PDA

View Full Version : Proposed Twins Daily Comment Policy - Feedback Desired



John Bonnes
08-22-2012, 01:42 PM
Up to this point, Twins Daily hasn't had an official policy regarding comments; it's mostly been "be civil." Sometimes this has worked. Sometimes it hasn't. We've talked a lot amongst ourselves about being a little clearer and decided that whatever we adopt will have a link on the footer of the site and be re-posted occasionally to make sure everyone knows the rules. I'd like to propose this as the new policy, which we based on the policy for MLBTradeRumors.com (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/01/commenting-policy.html). But before we charge ahead, I think it's important to get the community's feedback.


Comments of this nature are not allowed:

1. Personal attacks or insults towards other commenters, the post author, journalists, teams, players, or agents.
2. Inappropriate language, including swearing and related censor bypass attempts, lewdness, and crude terms for body parts, bodily functions, and physical acts. Overall, we don’t want any language that a parent would not want their kid to see.
3. Juvenile comments or extensive use of text message-type spelling.
4. Copying entire stories from elsewhere on the internet.
5. Comments about how you're sick of this topic or it's not newsworthy.
6. No inappropriate avatars or images are allowed.
7. Anything else we deem bad for business.

Breaking the rules will result in deleted posts and bans. Attempts to circumvent bans will results in all accounts being permanently banned (along with their IP address).


I suspect the rules that will be most concerning are #2 and #1 (though I encourage feedback on all of them), so let me quickly address those two. I'm a big free speech guy, and I wrestled with both, but I've come to embrace them. Here is why:

#2 - I have recently received emails from parents of minors who love these boards for Twins news. I'm not naive enough to think they don't know vulgarity (I think I was at the height of my vulgarity as a teen) but I don't see any compelling reason to have this language on the board and I can think of plenty of reasons to not have it, such as increased credibility for threads that offer terrific debate and can even be newsworthy.

#1. It's one thing to say "Gardenhire is stupid to always bat a middle infielder second." It's another to say "Gardenhire is stupid." I wrote about five paragraphs in the forum last week criticizing Phil Mackey's latest salary story, so I'm not saying we can't be critical. But I cringe when five comments later I read "Mackey is an idiot." That's just a personal attack.

I'm not suggesting this to protect players feelings or get the Twins or media to like us. I'm suggesting this because
1. It adds nothing to the discussion. These comments will not be missed.
2. It makes us - and I mean the whole community - look bad.

Twins Daily was not started to be a playground. It was started to raise the overall quality of baseball coverage. If we want to do that - if we want to gain credibility, if we want to continue to draw in independent voices and readers, if we want our content to be cited and used by others - then we cannot look like rube chat.

OK, that's the proposal. Please provide your feedback below.

Ultima Ratio
08-22-2012, 01:49 PM
What's really sad is the need (or perceived need) for all these rules. Sigh. I get it though.

Jim Crikket
08-22-2012, 01:54 PM
I'm good with it, for all of the reasons you cited, John.

More to the point, I don't need more people telling me I'm a %$#&%$@ idiot. That's what I've got family for.

Ricola
08-22-2012, 02:11 PM
I am all for it. There are plenty of other places on the internet to engage in the sort of discourse you are looking to keep away from Twins Daily.

TwinsGuy55422
08-22-2012, 02:11 PM
Sounds good to me. I don't think these rules are too restrictive. There are always going to be people who need spelled out for them what should be common sense.

TwinsMusings
08-22-2012, 02:12 PM
Reasonable rules. OK by me.

I presume with rule #4 the standing exception is the bloggers who post a copy here of content they post originally elsewhere.

Badsmerf
08-22-2012, 02:12 PM
I have a few questions about those topics. First, how strict are they? For example, #2. There are already language filters and I swear because I know the filters will pick it up. Are you talking about changing texts to avoid these filters? On #4, sometimes posters copy and paste insider articles or BP articles that you need subscriptions to view. Is this no longer acceptable? If so, I'm against that number. #7 is also vague and doesn't stress what you're looking for. Instead of saying "anything else," just say you reserve the right to modify/deleted any comment that is deemed out of the character for this site. That is a kind of blanket statement that covers everything and you can add more specific things as needed.

Don't Feed the Greed Guy
08-22-2012, 02:15 PM
John,

I love the fact that going to a baseball game is different than a football game, or a hockey or basketball game. I've been to several parks to see the Twins play as the away team--Comerica this year, US Cellular, Kauffmann, and Jacob's Field to name just a few over previous years. Fans have (almost) always been respectful. "Hey, what do you think of our ballpark?" Lot's of pride, and also some good recommendations on local places to eat.

I enjoy this site, as a newcommer. You've built a good thing here. I appreciate being included. I want to help keep it clean as an invited guest/early member. So, I appreciate the rules. You are on the right track.

thanks

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 02:15 PM
For example, #2. There are already language filters and I swear because I know the filters will pick it up. Are you talking about changing texts to avoid these filters?

