punishment is doled out. I think I’m speaking more as a voice for the several folks who have mentioned that things don’t seem to be evenly enforced. There have been quite a few commenters here and in other threads that have mentioned how it seems that some commenters are “allowed” to do things that they don’t feel they could get away with. My best guess as to why they feel that way is that nothing is ever seen publicly.
Honestly, I’m not sure what the best option is but if multiple people have expressed concern then I feel that it’s the responsibility of moderation here to resolve this instead of dismiss it, which you and I have discussed several other times
by tootthekazoo on Feb 23, 2011 11:41 AM PST up reply actions
I don't find dealing with silent opinions to be my responsibility.
This thread was constructed as yet another possible venue for voicing specific concerns and I have so far received maybe one on the matter of certain posters being allowed to break rules with impunity and the one example had already been dealt with.
Fair enough
Again, I was not claiming to know a better way (and I’m not really sure that there is) nor was I expressing my own personal problem with anything. Based on our interactions in the past and seeing that, at least behind the scenes, even the most regular of regulars here are punished, I have no real reason to think that there is any “favoritism” at play here.
However, I did feel that way quite some time ago and certainly understand where people are coming from when they say they perceive an imbalance. I felt that I could at least provide some support to their perception based on how I see it as a near 4-year regular of the site.
by tootthekazoo on Feb 23, 2011 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm less worried about finding something offensive than about posts that blatantly break site rules and stay up
I’ve done it, you’ve done it, anybody around for long enough has done it, but the more things like that are allowed the less trust the “casual LL fan” has that the rules will be enforced equally.
`
“no one seems to complain when Robert or when a more established member of the community posts something within the limit, though still larger than necessary”
It doesn’t happen every time, of course, but I completely deny that “more established members of the community” never get called out for that infraction. They do. It’s a bit random, but it happens.
That would be terrible
the point of moderation for site members is to make sure it doesn’t happen again, not to publicly demean them
by seattlebruin on Feb 23, 2011 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I just don't see the point in that type of thing.
For newer users a public notice can be helpful, because it allows an instant dialogue. For older users, that’s not necessary.
When the moderation here was more public and heavy-handed, people complained. Now there are complaints about moderation taking place behind closed doors. LL can’t be all things to all people.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 23, 2011 11:17 AM PST up reply actions
I admit that I've been guilty of it a sometimes, but I just realized that posting big Funk Blast pictures after home runs over and over is a big violation, yet we still do it pretty regularly
That should probably stop because it does send the wrong message about the LL rules and might be contributing to lower quality game threads by making other posters break rules or ignore the mods’ requests in different ways.
Would that not qualify as GTE?
Dustin Ackley is going to make Joe Morgan look like Joey Cora.
AL Scout on Rendon: "I would peg him as a poor man's Jose Lopez."
I kind of think the only additional rule should be 'don't be bad at posting'.
Which is vague, sure, but if you hang out here long enough you should have an idea of what’s okay and what’s not. It doesn’t need to be spelled out in detail, but if there’s some sort of language there that can give the moderators leeway to say ‘hey, you suck, stop sucking or we’ll make you go away’ and point to the rule while doing so, that’s a good thing.
Doesn't this rule exist, albeit in an unwritten sense?
I mean, I’m thinking of the Indiana Jones stop posting .gif that is employed on occasion. It’s obviously something that has community backing to it.
I couldn't agree more with this. If we're awful, tell us, and we'll go away. We may not have the
self awareness you have. I don’t have that self awareness. If you want me to stop posting, just tell me. This is your blog, I don’t want to ruin anything for you, but I have no idea if I’m an awful poster or not. If I’m awful, tell me, and I’ll go back to lurking. I think there are probably many lurkers on this blog who feel as intimidated as I do. We don’t want to cause trouble, but we honestly don’t know when we are.
by TrustBaseball on Feb 22, 2011 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
In my experience, people don't know
that’s 90% of what makes an irritating poster because then he or she comments a lot
by Matthew on Feb 22, 2011 10:41 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with you whole heartedly.
It is not possible to comment on everything and have any resemblance to a good commenting history. You will wear out your welcome rather quickly and then start to be ridiculed by the community. Nobody wants to have to be mean to someone for being terrible but it has to happen sometimes.
by Kirk on Feb 22, 2011 10:43 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
By you I mean literally you, not anyone who wants to say so.
