Proposed Twins Daily Comment Policy - Feedback Desired

[John Bonnes]

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]

 

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]

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]

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

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]

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]

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.

[Guest USAFChief]

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]

To follow up on what Chief said, just remember:

Independent. In-depth. Irreverent. Individuals.

 

 

Thanks for providing the site.

[DaveW]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

Drink more. That always helps me think.

[ofx1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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.

[Craig Arko]

Is this proposal near adoption, or do you anticipate a round (or so) of revision?

 

Thanks.

[ashbury]

I can try to cut down on the swear words but it won't be easy.