Typing a swear word is no big deal. The filter will pick it up. We're talking more about using clever lettering to avoid the word censor, like an "@" instead of an "a". The easiest way to tell if we deem something to be a swear word is to use it (within reason, of course). If we don't think it's board appropriate, it will appear ****ed out. If it appears, we're cool with it.

But please, don't post anything that looks like "you **** stupid ***** ****face".


On #4, sometimes posters copy and paste insider articles or BP articles that you need subscriptions to view. Is this no longer acceptable? If so, I'm against that number.

Good question. That is something we will discuss.


#7 is also vague and doesn't stress what you're looking for. Instead of saying "anything else," just say you reserve the right to modify/deleted any comment that is deemed out of the character for this site. That is a kind of blanket statement that covers everything and you can add more specific things as needed.

Fair enough. It's the same thing, just worded more politely.

Mauerzy4Prez
08-22-2012, 02:17 PM
Up to this point, Twins Daily hasn't had an official policy regarding comments; it's mostly been "be civil." Sometimes this has worked. Sometimes it hasn't. We've talked a lot amongst ourselves about being a little clearer and decided that whatever we adopt will have a link on the footer of the site and be re-posted occasionally to make sure everyone knows the rules. I'd like to propose this as the new policy, which we based on the policy for MLBTradeRumors.com (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/01/commenting-policy.html). But before we charge ahead, I think it's important to get the community's feedback.
Comments of this nature are not allowed:

1. Personal attacks or insults towards other commenters, the post author, journalists, teams, players, or agents This should be a given, but yes I agree.
2. Inappropriate language, including swearing and related censor bypass attempts, lewdness, and crude terms for body parts, bodily functions, and physical acts. Overall, we donít want any language that a parent would not want their kid to see. Again, this should be a given. And I like this rule especially because it forces people with no logical arguments to cut out the use of foul language to drive a point.
3. Juvenile comments or extensive use of text message-type spelling. People should always use proper spelling and grammar, but using things such as smart phones and tablets makes it easier to use shortened versions of words. I'd say the juvenile comments should for sure be ruled out, but short form typing is used too often to do away with. IMO as long as the person can illustrate a point with facts or a good solid opinion, they can say it however they'd like.
4. Copying entire stories from elsewhere on the internet. What about links or quotes to make a point?
5. Comments about how you're sick of this topic or it's not newsworthy. This one confuses me... Can't we state if we are tired of people calling for Gardy's head every time the littlest thing happens? This rule seems too vague, and I'd argue that the other rules would eliminate people excessively infringing upon this.
6. No inappropriate avatars or images are allowed. ​Will somebody clearly define inappropriate? Who monitors this?
7. Anything else we deem bad for business. Again, who is doing the "deeming"? How will they remain objective in their censorship?

Breaking the rules will result in deleted posts and bans. Attempts to circumvent bans will results in all accounts being permanently banned (along with their IP address).


I suspect the rules that will be most concerning are #2 and #1 (though I encourage feedback on all of them), so let me quickly address those two. I'm a big free speech guy, and I wrestled with both, but I've come to embrace them. Here is why:

#2 - I have recently received emails from parents of minors who love these boards for Twins news. I'm not naive enough to think they don't know vulgarity (I think I was at the height of my vulgarity as a teen) but I don't see any compelling reason to have this language on the board and I can think of plenty of reasons to not have it, such as increased credibility for threads that offer terrific debate and can even be newsworthy.

#1. It's one thing to say "Gardenhire is stupid to always bat a middle infielder second." It's another to say "Gardenhire is stupid." I wrote about five paragraphs in the forum last week criticizing Phil Mackey's latest salary story, so I'm not saying we can't be critical. But I cringe when five comments later I read "Mackey is an idiot." That's just a personal attack.

I'm not suggesting this to protect players feelings or get the Twins or media to like us. I'm suggesting this because
1. It adds nothing to the discussion. These comments will not be missed.
2. It makes us - and I mean the whole community - look bad.

Twins Daily was not started to be a playground. It was started to raise the overall quality of baseball coverage. If we want to do that - if we want to gain credibility, if we want to continue to draw in independent voices and readers, if we want our content to be cited and used by others - then we cannot look like rube chat.

OK, that's the proposal. Please provide your feedback below.

I provided some feedback behind each rule above in red... Overall I understand what you are trying to do, and if you have received enough complaints from parents of younger users as well as adult users themselves, then you must do something. I myself was involved in a heated debate over inappropriate posts about Nishi a few weeks ago, and hope these types of rules can eliminate that. I will also say that I am guilty of going a little too far myself (i.e. yesterday with the Pavano being shut down thread). But after reading back on a lot of the comments from myself included, I think things got a little out of hand. This is all going to spark some pretty heated debates over "free speech", censorship rights, blah blah blah. But if it brings up the level of baseball related discussion to where it should be, then I'm all for it. Good luck John, I commend you for making this effort.

drivlikejehu
08-22-2012, 02:17 PM
Anyplace with comments needs a policy. The only one here I question is #1, as it relates to people other than commenters/post authors. Obviously, there shouldn't be tolerance in those cases. But, a rival team? How does that work- we wouldn't be able to say "The White Sox are garbage"? I mean, I get that it's not intelligent conversation, but this is sports. So long as it isn't vulgar, I don't see the problem.

