1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thanks for the New Rules

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Bogy, Nov 5, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nov 5, 2004 #1 of 84
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I want to express my appreciation for the new rules. I know that I myself have probably crossed a line or two, but I have tried to not make it personal. I had hoped that things would die down by now, but it doesn't seem to be happening. I was thinking of just staying away for a while to see if things would cool down, but I am now hoping this will help. Thanks again. And if you are reading this, and have not yet read the new rules, do so.
     
  2. Nov 5, 2004 #2 of 84
    Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    964
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    I completely agree. I have stayed away, for the most part, because of the endless bashing. If you can't agree to disagree, go somewhere else.
     
  3. Nov 5, 2004 #3 of 84
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sounds good to me. I have tried not to make attacks personal but I think we have all crossed a line a time or two. I know that several (myself included) have contemplated abandoning the forum because of that but maybe this is just what the doctor orderd.

    Here is hoping that it gets better.
     
  4. Nov 5, 2004 #4 of 84
    SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    I too appreciate the new rules. I am hoping that this will end Geronimo's constant barrage of personal attacks on me. LOL, just joking Chief :D

    In all seriousness, they are good and fair rules, and I hope that everybody reads and adhears to them.
     
  5. Nov 5, 2004 #5 of 84
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,866
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Well stated, Mark. I concur.
     
  6. Nov 5, 2004 #6 of 84
    JBKing

    JBKing Hall Of Fame

    1,332
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    D'oh! No fine print exceptions pertaining to Steveox?

    Just kidding! ;)

    Seriously, glad to see the rules modified. Thanks Chris, Mark, and company.
     
  7. Nov 5, 2004 #7 of 84
    firephoto

    firephoto Icon

    863
    0
    Sep 12, 2002
    Hmm, I just read over the new rules since this is the first time I've peaked in here since the post election hours. I unsubscribed from most of the hot threads since I saw so no point in reading I told you so's with weak evidence included all day. ;) I understand people and there passion for certain issues but how far they will go to support a view is just plain nuts sometimes. I suspect the majority opinion that is expressed here is mostly due to it being the first one that got anchored in place and that kept a lot of other views from being brought up except by a few of course. I know that myself I was never really on one side or the other but in the rare appearance I made usually base things off the best "facts" I could find rather than what I believed in. Politics is politics and honesty I see no use for it in a modern gov't. There's just too many people making yes or no decisions base solely on a name that is attached to the issue or person. That's a sad state of affairs when your country and gov't has come to that sort of a thing in a modern society and it's extent goes all the way to the far corners of the internet where a small group of people talk about television and satellite dishes.

    So in closing (since this went on way longer than it probably should have), I thank the staff for some rules that will bring peace and unity amongst all members and staff in the forum here. :)
     
  8. Nov 5, 2004 #8 of 84
    Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Hey if the Mets and Red Sox ever wind up in the World Series again I will attack you plenty buddy! Odds are the mods are not wasting too much sleep worrying about that possibility.
     
  9. Nov 6, 2004 #9 of 84
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Rules? You want RULES?

    We don't need no stinkin' rules!;):D

    Frankly, I hadn't noticed any particular escalation of vitriol beyond a little heated sore loser/winner rhetoric. Perhaps it's in threads I'm not monitoring. I thought the Happy/Paladin suspension had worked quite fairly and effectively. And Happy's fairly well moderated return seems to prove that.

    That said, I see no reason I can't live within the new parameters. I just hope we don't get obsessed with "new rules" to the detriment of the lively free expression and discussion I so enjoy here. Hopefully the "crying wolf" clause will keep anyone from having too thin a skin.
     
  10. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Interesting rules, as long as they are equally applied. Will they be?
     
  11. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,866
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    :rolleyes:

    No, they will only be applied to those who violate the rules, including chronic whiners.
     
  12. sikma

    sikma Godfather

    471
    0
    Dec 11, 2003
    :up:
     
  13. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Maybe they should be applied to chronic trollers and baiters.
     
  14. missileman

    missileman Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    410
    0
    May 28, 2004
    Trollers and baiters are only as effective as others allow them to be.
     
  15. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Public humiliation, my favorite!

    Which is why I have always be a proponant of public floggings.
     
  16. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    how about whining about our Dish receivers and those Charlie Chats??? :D (just kidding - actually my receiver has worked flawlessly for over 6 months, a record I think)
     
  17. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Rationalization. Under the new rules, which I do support, a baiter can keep on trolling, just inside the envelope, until the victim explodes. AFAIAC, having been subject to the activity myself any number of times, that activity needs to be curtailed, just as a driver can be arrested for road rage for inciting another driver. You need to take responsibility for your actions. Even you missileman. I can see why you would be one who would not want that action to be enforced, almost as much as Nick, our premier baiter. I think Nick should be suspended automatically along with any person who responds to his baiting.
     
  18. SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004

    If this happens, I hope the Mets can convince Bill Buckner to throw out the first pitch for Game Six :D
     
  19. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I personnaly enjoy the use of invective in debate. Sometimes it can be pretty funny. Political correctness is never good for debate. Not to mention, these types of rules can be extremly arbitrary, and subject to abuse. A good example is the thread where Chris was warned. Others in that same thread were talking about shooting Ashcroft, Senators, and various other government officials. However, it was Chris who was "warned" because he objected to the talk of assasination and asked if people would find the same discussion as amusing if the subject was homosexuals instead of politicians. Chris brought up a legitamite point, but the group he brought up in his contrasting example was essentially a societal "sacred cow", and he was punished for his trouble. This is the danger of political correctness. You may disagree with me, but political correctness leads to nothing but mischief and bullying.
     
  20. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    I generally agree with your sentiment Tyralak and think you bring forward some good points.

    But I think you are misinterpreting the results. Chris wasn't warned because it was a "sacred cow" as you state. Rather I believe it was interpreted that Chris' statement as specifically targetting the group that HGL belonged to and ment to be inflammatory.

    He could just as easily have said something about rounding up a different group, such as children, that most folks would be disgusted at even the thought of shooting. But instead he stated HGL's group.

    That said, my own personal opinion is that the comment wasn't ment as an insult that merited invoking the rule. It was rather ment as a blatant example that would be personally targetted to HGL so that Chris' point was obvious. While personalized, I don't think it was an attack. I think its clear in the context that Chris didn't mean the action literally.

    But that said, the board has the right to police itself as it wishes. All of us users must remember that it is the owners board, and we are here at their good graces.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page