What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE SUSPENDED! (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve been banned twice in the last few months for the following comments:
You aren't being picked on, but when your only perspective is your own, it is easy to sometimes feel that way.  I generally have no idea who gets suspended with the exception being when it's me.  I just got 8 days for what I thought was a lighthearted joke in the MAGA thread when someone asked if there was an echo and I said "This is the echo chamber thread".  While I don't really agree with the decision, I will use it as a learning experience.  I've since hidden a few posts that shortly after posting have questioned whether they are straddling the line.

 
I've also recently received a light suspension for what I thought was a fairly innocuous joke.  It's their board and things are chippy right now. While I agree that suspensions are coming a bit quick right now, I don't believe that any one person or group is being picked on.

 
I've also recently received a light suspension for what I thought was a fairly innocuous joke.  It's their board and things are chippy right now. While I agree that suspensions are coming a bit quick right now, I don't believe that any one person or group is being picked on.
Chaos causing clowns are likely always in the crosshairs....

 
The philosophers Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke have proposed the useful phrase moral grandstanding to describe what happens when people use moral talk to enhance their prestige in a public forum. Like a succession of orators speaking to a skeptical audience, each person strives to outdo previous speakers, leading to some common patterns. Grandstanders tend to “trump up moral charges, pile on in cases of public shaming, announce that anyone who disagrees with them is obviously wrong, or exaggerate emotional displays.” Nuance and truth are casualties in this competition to gain the approval of the audience. Grandstanders scrutinize every word spoken by their opponents—and sometimes even their friends—for the potential to evoke public outrage. Context collapses. The speaker’s intent is ignored.

Human beings evolved to gossip, preen, manipulate, and ostracize. We are easily lured into this new gladiatorial circus, even when we know that it can make us cruel and shallow. As the Yale psychologist Molly Crockett has argued, the normal forces that might stop us from joining an outrage mob—such as time to reflect and cool off, or feelings of empathy for a person being humiliated—are attenuated when we can’t see the person’s face, and when we are asked, many times a day, to take a side by publicly “liking” the condemnation.

In other words, social media turns many of our most politically engaged citizens into Madison’s nightmare: arsonists who compete to create the most inflammatory posts and images, which they can distribute across the country in an instant while their public sociometer displays how far their creations have traveled.
Super interesting. 

 
Going to highlight an episode of good posting by multiple posters in the Impeachment poll thread. @FF Ninja in particular responding well to another poster sending some snark his way (“I know its fun...”) and the two of them and others ending up having a good discussion with helpful links.

 
I didn’t want to answer this in thread take it off track and I can’t speak for Joe, but I would recommend ignoring it like you would a ranting person at a bar. 
I thought that was in this thread -- I'll delete it there.

The problem with what you've suggested (and I say this with an ignore list of 150+) is that it puts the onus on others rather than the person who continues to post untruths.

 
I didn’t want to answer this in thread take it off track and I can’t speak for Joe, but I would recommend ignoring it like you would a ranting person at a bar. 
@Dinsy Ejotuz - That or clearly refute if you feel clarification is needed, utilizing a source/link and doing your best to not get into a ###-for-tat rabbit hole. which I know is all to easy to do.

and, clear dem pms.

 
I thought that was in this thread -- I'll delete it there.

The problem with what you've suggested (and I say this with an ignore list of 150+) is that it puts the onus on others rather than the person who continues to post untruths.
Indeed. I think the onus is on people on the board now to simply stop believing things posted by people who post untrue things. And to stop the constant bickering with them. 

 
In another thread, I wrote:

If somebody posts something that is new info to you and you're unsure of the basis for it, go ahead and ask for a link.

If somebody posts something that you have good reason to believe is wrong, you don't have to do the Socratic irony thing by asking questions. Pull the ball out from hiding and state your reason for thinking it's wrong.

I want to add that if you do ask somebody to support their contention or clarify their opinion, it should be because you are genuinely interested in their thoughts because you respect their opinion.

If you do not respect their opinion or if you suspect that they are trolling, DO NOT ask them to please make some more posts because we just can't get enough of them. In that case, you should want them to post less, not more, so it's better to ignore them.

 
Behind the scenes, the FBG staff has discussed possibly shutting down the PSF forum for good, possibly shutting it down for a week or a month, possibly just asking people to play nicely and see if it sticks this time, possibly doing some other things.

Nothing has been decided yet. Joe has other things to do today. Before any official decision is made, I am going to set a new policy on a trial basis to see how it works out.

I'm not going to pin this thread initially because I think people often skip over the section for pinned threads. I'll pin it once it slides to page two.

Here are the rules:

1. If you want to discuss the moderation publicly, do it in the moderation thread. If you do it in a thread about infrastructure, you'll be banned for a week.

2. If you want to offer other posters tips on how they should or shouldn't be posting in this subforum, do it in the saving the PSF thread. If you do it in a thread about occupational licensing reform, you will be suspended for a week.