What if there's a true hack journalist out there- would it be allowed to point that out?

People directly connected to the Twins are a gray area, where I see the need for some rules but still think it is a different situation when compared to actual posters on the site.

minn55441
08-22-2012, 02:21 PM
John, I think we all can live with the rules, the key will be how stringently they will be enforced. Will every post be reviewed? Will you rely on posts being flagged by members to ultimately be reviewed and then deleted?

I have quickly posted thoughts or opinions without taking the time to look up my facts only to learn after the fact that I was wrong. When this has happened, other posters have pointed out my errors or corrected my points by actually looking up the information. They have always done so in a professional manner, at times with humor, but never by being called a name or in a condescending manner. I have witnessed other posters receive very harsh treatment for similar mistakes to the ones I have made and I'm all for limiting the individual attacks, however I'm not sure how this will be put into practice. If the post sits out there for 4 to 6 hours before it is removed, it still has the same effect.

Mauerzy4Prez
08-22-2012, 02:23 PM
John, I think we all can live with the rules, the key will be how stringently they will be enforced. Will every post be reviewed? Will you rely on posts being flagged by members to ultimately be reviewed and then deleted?

I have quickly posted thoughts or opinions without taking the time to look up my facts only to learn after the fact that I was wrong. When this has happened, other posters have pointed out my errors or corrected my points by actually looking up the information. They have always done so in a professional manner, at times with humor, but never by being called a name or in a condescending manner. I have witnessed other posters receive very harsh treatment for similar mistakes to the ones I have made and I'm all for limiting the individual attacks, however I'm not sure how this will be put into practice. If the post sits out there for 4 to 6 hours before it is removed, it still has the same effect.

That's my main point too. Who will be monitoring every individual post on here to make sure these rules are being enforced appropriately while remaining completely objective to the situation? This seems like an extremely difficult task and I don't envy the person that wants to take it on.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 02:26 PM
Anyplace with comments needs a policy. The only one here I question is #1, as it relates to people other than commenters/post authors. Obviously, there shouldn't be tolerance in those cases. But, a rival team? How does that work- we wouldn't be able to say "The White Sox are garbage"? I mean, I get that it's not intelligent conversation, but this is sports. So long as it isn't vulgar, I don't see the problem.

I don't foresee a world where we get too upset about something getting frustrated in a game thread and posting "Jeff Gray is garbage". Technically, it is against the rules. It's also a heat of the moment game thread written by a frustrated poster after Gray just gave himself whiplash watching a pitch go over the wall.

As with most things, keep it in reason. Everybody gets mad and posts stupid crap. It happens. But most posters filter those posts in between dozens of worthwhile posts that are much calmer and rational. We're all fans here. We understand the pain of watching Jeff Gray take the mound.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 02:28 PM
John, I think we all can live with the rules, the key will be how stringently they will be enforced. Will every post be reviewed? Will you rely on posts being flagged by members to ultimately be reviewed and then deleted?

I have quickly posted thoughts or opinions without taking the time to look up my facts only to learn after the fact that I was wrong. When this has happened, other posters have pointed out my errors or corrected my points by actually looking up the information. They have always done so in a professional manner, at times with humor, but never by being called a name or in a condescending manner. I have witnessed other posters receive very harsh treatment for similar mistakes to the ones I have made and I'm all for limiting the individual attacks, however I'm not sure how this will be put into practice. If the post sits out there for 4 to 6 hours before it is removed, it still has the same effect.

We try to do our best to catch things immediately but it doesn't always happen that way. We encourage people to use the report post function if they see something worth reporting. It helps us find things faster. On a forum that keeps growing and gets hundreds of posts every day, it's impossible to keep track of them all.

Seth Stohs
08-22-2012, 02:30 PM
Regarding #4, we encourage linking to other sites with articles regarding the Twins. If you copy one sentence out of there to help illustrate your point, that's OK. There are copyright issues that could come in to play. And, secondly, we are a blogger/writer community. IF someone writes something really good and you feel it should be noticed, we have no problem with people going to that site, reading the article and then coming back to discuss. It's just not right, especially if the information is behind a pay wall.

Seth Stohs
08-22-2012, 02:32 PM
Anyplace with comments needs a policy. The only one here I question is #1, as it relates to people other than commenters/post authors. Obviously, there shouldn't be tolerance in those cases. But, a rival team? How does that work- we wouldn't be able to say "The White Sox are garbage"? I mean, I get that it's not intelligent conversation, but this is sports. So long as it isn't vulgar, I don't see the problem.