You and Jeff have the power to contact people about being terrible and can do so in private. This is also where a third person who would be a strict mod could come in.
This is what I am asking for. If you (Matthew), or some third person you have
picked don’t want me or any other lurker to continue to post on this blog would you let someone know? Without self awareness that we are terrible posters, how can we know? The fact that 5 regulars piled on would be more than enough for me personally, but getting an email from Jeff, Matthew or their chosen agent would also quiet many keyboards and allow the “community” to comfortably continue to exist without the bad posters.
by TrustBaseball on Feb 22, 2011 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
So send us bad posters an email. Tell us to quit typing. That's all I'm asking.
How else are we going to know? If you don’t want to hear from us, tell us.
by TrustBaseball on Feb 23, 2011 12:07 AM PST up reply actions
Because the way you are putting it, we should just tell someone to go away if they are bad.
90% of posters here started out terrible. and have since evolved into decent posters. Some people are bad and don’t care and leaving is the option. But giving someone feedback on how not to be bad is better than saying “you’re bad. We don’t want you here anymore.” This gives people the opportunity to improve, especially if they weren’t aware they were posting poorly.
by Mariner John on Feb 23, 2011 12:11 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Exactly. I'd say a good majority of the regulars here, even long time regulars started out as below average to terrible posters.
Myself included.
RIP Dave Neihaus.
I am still terrible.
Dawg! He put da team on his back!
This was one of my first comments
Where do you get that idea? Rookies struggle others don’t and those are your ROY people.
Here were the replies:
What does this even mean?
I don’t think you’ll last long around here – Well, he’s made it a day so far.
My second comment was about how Morrow’s delivery was waaaaaaay safer than Morrow’s and how Lincecum will burn out and Morrow would be a Cy Young or something like that, but even I had trouble determining what I typed so theres that.
Maybe it was the fact I was around 13/14 when I started posting, but I was terrible; now I can form simple sentences! Also as a very terrible poster I’m glad I got the hostile treatment because it took Jeff/Matthew to say “what the hell are you writing, please write coherently” for me to realize wow I suck, I had no idea. I got sort of better and I enjoy this site’s humor and community and it’s not assimilation into the ideal poster, but evolution into a better one – it’s all a matter of abiding with the site rules and you can have a great time which would make Rousseau so proud right now.
You got slurved!
by Slurvey on Feb 23, 2011 10:22 AM PST up reply actions 6 recs
I feel like I make unnecessary comments every now and then.
I wouldn’t call myself irritating, even though in some cases I can be a real dick in terms of piling on. I’d like to try and add more to the conversation in my comments, but I’m not quite sure how. Any tips?
M's fan in the Bay, soon to be LA
by perfectstrat on Feb 23, 2011 12:10 AM PST up reply actions
Here is where I would snarkilly call you out for being unable to use a search engine.
Instead, I’m being helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D
by Matthew on Feb 22, 2011 11:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Actually I have a virus on my browser right now that makes it so I can't use search engines properly.
I am too lazy to fix it.
by Kirk on Feb 22, 2011 11:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'd love to make this work
but it’s far too subjective, even to the people who would be enforcing it. I have bad days and good days and my moods sometimes carry over to moderating. I try not to, but it’s unavoidable.
Ultimately, I think the golden rule of commenting should be trying to avoid commenting on everything.
by Matthew on Feb 22, 2011 10:34 PM PST up reply actions 7 recs
This is probably the best suggestion in the entire thread.
Only commenting when you have something to add to the conversation is key to being a good poster.
I agree as well
I think you can even get away with not being a very good poster if you don’t fill up a game thread with every single thought that comes to mind (this is my personal least favorite posting practice) or post constantly to every thread that appears.
by Gihyou on Feb 22, 2011 11:28 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
A tip that I try to use whenever possible
Go into your own profile, if you scroll down the list of your 150 most recent comments and less than have of them have replies to them then you are probably not contributing very much to the site and you should consider a different approach.
by Robert on Feb 22, 2011 11:37 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Don't talk back to people when they reprimand you for doing something wrong.
