Double Standard

[jeffto]

Can you cite some examples where you believe that did not happen? That would help us carry out what you're asking for.

No I don't have examples. It's not that important.

It's obvious that the mods and admins attitude towards posters is that they're children who need to be watched over with an eagle eye. God forbid the children hurt each other!!

[jkwuc89]

I have said this before and I will say it again. If you do not like how things are managed here, you are free to go elsewhere. If you choose to stay, we expect you to act as a you would expect a guest in your house to act.

[jeffto]

I have said this before and I will say it again. If you do not like how things are managed here, you are free to go elsewhere. If you choose to stay, we expect you to act as a you would expect a guest in your house to act.

In my house I treat my guests with respect and as equals, free to express their opinions without censorship, and say them as passionately and loudly as they choose.

Of course, I'm not delicate and I don't have to worry about thin skin.

[CincyBeerCo]

In my house I treat my guests with respect and as equals, free to express their opinions without censorship, and say them as passionately and loudly as they choose.

Of course, I'm not delicate and I don't have to worry about thin skin.

Maybe a better way to look at is if we are ALL guests in somebody ELSE'S house...for a holiday party let's say The conversations may stay more civil and respectful....after all, nobody would want everyone else at the party to think they were childish or immature.

(point directed solely at the issue, not your quote jeffto, just quoted you to keep my comment in the same line of thought)

[jkwuc89]

If you choose to stay, we expect you to act as a you would expect a guest in your house to act.

Let me rephrase. We expect our members to act as though they are guests in someone else's house. Example: while yelling, swearing and calling others' opinions stupid may be OK in your house, don't assume that it's OK here.

[jeffto]

Example: while yelling, swearing and calling others' opinions stupid may be OK in your house, don't assume that it's OK here.

Policing of such acts is expected and appreciated. Censorship of topics is a whole different issue.

Mike really is a smart guy. I miss him.

[catscratchfever]

Let me rephrase. We expect our members to act as though they are guests in someone else's house. Example: while yelling, swearing and calling others' opinions stupid may be OK in your house, don't assume that it's OK here.

Keith, anytime we post a message asking that the 4 or 5 troublemakers that are responsible for 95% of the issues be banned, the moderators always point out that they do not have the authority to ban them. Since they point to you and your counterpart as the authority who can make this happen, I would like to ask you the same question....if the majority of thread hi-jacking and arguing is the direct result of a small minority, why are they allowed to continue posting? Rather than have moderators spend so much time policing and deleting, why not get rid of those who continually bait and argue?

Just curious....

[ME80]

It's become quite obvious to me that Mike is the brains and the conscience behind this effort. With him unable to devote time to it, it's devolved into a shadow of it's former self.

Perhaps if the mods and admins want members to treat each other with respect a good starting point would be for the mods and admins to treat members with respect.

C'mon Jeffto, are you saying these same endless arguments happen because the mods started closing threads? I guarantee you if some of these threads weren't closed there would be very few people even wanting to come on here and read this forum much less contribute to it.

[jkwuc89]

Keith, anytime we post a message asking that the 4 or 5 troublemakers that are responsible for 95% of the issues be banned, the moderators always point out that they do not have the authority to ban them. Since they point to you and your counterpart as the authority who can make this happen, I would like to ask you the same question....if the majority of thread hi-jacking and arguing is the direct result of a small minority, why are they allowed to continue posting? Rather than have moderators spend so much time policing and deleting, why not get rid of those who continually bait and argue?

Just curious....

Please note that an effort is underway to track which members are creating the most deleted content. Those statistics will be used to do some pruning of the membership roster.

[jeffto]

C'mon Jeffto, are you saying these same endless arguments happen because the mods started closing threads? I guarantee you if some of these threads weren't closed there would be very few people even wanting to come on here and read this forum much less contribute to it.

You're probably right...................

[jkwuc89]

Policing of such acts is expected and appreciated. Censorship of topics is a whole different issue.

Mike really is a smart guy. I miss him.

All of admins/owners of this site are in complete, 100% agreement about the moderation actions that are being taken.

[jeffto]

All of admins/owners of this site are in complete, 100% agreement about the moderation actions that are being taken.

But somehow Mike was able to maintain control without pissing off a large number of members.

[jeffto]

Double Standard

I start an informative thread that would increase the knowledge of members and probably would not lead to arguments invoking Bob Huggins. It has relevance to UC recruiting but it is promptly closed because "it doesn't pertain to UC."

On the other hand a thread about the NCAA tourney stays open for weeks. Just what is it's relevance to UC?

This is the kind of double standard that pisses people off.

[catscratchfever]

I start an informative thread that would increase the knowledge of members and probably would not lead to arguments invoking Bob Huggins. It has relevance to UC recruiting but it is promptly closed because "it doesn't pertain to UC."

On the other hand a thread about the NCAA tourney stays open for weeks. Just what is it's relevance to UC?

This is the kind of double standard that pisses people off.

I agree with this completely.
This is getting ridiculous...just because it doesn't specifically mention the words UC, Mick Cronin, or Bearcats, doesn't mean that there isn't relevance.
When you go to other sites, it is not uncommon to find someone commenting on something that has no relevance at all to the team whose fans the board is designed around.
I know..I know..if we don't like the rules we are free to go elsewhere.

[gocats45]

I would like to say that I am happy with your recent moderation of some of the basketball threads. They have not been over-moderated, but they stay somewhat in line. The Seth Curry thread is a great example. We really didn't have a shot for him, but the thread was allowed to run it's course. Lobot was there to get the thread back in hand at times, and the thread was re-opened when it was requested.

I was one that previously made my opinion known about my perception of drastic over-moderation. It's good to see that some are lightening up, even with the string of stupid John Reik threads in the past days and weeks.