I don't foresee a world where we get too upset about something getting frustrated in a game thread and posting "Jeff Gray is garbage". Technically, it is against the rules. It's also a heat of the moment game thread written by a frustrated poster after Gray just gave himself whiplash watching a pitch go over the wall.

As with most things, keep it in reason. Everybody gets mad and posts stupid crap. It happens. But most posters filter those posts in between dozens of worthwhile posts that are much calmer and rational. We're all fans here. We understand the pain of watching Jeff Gray take the mound.

Although I would say that we could say that "Jeff Gray is pitching like crap... again!!" and that would be just fine... By all accounts, Gray is a tremendous person, a great teammate, and obviously a pretty good pitcher - in context - so to call him 'garbage' is just unnecessary.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 02:35 PM
Mauerzy, I'll just respond this way without quotes. It's easier.

3. We're not going to clamp down on misspellings or limited use of abbreviations. This rule will probably be used very rarely and only for spam-like posters whose entries generally consist of "lolz", "ur bad @ beisbol" and nonsense of that sort. It hasn't been a problem at all but we're throwing it in there for good measure.

4. Feel free to use as many links and quotes as your lil old heart desires.

5. If you're tired of a poster's ranting, feel free to PM a moderator/admin about it or attack the point he/she is trying to make. You can even mention that you're tired of hearing his/her tripe, just be sure to add significant content to your post beyond that short sentence. We're trying to cut down on comments such as "dumb post" or "read this already, lame". They have no place on the board.

6. We're sticking to something close to a prime time television rule. If it can't be said on network television, reconsider saying it. The same applies to photos and imagery.

7. Moderators and admins will be deciding what is appropriate or not. Generally, we're forgiving folk. Very few people will receive a ban of any kind without ample warning and if you feel the warning is unjust, all of us will deliberate over the "offense".

Ultima Ratio
08-22-2012, 02:37 PM
Yeah, I'm not necessarily against any of these rules (are they rules or guidelines?), I'm just disillusioned and disappointed that it's necessary (I guess?). Also, what is a juvenile comment? Please define with the connotation, not with a denotation (fark-monkey-robot i.e). I very much agree with (but as a guideline) not using text/shorthand. Students are already putting this into papers... it's bad (for society too).

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 02:37 PM
Anyplace with comments needs a policy. The only one here I question is #1, as it relates to people other than commenters/post authors. Obviously, there shouldn't be tolerance in those cases. But, a rival team? How does that work- we wouldn't be able to say "The White Sox are garbage"? I mean, I get that it's not intelligent conversation, but this is sports. So long as it isn't vulgar, I don't see the problem.

I don't foresee a world where we get too upset about something getting frustrated in a game thread and posting "Jeff Gray is garbage". Technically, it is against the rules. It's also a heat of the moment game thread written by a frustrated poster after Gray just gave himself whiplash watching a pitch go over the wall.

As with most things, keep it in reason. Everybody gets mad and posts stupid crap. It happens. But most posters filter those posts in between dozens of worthwhile posts that are much calmer and rational. We're all fans here. We understand the pain of watching Jeff Gray take the mound.

Although I would say that we could say that "Jeff Gray is pitching like crap... again!!" and that would be just fine... By all accounts, Gray is a tremendous person, a great teammate, and obviously a pretty good pitcher - in context - so to call him 'garbage' is just unnecessary.

Agreed, all attempts should be made to word it without insulting the player. I'm only mentioning that situation because people get riled up and post dumb crap all the time. I do it. Most others do it as well. As with everything else, we're going to approach this with a level head. I don't want posters to be concerned that they'll Get The Ban if they step out of line in the slightest bit. In most cases, a polite warning will be PMed to them before any banning action is taken.

Fire Dan Gladden
08-22-2012, 02:39 PM
Stating the obvious, but how about an automatic permanent ban for anybody posting spam?

Regarding #7, why are people under the delusion they have "rights" on this website. Admin can pretty much say and do whatever you want with the comments and who they allow to comment. Nobody is stopping you from calling Gardy stupid, just that the powers that be just don't want it on their website. If you can't live with that, go somewhere else.

Considering I have seen ESPN link to this site as recently as Monday, this type of control doesn't seem difficult to understand. Common sense and common courtesy folks. Pretty simple.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 02:41 PM
Stating the obvious, but how about an automatic permanent ban for anybody posting spam?

That has been the policy. We can throw it in there for good measure but I doubt spammers really care about forum rules.

rickyriolo
08-22-2012, 02:43 PM
First time poster, long time reader. Living in San Diego, I do not get a lot of Twins coverage. I love this site. Just wanted to say "thank you guys very much for the Twins Daily". Been a Twins fan since 1965 and i really appreciate all the hard work you guys put in to make this the best site for coverage of the Twins and their minor league teams. Please keep up the good work

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 02:44 PM
First time poster, long time reader. Living in San Diego, I do not get a lot of Twins coverage. I love this site. Just wanted to say "thank you guys very much for the Twins Daily". Been a Twins fan since 1965 and i really appreciate all the hard work you guys put in to make this the best site for coverage of the Twins and their minor league teams. Please keep up the good work

Thanks for reading and visiting! We're trying to fill a niche here (an undeveloped one, odd as that is) and I think we're well on our way to doing it.