This is a high-level blog and the proprietors expect high-level discussion, so you’ll be told when you’re not following the rules. No one is picking on you; people just have the same high expectations for every commenter on this site. Please, for the LLove of Jeff, just listen to these people, thank them, and don’t act like a snarky adolescent. I honestly think that if people read comment threads, refrain from posting for awhile, and then begin posting using their common sense (not running Jeff’s jokes into the ground, etc), they’ll be good posters. I don’t pretend I’m a particularly good poster, but I can say with certainty that the “learn from watching others” process helps shitty posters become at least tolerable. Most of the time.
At the same time, I would suggest that those who reprimand do it with grace. “Club LL!” and “well this is just terrible” are not mature reactions to a silly fanpost about something nominal. Tell people what they’ve done wrong without being patronizing. We want to encourage new faces to contribute new things to Lookout Landing – not be scared away from the site by being piled-on by jaded regulars.
It’s impossible to set a fixed rule enforcing these things, but they’re really crucial in making Lookout Landing one of the absolute best communities on the internet. This may be more suited to the QC thread, apologies to all whose time was wasted in reading this.
by .Taylor on Feb 22, 2011 10:36 PM PST reply actions
I'm sorry you think that is necessary
by Poochie on Feb 22, 2011 10:56 PM PST up reply actions 11 recs
Seriously though I find the passive aggressive comments that get posted way more offensive than the outright hostile ones
People think they can get away with a lot more (and they do) through passive aggressiveness
by Dewey N on Feb 23, 2011 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah but they only bug you because you're not from Seattle.
I bet it’s probably pretty tough for you to fit into a community like this as such an outsider, huh.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 23, 2011 9:32 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I think this thread is a testament to why this website is one of my favorite places to visit.
Even when people don’t get the picture, such as me, you guys are diplomatic enough to sort the problem out in the long run. There are some bumps in the road here and there, but everyone’s human and those are going to happen. It’s good to see Jeff and Matthew going out of their way to try and make the moderation consistent here, because it helps everybody on both ends.
And really, I want to apologize for the puns. I should have gotten it through my head sooner, but I was being obstinate. It really showed me how important discretion is when commenting here.
I write for Stumptown Footy, SB Nation's Portland Timbers blog.
I think I speak for everyone not involved in Pungate when I say I wish
a) you’d stop apologizing
b) people would stop bringing it up
It was a thing, it got worked through, it’s over. Let it lie.
I do not think you need less rules on your blog.
You seem to have just the right rules. Your rules have created an intelligent, funny, and vibrant community to go along with your great content. On many sites on the web the comments are unreadable because of the lack of rules or rules that do not make the site more readable for me. It seems that most comments to this article are about interpretation and enforcement of the rules, not the rules themselves. I think that says a lot about the comfort level of your community with the rules that now exist.
by Droid Rage on Feb 23, 2011 3:17 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Are scripts out of the question?
It would obviously take buy-in from SBN, but it seems it wouldn’t be too hard to have some sort of simple checking scripts. If I were to attempt a post without a subject line or width= tag or heavens forbid I laughed out loud, and hit POST, I get a “are you sure? this may break site rules” popup I have to OK first.
The rules still get enforced, without the need for human policing. If a poster ignores it or deliberately circumvents, then perhaps a real pile on is deserved? Downside of course would be speed – I don’t how this might affect system performance. Oh yeah, and it probably won’t stop bad puns.
There is no situation in which a real pile on is deserved
we went through that a couple years ago, and it was unpleasant. Please don’t think it’s ever OK to pile on.
As for a script, maybe? I’m not sure SBN would want to take it on though as every single site would need different scripts to enforce different behaviors. And as a system developer (not SBN), I can also attest that if a user gets a popup box that says
ARE YOU SURE? THIS MAY BREAK SITE RULES. CLICK OK TO CONTINUE
All a user will typically see is
CLICK OK TO CONTINUE
I’d rather teach people to obey the rules than give them the option to break the rules by letting them know they might be breaking the rules.
by pdb on Feb 23, 2011 8:10 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
A rule that should not be in any way controversial:
The use of the preview button on any comment containing links or images should be mandatory. There shouldn’t be any excuse for messing these up.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 23, 2011 10:46 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
That would fall under the "SBN feature request" thing for me
I agree, but I’d also like to see that addressed systematically if possible.
Oh, I meantt mandatory as in "if you don't use it and you post something with broken HTML or an image 500 pixels high, you are breaking the rules."
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 23, 2011 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
yeah, I know
but it seems like it would be fairly easy to write something on the back end that says “if this comment contains a link or an image, automatically preview when post is hit” or something. Might help a little bit.