3. You may also use this thread to discuss moderation or good or bad posting habits.

4. You will be suspended for telling other posters "Don't" or anything similar. (PM them if you are sincerely trying to be helpful.)

5. You will be suspended for telling other posters that their posts are what's wrong with this forum.

6. You will be suspended for saying that somebody else started it.

7. You will be suspended for reminding others about these rules. (Again, send a PM if you are sincerely trying to help.)

8. You will also be suspended for doing all the normal suspension-worthy things like name-calling, etc.

9. You will be suspended.

10. It will no doubt be very unfair.

11. Moderators are exempt from these rules (except no. 8).

What to do if you're suspended:

Take a week off. Go for a walk. Read a book. Start a journal. I understand that gardening can be quite pleasant.

It's not the end of the world if you're suspended. Think of it as us shutting down the forum for a week to see how things go, except that we're shutting it down one poster at a time on a rolling basis instead of doing everybody en masse all at once.

What not to do if you're suspended:

Don't make or use an alias account. Don't come back and complain about your suspension in threads not designated for that topic. Don't urge that a dozen other people should also be suspended because what they did was worse, or because they started it.
Wait. It’s been a long time since I posted here. 

I thought i was was the only trouble maker that hadn’t been permanently banned. 

I mock the things this world holds reverent but don’t cross the line and still gets called a white nationalist. 

You up know what that could do for a career outside the altright grifter podcast circle?

anyway I digress. You’re thinking of banning politics?

This is a good forum. Politics is a big part of it. I understand the need to separate business from the undesirables like myself but who is Tim going to call mean names to?  The newbs in the shark pool?

Seperation from the free for all was bad enough please don’t make me and Tim have to create a political refugees from footballguys forum. 

 
Wait. It’s been a long time since I posted here. 

I thought i was was the only trouble maker that hadn’t been permanently banned. 

I mock the things this world holds reverent but don’t cross the line and still gets called a white nationalist. 

You up know what that could do for a career outside the altright grifter podcast circle?

anyway I digress. You’re thinking of banning politics?

This is a good forum. Politics is a big part of it. I understand the need to separate business from the undesirables like myself but who is Tim going to call mean names to?  The newbs in the shark pool?

Seperation from the free for all was bad enough please don’t make me and Tim have to create a political refugees from footballguys forum. 
Heads up. You can't say "We got him this time!" because it's considered trolling. It's been said so many times the past three years that it's become offensive to point it out. 

 
As a general rule, when criticizing the other side, I suggest writing things that are literally true.  Using hyperbolic expressions like these serves no constructive purpose.
I would say characterizing the base as foaming at the mouth is over the top.  The clown show comment about the impeachment hearings should have been given a pass.  And Joe has made it clear that he doesn't want us to sexualize women, so the sack comment was ban worthy.  

 
I see a lot of exchanges that go like this:

Person #1: That one political party is just the complete worst and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever! [Read: I have only hot takes, not thoughtful ones.]

Person #2: Can you please explain your position in greater detail or provide some supporting links? [Read: I love your hot takes and want you to post more! Let's fill up the next few pages of the thread discussing your fascinating ideas!]

Me: Nooooooooooo!

Asking questions is great when you respect the other person's thoughts and you want to learn more about them.

Asking questions is misguided when you don't respect the other person's thoughts but just want to make sure he's not allowed to let his unsupported opinions go unchallenged. In that latter case, asking for a link is just a form of playing board cop. It's better to let his unsupported opinions go unchallenged. (I totally get how frustrating it is when someone is wrong on the internet. But Mick Mulvaney's advice is good in that situation: get over it. JMHO.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a fan of:

#1: Politican X is bad because he did Y.

#2: No he didn't.

#1: Yes he did.

#2: No he didn't.

#1: Yes he did.

#2: No he didn't.

#1: Yes he did.

#2: No he didn't.

#1: Yes he did.

That goes on for a few pages.

 
I (think I) get it.  I think it's obvious when someone is doing what MT describes rather than genuinely seeking dialogue, and it happens a lot.  
Well, there are certainly FBG posters who would like to make politics a fact free zone, I understand that. But I think having a forum where unsupported opinions and unsubstantiated assertions of fact are treated as having higher value than snarky jokes at stupid statements is a bad error in judgment.

 
Well, there are certainly FBG posters who would like to make politics a fact free zone, I understand that. But I think having a forum where unsupported opinions and unsubstantiated assertions of fact are treated as having higher value than snarky jokes at stupid statements is a bad error in judgment.
This post sums things up perfectly why this forum may get shut down.

 
Well, there are certainly FBG posters who would like to make politics a fact free zone, I understand that. But I think having a forum where unsupported opinions and unsubstantiated assertions of fact are treated as having higher value than snarky jokes at stupid statements is a bad error in judgment.
Agreed. It seems like the more wrong something is the less we are allowed to question it. 