Mauerzy4Prez
08-22-2012, 03:00 PM
Mauerzy, I'll just respond this way without quotes. It's easier.

3. We're not going to clamp down on misspellings or limited use of abbreviations. This rule will probably be used very rarely and only for spam-like posters whose entries generally consist of "lolz", "ur bad @ beisbol" and nonsense of that sort. It hasn't been a problem at all but we're throwing it in there for good measure.

4. Feel free to use as many links and quotes as your lil old heart desires.

5. If you're tired of a poster's ranting, feel free to PM a moderator/admin about it or attack the point he/she is trying to make. You can even mention that you're tired of hearing his/her tripe, just be sure to add significant content to your post beyond that short sentence. We're trying to cut down on comments such as "dumb post" or "read this already, lame". They have no place on the board.

6. We're sticking to something close to a prime time television rule. If it can't be said on network television, reconsider saying it. The same applies to photos and imagery.

7. Moderators and admins will be deciding what is appropriate or not. Generally, we're forgiving folk. Very few people will receive a ban of any kind without ample warning and if you feel the warning is unjust, all of us will deliberate over the "offense".


Thanks for the response and all the hard work. I think 99.99% of the people here should have no problem living by these rules. For those who can't, as many have already said, they can go rant somewhere else.

I have been an avid Twins fan my entire life, however only until the last few years have I begun to really dig in to the inter workings of the organization. This website have helped me do so tremendously, and I have to say you are all doing a great job building on the Twins fan base. Please keep up the good work, you are doing something nobody else on the web is doing (for the Twins that is...)

Willihammer
08-22-2012, 03:14 PM
I object to #1 in order to protect the ability to post stark raving drunken comments at 1 a.m, forget that you ever did it over night, and then wake up the next morning to find an entire string of angry ad hominem type replies from people who you really got going. For me, those replies make the hangover severely more beawrable.

mike wants wins
08-22-2012, 03:25 PM
I am glad to see these. Seem to be a lot of personal attacks lately, that adding nothing to the conversation. While it isn't a policy, why do people go into threads, read them, then say they are stupid threads? Clearly, at least one person wants to have that conversation, if you don't, don't comment or read it. Pretty simple really.

While I am probably considered negative by some, and I can be at times admittedly, at least I try to back up comments with facts, and try very, very hard not to attack people. Hopefully we can all tolerate those that don't agree with us all the time. It's that disagreement that actually leads to new ideas, and progress.

John Bonnes
08-22-2012, 03:32 PM
Regarding #4, we encourage linking to other sites with articles regarding the Twins. If you copy one sentence out of there to help illustrate your point, that's OK. There are copyright issues that could come in to play. And, secondly, we are a blogger/writer community. IF someone writes something really good and you feel it should be noticed, we have no problem with people going to that site, reading the article and then coming back to discuss. It's just not right, especially if the information is behind a pay wall.

I don't think we have a problem with someone copying a paragraph to illustrate a point from the story, or summarizing an article. We just don't want someone going out an lifting a full (or most of a full) story and republishing it here. We want people to respect our intellectual property. We should respect theirs.

roger
08-22-2012, 03:36 PM
Thank you John!

I think one addition is needed to Rule #1. Please add 'front office' to the list of teams, players, agents, etc.

In regards to that, I recall reading many very negative comments about Mr. Ryan or the FO in the past week regarding what should be done about Nick Blackburn and Tsuyoshi Nishioka. When Mr. Ryan did what some of us wanted and few expected, I have been returning to this site expecting to see several of those posters leave comments that they were wrong. I am still looking for those admissions or apologies.

drivlikejehu
08-22-2012, 03:47 PM
Anyplace with comments needs a policy. The only one here I question is #1, as it relates to people other than commenters/post authors. Obviously, there shouldn't be tolerance in those cases. But, a rival team? How does that work- we wouldn't be able to say "The White Sox are garbage"? I mean, I get that it's not intelligent conversation, but this is sports. So long as it isn't vulgar, I don't see the problem.

I don't foresee a world where we get too upset about something getting frustrated in a game thread and posting "Jeff Gray is garbage". Technically, it is against the rules. It's also a heat of the moment game thread written by a frustrated poster after Gray just gave himself whiplash watching a pitch go over the wall.

As with most things, keep it in reason. Everybody gets mad and posts stupid crap. It happens. But most posters filter those posts in between dozens of worthwhile posts that are much calmer and rational. We're all fans here. We understand the pain of watching Jeff Gray take the mound.

Although I would say that we could say that "Jeff Gray is pitching like crap... again!!" and that would be just fine... By all accounts, Gray is a tremendous person, a great teammate, and obviously a pretty good pitcher - in context - so to call him 'garbage' is just unnecessary.

