Double Standard

[Lobot]

Just for the record. I was very heavy handed when I started doing this because I was taking my cues from how Keith was handling things. At the time, that needed to be done. Now that off season is here, I've lightened up and allowed some threads to run that I might not have a few months ago.

Keep in mind we have some problem posters. Most of the frequent readers and posters know who they are. Yes we are taking names. No just because you've been here forever doesn't make you immune to discipline although we tend to give a little slack to those who have been here since "the beginning" (whatever that means)

The easiest way to keep yourself out of trouble is not to bait other users, do not insult other users, do not swear (seriously, don't) , etc. It's all covered in the rules.

Be nice to each other. Agree to disagree. Every discussion does not need to have a winner. Every member war is an invite to ban both parties.

There will be permanent bans on the horizon.

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

No comment on the content of your post but Mike Ryan has a new job that keeps him busy 110% of the time.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.