Improve this thread - Extraneous BS

[Freak Out]

Nutz, that was mean.

What would you have used?

Churro?

Chalupa? Tamale? Donkey?

[SkinBasket]

I'll try to keep this as concise as possible. First, I would argue that if you can't read all the threads, which is understandable, that maybe it's time to find a moderator. Otherwise, it puts you in a poor position to chastise people in one thread while a flame rages out of control in another. That's not meant as some kind of jab against you, simply a way to avoid this kind of problem in the future.

Second, I believe, though I could be wrong, that I've only said that it gives the appearance that some people are being treated differently, and that's why some people feel that way, not that you necessarily are doing it intentionally. I stated that some people here obviously felt that some posters were being treated differently than others when it comes to what is and isn't acceptable to post before they're chastised by the Administrator. You denied that, so I posted the examples as a demonstration of why that could be.

Of course the examples I gave were "skewed." I was making the point that the poster you defended in one thread was simultaneously degrading people in a much, much worse fashion in another without consequence. You've explained that it's because you hadn't read that thread, which is fine, but I would still maintain that someone claiming a guy can't throw a football doesn't rise to a response of calling people little bitches and cunts. That's the gig though. Flame out, then claim victimization afterward.

I don't get your point about this coming from me being "bullshit." Yeah, you stopped Partial's personal attacks against me. That was nice and I appreciated it. but does that mean I can't say anything when he then attacks someone else or when I see what appears to be a discrepancy in how posters are being treated? I guess if you're going to equate what JH posted with everything Partial did, I can't stop you. But for someone who wants to be "fair" I find that a tough argument to carry.

Nutz, this is the dumbest shit I've heard from you in five years. IT sounds like you took ecstacy and typed this on your laptop while watching pro wrestling on TV.

Get a grip, man.

Homo.

[Patler]

Some of you guys are just Admin, I applaud you for actually looking at things objectively and intelligently. As a scientist, I approach things in a similar manner.

DFC? I again, reiterate, how is the worse than being called retarded? I think being called retarded is FAR more offensive. Someone please explain this to me and why its okay to attack me, yet when I respond in similar fashion, I'm the one completely out of line?

I accept responsibility for my actions, do you?

Is this your version of an apology?

What am I apologizing for, exactly?

Just a suggestion here - you might try actually reading the Admin's last post in the locked thread. There is just a wee bit of a hint in it as to something you might consider apologizing for.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, Deputy Nutz didn't make-up that "Burrito as big as your head" thing. He stole it from La Bamba, a chain of mexican restaraunts in Madison. How typical, the white man rips off the brown man.

The original LaBamba off of State Street had a giant wall mural of hockey players with burrito heads, and one is puking what appears to be mexican food. Sureal, and definitely nutz's sort of place.

[SkinBasket]

flappy

[Deputy Nutz]

Nutz, that was mean.

Sure it was, but at least I didn't call him a "DFC".

[Administrator]

I have to say, (and I usually stay out of forum management stuff because it is the owners prerogative to do as they wish), I am more than a little confused by how you intend to operate, or how you expect us to participate. If any slam, no matter how slight, puts you on alert, we as posters are being asked to offer our opinions but never respond or debate.

"One liners" are out? These are sometimes the most effective way to accentuate the absurdity of an argument. If its a personal slam, I understand maybe (but see the next paragraph); but what about a comment directed clearly against the argument? Again, you are stifling debate.

I have no idea how far back your history with this site goes, but there are some unique personalities, pseudo-personalities and feigned relationships. Some of the one-line slams are good-natured jabs recognizing that history.

As for "ganging up" on a poster, yes maybe it does happen from time to time. However, many times it is evidence of a board in full self-regulating mode. When a bunch of regulars gang up on a regular there is usually a reason for it. Self-regulation is not a bad thing.

Expecting anonymous posters to simply ignore the outrageous posts of others is a laudable goal, but completely unrealistic. Many can't do it in face to face situations, how can you expect them to when veiled by the anonymity of a Packerrat name and personality?

I know you mean well. I appreciate your goals. I appreciate this board. One of the things that made it its very best in the past was the aggressive, but well-reasoned debate that occurred on here. You run the real risk of killing that if I understand your lengthy explanation

I thought of sending this by PM to you, but decided to post it as a long time regular, because I think it is worthy of discussion. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding of your explanation; but, if I am, I suspect others are too, so discussion is in order. If I am off base, I expect other Packerrats will "explain" the errors of my ways to me!