That's fine, but what about, I dunno, Scott Boras? Should it really be an offense to insult him, sans foul language? It's not *necessary* of course, but that just seems like an overly broad restriction that wouldn't actually be enforced. In which case it's really just the same as "stuff we don't like." Which is fine except there could be cases of actual misunderstandings (as opposed to known violations that are objected to after sanctions).

John Bonnes
08-22-2012, 03:49 PM
Thank you John!

I think one addition is needed to Rule #1. Please add 'front office' to the list of teams, players, agents, etc.

In regards to that, I recall reading many very negative comments about Mr. Ryan or the FO in the past week regarding what should be done about Nick Blackburn and Tsuyoshi Nishioka. When Mr. Ryan did what some of us wanted and few expected, I have been returning to this site expecting to see several of those posters leave comments that they were wrong. I am still looking for those admissions or apologies.

Just so we're clear, this policy does NOT mean that we can't be critical of Ryan or of moves he makes or doesn't make. It just can't be a personal attack.

John Bonnes
08-22-2012, 03:54 PM
That's fine, but what about, I dunno, Scott Boras? Should it really be an offense to insult him, sans foul language? It's not *necessary* of course, but that just seems like an overly broad restriction that wouldn't actually be enforced. In which case it's really just the same as "stuff we don't like." Which is fine except there could be cases of actual misunderstandings (as opposed to known violations that are objected to after sanctions).

Yep, Boras is included too. Obviosly, we'll need to be even-handed. If the point was that Boras screwed up big time with Mark Appel, that's legitimate. If the post is "Boras is a greedy SOB" that might be deleted and maybe earn a warning.

BeefMaster
08-22-2012, 04:33 PM
Not a big fan of the "no personal attacks" rule, just because it seems unnecessarily restrictive. Yeah, I get that "Jeff Gray is pitching poorly, as evidenced by his horrible xFIP" is much nicer to say than "Jeff Gray is a pile of horse excrement (because I can't say the s-word)", but there's some element of passion that comes with being a sports fan, and I think there should be some level of discretion there. In my internet forum experience, I think personal attacks on fellow posters are a far greater concern than personal attacks on public figures - while the latter certainly don't reflect well on the community, they're also generally nothing more than harmless venting in most cases. It's not a strong objection to the rule, but I think it's also something that seems a bit restrictive if it's enforced in a black and white manner.

Ultimately, I think the last rule is the only truly necessary one - if there's something you guys think is inappropriate, for whatever reason, then do what you need to do. I'm not a terribly frequent visitor here, but I think I can speak for plenty of Twins' blogosphere consumers when I say that we trust you guys to make good decisions, regardless of formal policy.

drivlikejehu
08-22-2012, 04:41 PM
That's fine, but what about, I dunno, Scott Boras? Should it really be an offense to insult him, sans foul language? It's not *necessary* of course, but that just seems like an overly broad restriction that wouldn't actually be enforced. In which case it's really just the same as "stuff we don't like." Which is fine except there could be cases of actual misunderstandings (as opposed to known violations that are objected to after sanctions).

Yep, Boras is included too. Obviosly, we'll need to be even-handed. If the point was that Boras screwed up big time with Mark Appel, that's legitimate. If the post is "Boras is a greedy SOB" that might be deleted and maybe earn a warning.

Why do you need to be even-handed? Say, for instance, a player on another team made negative comments about the Twins. By this logic, the comments policy towards him should be identical as that with respect to Joe Mauer. That doesn't make any sense. You have no legal or ethical duty to be "even-handed." It's different with a site that isn't tied to any particular team. Then there would be an issue of favoritism. In this case, there is supposed to be favoritism.

I think you borrowed rules without really considering important differences between who consumes/comments.

Thrylos
08-22-2012, 05:03 PM
Regarding #4, we encourage linking to other sites with articles regarding the Twins. If you copy one sentence out of there to help illustrate your point, that's OK. There are copyright issues that could come in to play. And, secondly, we are a blogger/writer community. IF someone writes something really good and you feel it should be noticed, we have no problem with people going to that site, reading the article and then coming back to discuss. It's just not right, especially if the information is behind a pay wall.

I think that the original question was about what some of us do... repost content on the blog area here, which we own the copyright and have preciously posted on our own sites. I don't think that you all would have an issue with that because there are no copyright violations :)

Same way Twinscentic re-posts articles between here and the Strib.

roger
08-22-2012, 05:22 PM
Thank you John!

I think one addition is needed to Rule #1. Please add 'front office' to the list of teams, players, agents, etc.

In regards to that, I recall reading many very negative comments about Mr. Ryan or the FO in the past week regarding what should be done about Nick Blackburn and Tsuyoshi Nishioka. When Mr. Ryan did what some of us wanted and few expected, I have been returning to this site expecting to see several of those posters leave comments that they were wrong. I am still looking for those admissions or apologies.