 
@Maurile Tremblay Question for you.  Recently you asked that we do not quote someone's offensive post and simply report it.  Understood.  If we report the post does the full language get transcribed to the moderator in real time?  The reason I quoted it was so the offending person could not simply edit out the offensive language without penalty.

 
sure, but why only suspend the one responding and not the troll?
I didn't read MT's post to imply that's what he would do, but I could have misunderstood.  Perhaps he can clarify further since a lot of people are objecting to his post.

 
Well, there are certainly FBG posters who would like to make politics a fact free zone, I understand that. But I think having a forum where unsupported opinions and unsubstantiated assertions of fact are treated as having higher value than snarky jokes at stupid statements is a bad error in judgment.
Agreed. It seems like the more wrong something is the less we are allowed to question it. 
It seems like the philosophy is more like, "The more wrong something is, the less you should encourage that poster to explain their position."

When someone makes the kind of sweeping generalization that Maurile described, then there is an increased possibility that the poster is just trolling. And if they're trolling, it means that they're looking for negative attention. And if they're looking for negative attention, we shouldn't give it to them.

 
@Maurile Tremblay Question for you.  Recently you asked that we do not quote someone's offensive post and simply report it.  Understood.  If we report the post does the full language get transcribed to the moderator in real time?  The reason I quoted it was so the offending person could not simply edit out the offensive language without penalty.
When you report a post, there is a place for you to include a message with the report. If you're worried that someone will edit the offending post, you can quote it in that message.

The answer to your question is: I don't know. The report we get includes the offending post (not just a link to it, but the actual post itself, within the report -- as well as a link), but I don't know if the report generated at the time it's made automatically updates with new text if the reported post is edited. I suspect not because that seems like it'd be harder to program, but I'm not sure.

 
I think what MT is saying is that if you’re convinced a post/opinion is put forth in bad faith, or by a poster you’re convinced does so out of bad faith in the hopes of reactions, there’s no need to confirm your feelings.  Quietly assume so (read: don’t respond) and move on to posts you do believe are offered in good faith and go from there

 
Well, there are certainly FBG posters who would like to make politics a fact free zone, I understand that. But I think having a forum where unsupported opinions and unsubstantiated assertions of fact are treated as having higher value than snarky jokes at stupid statements is a bad error in judgment.
You could still disagree with the poster or show other "facts". 

I've been guilt of asking insincere question when what I'm really trying to do is get the other poster to think things through like I do.  But it never seems to work.  I guess I can stop doing that. 

 
sure, but why only suspend the one responding and not the troll?
I didn't say anything about suspensions. I would never suspend somebody for engaging another poster in polite conversation. I'm just saying that ignoring people is often the better choice, depending on context.

When you ask someone a question, first ask yourself whether (a) you really value their answer because you think it has a decent probability of enlightening you, or (b) you don't value their answer but simply don't want their dumb post to go unchallenged. If the latter, I think the better practice is either to explain (not just assert) why you think they're wrong without asking them to post some more, or to ignore them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think what MT is saying is that if you’re convinced a post/opinion is put forth in bad faith, or by a poster you’re convinced does so out of bad faith in the hopes of reactions, there’s no need to confirm your feelings.  Quietly assume so (read: don’t respond) and move on to posts you do believe are offered in good faith and go from there
That's how I read it as well, and I favor that approach.  Seems like we're in the minority, though.

 
Well, there are certainly FBG posters who would like to make politics a fact free zone, I understand that. But I think having a forum where unsupported opinions and unsubstantiated assertions of fact are treated as having higher value than snarky jokes at stupid statements is a bad error in judgment.
Feel free to value good posts more than bad ones.

What I'm asking is: when you see someone making a lot of low-value posts, don't try to get them to increase their posting frequency.

 
It seems like the philosophy is more like, "The more wrong something is, the less you should encourage that poster to explain their position."

When someone makes the kind of sweeping generalization that Maurile described, then there is an increased possibility that the poster is just trolling. And if they're trolling, it means that they're looking for negative attention. And if they're looking for negative attention, we shouldn't give it to them.
Yes.

 
Going to highlight an episode of good posting by multiple posters in the Impeachment poll thread. @FF Ninja in particular responding well to another poster sending some snark his way (“I know its fun...”) and the two of them and others ending up having a good discussion with helpful links.
Same thread, different episode - call out to good NOT posting by @Maurile Tremblay in response to poster that got needlessly personal. MT appropriately did not engage. So this serves as a good example of his recommendation upthread.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Same thread, different episode - call out to good NOT posting by @Maurile Tremblay in response to poster that got needlessly personalThe poster in question generally posts low quality content, and MT appropriately did not engage. So this serves as a good example of his recommendation upthread.
Speaking of getting needlessly personal, just because you are praising a staff member doesn't mean taking shots at others is excellent. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top