I have been trying to get SBN to do that as well.
If you agree, please e-mail the tech team and let them know. The silent majority is ignored because they’re silent.
Matthew
Hit me up with an email and I’ll help lend my weight to things too.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 23, 2011 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
If I may add my two cents
I have been a longtime reader of this site, including reading most threads (I have a lot of free time.) I rarely comment anymore, as there are those out there that can convey my thoughts with better humor or more knowledge, but also partially due to the sometimes nitpicking ways of some users. My last comment a year ago was made from my cell phone at the Ballpark in Arlington. Guti had just made the game saving catch at the centerfield wall and in my drunken stupor, celebrated by sharing my excitement of seeing it live with the LL community. To my dismay, the first response was correcting one word I had misspelled in my comment. Totally ruined the moment, and my enjoyment of posting on this site. I understand this site has (rightly so) very high standards for its posters, but at the end of the day, honest mistakes will be made. I guess my long winded conclusion is that while I very much appreciate the high standards this site has, I feel their application is sometimes misguided and can harm the community atmosphere (or appear to show favoritism as others have pointed out).
by Paseman on Feb 23, 2011 12:18 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
If you are referring to this:
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2010/4/10/1414745/2-4-chart#34345993
Then I think you’re being oversensitive and I even made the same comment then that I was going to make here until I bothered to look it up:
We can be more lenient when it’s mobile posting and it’s from someone with no prior issues.
Your right
I was going to mention that you defended it, but the point is that you shouldn’t have had to. I also didn’t mean to make it sound like that is the only reason I don’t post as often, as I said, there are others on this site who share my views better then I would. I just used that as an example of the misguided attempts to enforce the rules that detract from the thread instead of helping it. Also, I “bothered” to look it up but was unable to find the comment. Thank you for finding it.
I thought that was a funny and creative way to phrase that comment, not an actual criticism
if we are upset with someone not following the grammar rules, we will let that poster know
by seattlebruin on Feb 23, 2011 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
Looking back now
I guess the comment wasn’t as bad as I originally remember. Kudos to Matthew for the link. I just used it as a personal example of what I feel is a larger problem on this site, in that the over correcting of minor things, in this case an incorrect capitalization. His response was actual very clever, but often I see that others aren’t as creative in their criticisms as he was.
As a guy who's probably annoyed you...
I appreciated this thread a lot in that it gave people like me an opportunity to be formally educated as to why Jeff, Matthew, and other community members handle issues of bad/stupid posting the way they do. I have personally never taken offense to any correction I have been given, but I do often feel bad for posters that get “piled on” for breaking rules that don’t really exist anywhere else on the internet.
If something can be done to eliminate this. Perhaps before correction is given we could check to see how long a poster has been active and how often they have posted before they are piled on? Perhaps people already do that and I’m off base here.
Personally, I think piling on can be good, but I might be alone in that regard.
Like you said, these rules don’t really exist anywhere else on the internet and they really should. The internet would be a much better place if everyone wrote semi-coherent sentances. “Tough love” is how I like to look at it. And I think a lot of people respond well to that.
Plus it can be really funny sometimes.
So if 24 people responded right now with increasingly snarky variation of "It's spelled "sentences" " you wouldn't find that excessive or off putting?
I really fail to see the value in a pileon – and I say that as someone who has participated in a few in my day. I really try not to any more, though, and I would hope that others would do the same.
by pdb on Feb 23, 2011 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think it's ocassionally warranted.
The guy that posted the fanshot linking to a really dickish anti-RRS article being a good example.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 23, 2011 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Flag it, let the mods remove it, go on about your day
seems so much easier.
by pdb on Feb 23, 2011 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Sometimes people deserve to hear a bunch of people tell them they're an asshole
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 23, 2011 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
The pileon isn't necessarily for the person being piled-on.
It also lets the people who didn’t notice anything wrong with the original post realize the lapse in judgement so that they don’t do it themselves.
And yes, I should be piled on for spelling sentences wrong because those types of misspellings come out of habit. And I am sure I could search for “sentances” and find my name in a majority of them. So thank you for that.
This all circles neatly back to the original discussion of leash length above, though
How much pileon is enough? How much is too much? The answer to these questions is vague and not easy to define, so what tends to happen is that everybody chimes in because it seems like everybody’s chiming in, and then it becomes a matter of who can out-snark another of the pilers-on with their pileon. Which does nobody any good.