Just so we're clear, this policy does NOT mean that we can't be critical of Ryan or of moves he makes or doesn't make. It just can't be a personal attack.

Granted, but if you are going to have a policy against everyone in the game, why exclude front office personnell? Being critical is one thing, but the negative comments about them and certain people constantly saying they should be fired etc. get old very quickly.

JB_Iowa
08-22-2012, 05:37 PM
Overall, I don't have a problem with the rules although like several have mentioned above, the real question is in enforcement and I hope that we have opportunities to revisit the policy should we find the enforcement to be more restrictive than we anticipated.

I'm a little puzzled by the difference between what Brock says about avatars: We're sticking to something close to a prime time television rule. If it can't be said on network television, reconsider saying it. And how what he said in that statement relates to rule #2 on swearing. It seems to me that there is a lot that is said on prime time television that can be construed as a violation of rule #2.

One last thing about posters who are repeatedly negative. It is JUST as annoying to read posters who are unerringly positive -- especially when they don't state a factual basis for their position.

JB_Iowa
08-22-2012, 05:42 PM
One last thing, it is my strong personal desire that the administrators will use the private messaging system to debate appropriateness with a particular poster rather than some of the back-and-forth that we've seen. I hope that posters will also honor resolving any issues in a more private manner.

Brock Beauchamp
08-22-2012, 05:48 PM
I'm a little puzzled by the difference between what Brock says about avatars: We're sticking to something close to a prime time television rule. If it can't be said on network television, reconsider saying it. And how what he said in that statement relates to rule #2 on swearing. It seems to me that there is a lot that is said on prime time television that can be construed as a violation of rule #2.

Well, it all depends on what you consider a "swear word". In most cases, we're sticking to what is found on television and using that as a guide. We figure that if you can flip on Parks & Rec and hear a word, then you can't really come back to TD and bitch about seeing it there.

JB_Iowa
08-22-2012, 06:05 PM
Well, it all depends on what you consider a "swear word". In most cases, we're sticking to what is found on television and using that as a guide. We figure that if you can flip on Parks & Rec and hear a word, then you can't really come back to TD and bitch about seeing it there.

Thank you for the clarification. I feel much more comfortable with that.

one_eyed_jack
08-22-2012, 06:31 PM
I'm good with these rules assuming they are enforced reasonably, which I am confident they will be.

Sure, a good chunk of comments on this site could be found in violation if one were inclined to enforce every one of these rules to the letter.

But they've never operated that way here, and I seriously doubt they're go to start operating that way.

deanlambrecht
08-22-2012, 06:36 PM
I'll give a general thumbs up and address the free speech argument. There is no constitutionally protected free speech right recognized here (or in any place like it). There is no right to free speech on a forum that you don't personally own. I appreciate your advocacy of it, John, and I would do the same. However, this isn't a "free place" in any sense of the term. It's a private website.

I only say this because I've seen, on other forums, people jump all over this to criticize and make wild claims about a right to free speech on someone else's website. They're wrong. Just like if you walk into my house and start saying things I don't want you to say, I can stop you from saying it by warning you, and eventually throwing you out if you don't stop. Same rules apply to a private website on the internets.

USAFChief
08-22-2012, 06:43 PM
It's you guys' website, you can obviously do as you wish.

But, since you asked for input...I don't have a real problem with any of this, but were I you, I'd be careful about becoming so straight-laced, so PC, so vanilla, that you start driving away as many fans as you attract.

This is a website about a sports team. Passions run deep, as they should. Be careful you don't damp out the reason people come here in the first place.

And, BTW, thanks again to all five of you for all the work you put into this.

JB_Iowa
08-22-2012, 07:14 PM
To follow up on what Chief said, just remember:

Independent. In-depth. Irreverent. Individuals.


Thanks for providing the site.

SpiritofVodkaDave
08-23-2012, 12:00 AM
The guidelines are solid, but you guys shouldn't try to rule with an iron fist. Handing out bans/deleting posts isn't the best way to moderate a solid forum.

Anyone who steps over the line should be banned, but anything borderline should prob be taken with a grain of salt until it becomes a huge distraction/issue.

Honestly I think 99.9% of the posts and posters thus far have been fine, and there is only one or two worthless posters who eventually will be banned/grow tired anyways.

Brock Beauchamp
08-23-2012, 06:18 AM
And that's how we feel about it, Dave. The community has been great and barring a few exceptions, hasn't done anything close to ban-worthy. Personally, I don't expect even that to continue... As people adjust, I expect to see bans drop to almost zero. Most people aren't interested in trolling and once we sort out a few bad seeds, things should hum along just fine. If the forum is going strong and we're not getting complaints, we certainly won't go out of our way to ban people for minor infractions (none of us like banning people in the first place).

Jeff P
08-23-2012, 09:07 AM
I'll give a general thumbs up and address the free speech argument. There is no constitutionally protected free speech right recognized here (or in any place like it). There is no right to free speech on a forum that you don't personally own. I appreciate your advocacy of it, John, and I would do the same. However, this isn't a "free place" in any sense of the term. It's a private website.