Patler,

thanks for the comments.

I'm not trying to stifle debate at all, quite the opposite actually. I've received multiple PM's from long time members who are "taking a break". All said the same thing. They're tired of the same crowd slamming their opinions with smart cracks and personal attacks.

I have zero issues with one liner comments to individuals about past events or personal relationships, provided, that they are meant and taken, in good humor. That has ceased for many folks around here as the Favre drama made things personal.

I'd love to return to the "police yourself" philsophy. To do that, folks have to be willing to police themselves. Some are not willing to do that. The same 8 or 9 names keep coming up from almost everyone who has PM'ed me. Even those PM's in support of people have mentioned the same 8 or 9 names. It is a very small segment of folks that are causing the problems. It is kind of funny, even those voicing support for those 8 or 9 acknowledge that they cause problems. They just think they are funny and witty. I think they'd be complaining if the comments were directed at them, but they are funny when they aren't.

Patler, you've got enough wisdom and common sense to start distributing it to the less fortunate around here, myself included. I really appreciate you weighing in when you could have ignored it.

If I could come up with any way to change the tone, without restrictions, I'd do it. Sometimes you have to cut back further than you want to get the desired results. I don't want to police personal comments. But if the poster won't, I have to. I don't want anybody to leave. But the back door is open, and I can choose to leave it open, or, I can shove a few people through it involuntarily and then hopefully get it closed for a while.

I understand all the drama, and the sarcastic comments in this thread and others, but that isn't helping anyones cause. Multiple folks have told me that trying to meaningfully discuss anything with these folks won't work, and I'm inclined to agree. But, we have to try that before we bid them farewell.

[SkinBasket]

All I'll say is that I always thought the number was closer to 3 or 4. I guess one more if you include me and one less if you don't include Harlan.

Honestly, as much as I don't like some of the stuff that's been posted, I wouldn't want anyone banned, because for better or worse, that means losing interesting people and lively conversation. But on the flip side, I'm sure if we didn't have these huge flame outs from these few people there would be more room for the smaller smart ass comments and debate that actually has vim as well as vigor. The stuff that keeps the board unique and fun that I think a lot of us are worried about having taken away and that most of us can handle without losing our heads and going berserko loco.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

One owner/operator was already driven off. Lets try not to do the same with the new one.

will the nefarious TT never stop.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sometimes you have to cut back further than you want to get the desired results.

Ty agrees. Sometimes you have to destroy the village to save it.

[Scott Campbell]

I've received multiple PM's from long time members who are "taking a break". All said the same thing. They're tired of the same crowd slamming their opinions with smart cracks and personal attacks.

I'm not sure what to make of this really. You can't be all things to all people. Some people are just natural complainers. How many members haven't complained? Are you disregarding their wishes by only listening to the complainers? Some people have thin skins. In your shoes, I'm not sure I'd turn my forum over to them. It's a football forum, not a sewing circle. Guys argue, and boys will be boys. And I think the girls mostly laugh at us.

And I wonder if you are unwittingly creating a culture of ratting each other out. I'm not sure it's productive to keep mentioning the "naughty list" unless you're going to publish it. Let them/us know who they/we are so they/we can go make other arrangements.

[Scott Campbell]

So, I get called out for finally slamming Partial after he got personal several times (while I held my tongue).

I get so tired of whining from HarveyWallbanger.

We're finally seeing some action taken against longtime trouble makers like Wallbanger and Falco, and I for one applaud the delousing of the forum.

I know this is tongue and cheek Harlan, but I'm going to comment further anyway.


Branding Harv as a troublemaker is like giving Ghandi a ticket for jaywalking. He's been nothing but a gentleman here for years, and years and years. He's one of the handful of guys that consistently go well out of their way to avoid any trouble.

I don't recall Falco stirring up much of anything either.

[Partial]

Harvey you were holding your tongue even less than I was buddy boy.

[SkinBasket]

My main concern is that the stated concerns of Administrator not only play right into these cyclical flame outs but in a sense enable them and that while some people who've been smart asses but have some pride are "shown the door" those who played the victim adequately will remain and nothing will change except we'll be down several unique posters.

[SkinBasket]

Harvey you were holding your tongue even less than I was buddy boy.

Really? After you guys started arguing you outposted him 10-5. I won't get into the language used, as that's already been covered, and I find it difficult to believe that you would argue that you were more the gentleman in that regard.