And yes, I should be piled on for spelling sentences wrong because those types of misspellings come out of habit
Corrected by one or two people, maybe. Piled on? Nope.
I guess our definition of pileon differs a bit. So you made your point.
I guess if you can’t set the bounds for the pileon it’s probably best to avoid it completely.
I hope we make no pile-ons a rule.
So we can pile on people who pile on.
by zeeehjee on Feb 23, 2011 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
As long as they stay inside the pylon, score.
Man I’m so expecting to be flagged for this.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
But there is a downside to this...
People who notice piling on will think it is normal to pile on whenever people use chatspeak or don’t use the subject line. I have piled on, and I feel foolish about it because of many reasons, not the least of which being that I haven’t “earned the right” to correct people for these abuses. I have noticed other posters who are relatively new piling on as well.
I get what you’re saying, but this could also lend itself to people getting the wrong idea about how to deal with things.
Can it be re-emphasized the importance of checking the "open in new window" box when posting links and the reason why?
When the thread is small it’s not a big a deal, but if you’re scrolling through 200 new comments in the OT and it takes you away from the page it’s such a pain. Of course, I realize sometimes SBN goes wonky and it doesn’t work, but I think maybe some people don’t understand what “open in new window” actually means.
This can double as a feature request for SBN
Leave comments highlighted until they have been marked as read by a user, either by pressing “Z” or “X”, regardless of whether they navigate away from a thread
by tootthekazoo on Feb 23, 2011 4:25 PM PST up reply actions
Last year, it seemed like all you needed to moderate this site was a good belief system to guide you.
In 2011, I think the key is that you have to have a good set of eyes.
Writing from beautiful Yuma, AZ
by Ballard Erik on Feb 23, 2011 4:13 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
At the end of the day
we all know what is appropriate and what is not.
Writing from beautiful Yuma, AZ
by Ballard Erik on Feb 23, 2011 4:14 PM PST up reply actions
Reading through this, it seems to me that you don't need more/different defined rules.
The suggestions that we add ’don’t be bad at posting’ is really saying the same thing. I understand and wanted to support the many calls for having clear, consistently-applied rules, but at this point, that’s simply unworkable. I think a lot of people don’t like hearing that, because it offends our sense of justice. But this place needs to balance what’s ‘just’ with what’s effective.
Does that mean that some people will get more of a leash? Yeah. Does that mean that some of the disciplinary action will take place behind the scenes, and that you’ll be more publicly challenged if you’re new and shitty as opposed to old and shitty? Yeah. Does that seem weird? Yeah, I guess it sort of does. But what’s the alternative?
You simply cannot write guidelines for a place like this. I can’t define what this place likes (the dislikes are easier), and to the extent that you try, you keep coming back to ineffable qualities like style and quality. So let’s stop trying. We don’t need rules, we need consistent mods and something like a self-regulating commentariat….which is basically where we are now.
I’ve read these threads for years, and for a long time I’ve struggled with the tone here, especially towards new posters (Kermit does a great job of addressing that above). But I don’t know what to actually do about it without doing some damage. I think it’s important to be instructive and/or forgiving, but I don’t think we can enforce that. So that’s what I’ll endeavor to do, and if others want to handle other aspects of regulation, cool.
by marc w on Feb 23, 2011 9:09 PM PST reply actions 11 recs
If nothing here changes I would still visit as many times a day as my daily schedule allows.
I love baseball, the Mariners and this community, period.
by wazzu93 on Feb 23, 2011 10:23 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Having just gone through this over at CougCenter
I know how everyone feels. The fact that so many members have a vested interest in making sure the community flourishes is encouraging. I think my biggest problem (over at CC) was the “how do I tell them they suck?” dilemma. I didn’t want to be a dick, and I didn’t want to embarrass anyone, either. I’m not sure why I never thought of e-mailing them personally to talk with them about things, but Matthew bringing up the fact that he does his best to answer each LL related e-mail kind of made the light bulb turn on. So I thank you for that.
I'm for a small rotating group of mods
Just feel the precision and ability to discern track records is superior to communal policing.
"C'mon Joe, GET WET!" - Jon Miller
by Omerta on Feb 24, 2011 4:36 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