I only say this because I've seen, on other forums, people jump all over this to criticize and make wild claims about a right to free speech on someone else's website. They're wrong. Just like if you walk into my house and start saying things I don't want you to say, I can stop you from saying it by warning you, and eventually throwing you out if you don't stop. Same rules apply to a private website on the internets.

Yea there are some that seem to believe that their constitutional rights have been violated which of course incorrect. However others are really just saying: this is America! Stop being a wimp! And on that latter point, I have seen moderators enjoy using their power instead of letting people debate.

I think the rules posted are fine in theory, we will see how they play out in real life. I give you credit for posting and asking for feedback and believe that a posting of the rules is appropriate if you are going to be deleting posts; hopefully in practice a free exchange of opinions will be encouraged and the powers that be will err on the side of free speech and not censorship.

It's weird because I should like these rules more than I do. We have all seen posts that are just attacks or dismiss the worthiness of debating a topic. The negativity can feed on itself and be a disincentive to post of even visit the site. So I get it: rules are needed.

Jeff

ofx1
08-23-2012, 05:48 PM
And that's how we feel about it, Dave. The community has been great and barring a few exceptions, hasn't done anything close to ban-worthy. Personally, I don't expect even that to continue... As people adjust, I expect to see bans drop to almost zero. Most people aren't interested in trolling and once we sort out a few bad seeds, things should hum along just fine. If the forum is going strong and we're not getting complaints, we certainly won't go out of our way to ban people for minor infractions (none of us like banning people in the first place).

you **** stupid ***** ****face

Brock Beauchamp
08-23-2012, 05:51 PM
you **** stupid ***** ****face

I will bounce you out of here faster than a Frogtown "lady" at church on Easter if you keep it up, mister.

ofx1
08-23-2012, 05:55 PM
you **** stupid ***** ****face

I will bounce you out of here faster than a Frogtown "lady" at church on Easter if you keep it up, mister.

Your quote, I'm still trying to figure out what it means... :)

Brock Beauchamp
08-23-2012, 05:58 PM
Your quote, I'm still trying to figure out what it means... :)

Drink more. That always helps me think.

ofx1
08-24-2012, 05:37 PM
Your quote, I'm still trying to figure out what it means... :)

Drink more. That always helps me think.

No drinks, but I'm on moderation now. What did I say that violated the new 725 posting rules? I admit to not reading them.

Brock Beauchamp
08-24-2012, 05:40 PM
No drinks, but I'm on moderation now. What did I say that violated the new 725 posting rules? I admit to not reading them.

If we ever moderate you for anything, just consider it a pre-emptive strike.

ofx1
08-24-2012, 05:45 PM
No drinks, but I'm on moderation now. What did I say that violated the new 725 posting rules? I admit to not reading them.

If we ever moderate you for anything, just consider it a pre-emptive strike.

You already did, I was just trying to figure out why. That said, I've already spent too much of my weekend wondering why - it is what it is, I guess.

powrwrap
08-25-2012, 12:30 PM
I'm on board with these rules, esp. #2.

You might want to consider a rule about not allowing discussing what goes on at other forums on Twins Daily Forums. Example: "Did you see the flamewar between Mike and Dave over at MajorLeagueTwits?" and then there may or may not be a link to that material. I assume you don't want Twins Daily to be a source for more eyeballs to see a flame war or other futile discussions at other sites.

iastfan112
08-29-2012, 02:20 PM
It's you guys' website, you can obviously do as you wish.

But, since you asked for input...I don't have a real problem with any of this, but were I you, I'd be careful about becoming so straight-laced, so PC, so vanilla, that you start driving away as many fans as you attract.

This is a website about a sports team. Passions run deep, as they should. Be careful you don't damp out the reason people come here in the first place.

And, BTW, thanks again to all five of you for all the work you put into this.

Big fan of what Chief said here, its why I'm not a fan of rule #1. This is part of the site is a forum not a blog and not every post needs to be meaningful and constructive imo. Everything else seems pretty reasonable.

Twins Twerp
08-29-2012, 03:18 PM
"PLAGERISM, if you use someone else's work, quote them. If you are found to be plagerizing, you will sent to the principal and your reply will be thrown away" (Ryan, 74).

Ultima Ratio
08-29-2012, 03:21 PM
"PLAGERISM, if you use someone else's work, quote them. If you are found to be plagerizing, you will sent to the principal and your reply will be thrown away" (Ryan, 74).

Insufficient citation. You need a footnote, endnote or works cited to accurately reference and attribute your quote. Parenthetical in-text citations won't do.

crarko
09-03-2012, 06:12 PM
Is this proposal near adoption, or do you anticipate a round (or so) of revision?

Thanks.

ashburyjohn
09-03-2012, 07:20 PM
I can try to cut down on the swear words but it won't be easy.