forum questions Ask A Moderator

[Crabcake47 1,286]

1 hour ago, LMU said:

We purposely removed the different reactions since we didn’t want to have bruised egos running amok. I’m assuming the most recent board update is still treating likes as one of several reaction options.

Imagine if "disliking" was an option during ozzyman's legendary LeBron-fueled tantrum.

[kroywen 2,050]

2 hours ago, LMU said:

We purposely removed the different reactions since we didn’t want to have bruised egos running amok. I’m assuming the most recent board update is still treating likes as one of several reaction options.

 

I fully support that, personally. The "Like" option is a good; anything else just leads to users sniping at one another via reactions, rather than engaging in an actual discussion.

 

(As you can probably guess, I was one of those minority of Facebook users who didn't want a "dislike" button at all.)

[DeFrank 1,079]

We ought to allow for Native American nickname/logo discussion on *sportslogos.net.* It isn’t “political.” It’s respect and dignity-based. Is banning discussion of other forms of racism in historical sports branding “political?” Seriously, would we ban discussion of a nickname or logo that disrespected black or Latinx people? 

[Atomic 981]

8 minutes ago, DeFrank said:

We ought to allow for Native American nickname/logo discussion on *sportslogos.net.* It isn’t “political.” It’s respect and dignity-based. Is banning discussion of other forms of racism in historical sports branding “political?” Seriously, would we ban discussion of a nickname or logo that disrespected black or Latinx people? 

 

It’s in the rules:

 

Quote

4. No Discussion of Native American Team Name Controversies

This topic, like various political topics, often devolves into name calling, straw man construction, and other assorted "tactics" not suitable in intelligent, mutually respectable debate.

So until Chris changes his mind about it, this discussion is over.

[officeglenn 893]

That particular guideline is less about politics and more about people not being able to be rational or logical when discussing it.

[Ferdinand Cesarano 2,982]

1 hour ago, officeglenn said:

That particular guideline is less about politics and more about people not being able to be rational or logical when discussing it.

 

It seems to me that the appropriate solution to that problem is to ban those people, not the topic.

[DeFrank 1,079]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

 

It’s in the rules:

 

So until Chris changes his mind about it, this discussion is over.

 

@CC97 Chris, I think you ought to change your mind about this. At the very least, "people not being able to be rational or logical when discussing" this issue can be <MOD EDITED> on the back end rather than preventing anybody from engaging in a substantive discussion about something that is so so so prevalent and important to the topics of this forum which we all care so much about.

[ReesDaKing 14]

How do you do the signature thing? Cause I want this 

[BringBackTheVet 9,620]

19 minutes ago, DeFrank said:

 

@CC97 Chris, I think you ought to change your mind about this. At the very least, "people not being able to be rational or logical when discussing" this issue can be <MOD EDITED> on the back end rather than preventing anybody from engaging in a substantive discussion about something that is so so so prevalent and important to the topics of this forum which we all care so much about.

 

Its been unofficially lifted several times before and the result is invariably the same - the pro-slur side cannot discuss without dismissing the other side and calling them “PC” or “libtards” or other nonsense, then claiming they’re the ones who are the real victims and being persecuted, then eventually saying that it’s a first amendment thing. It’s the same every. Single. Time. No need to repeat again when we’ve already lathered and rinsed a dozen times. 

[BringBackTheVet 9,620]

6 minutes ago, ReesDaKing said:

How do you do the signature thing? Cause I want this 

 

Nobody cares where you come from. 

[Atomic 981]

12 minutes ago, ReesDaKing said:

How do you do the signature thing? Cause I want this 

(image removed)

 

You go to the menu, click "account", then click "account settings". From there, go to "signature" and then upload your sig(s).

 

Just don't be obnoxious and put a whole bunch of those things in it. 

[ReesDaKing 14]

18 minutes ago, Atomic said:

 

You go to the menu, click "account", then click "account settings". From there, go to "signature" and then upload your sig(s).

 

Just don't be obnoxious and put a whole bunch of those things in it. 

OK, thanks by the way

[rams80 3,400]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

It seems to me that the appropriate solution to that problem is to ban those people, not the topic.

 

Most of them were.

[BringBackTheVet 9,620]

Holy crap - just saw the appeals thread.  That's awesome.  If I understand, the accounts have to have been banned for at least the past two years?  So Tnak wouldn't be eligible?

 

[SFGiants58 5,553]

4 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Holy crap - just saw the appeals thread.  That's awesome.  If I understand, the accounts have to have been banned for at least the past two years?  So Tnak wouldn't be eligible?

 

 

He made dupes, so he’s not eligible (good). That rule also means that VictoriaGooner, various low-level trolls, and Louie can’t come back.

 

It does mean that guys like McCall, FunkyBunky, and ICS are A-OK. Of course, that all depends on how the mods feel about them.

[BringBackTheVet 9,620]

Since there was never an appeals process, I'd personally let the dups thing slide for past bans, as long as it was only one dup, but I get it.  I'd love to see the back-and-forth of an appeal - bet a lot of them would be pretty fun.

[Clintau24 1,118]

When a member is banned, can they still log in to their account? Confused on how a banned user actually goes about submitting an appeal.

[BringBackTheVet 9,620]

15 minutes ago, Clintau24 said:

When a member is banned, can they still log in to their account? Confused on how a banned user actually goes about submitting an appeal.

 

Get yourself banned, then you'll find out.  I'll support your appeal - I swear.

[officeglenn 893]

22 minutes ago, Clintau24 said:

When a member is banned, can they still log in to their account? Confused on how a banned user actually goes about submitting an appeal.

 

Banned users can still read certain parts of the boards, like the general public can. I believe they can log in but they can't really do anything once they do. The appeal process is initiated by filling out a form that hosted externally from the boards, and it is posted in a forum that is readable by all.

[OMMF 118]

1 hour ago, officeglenn said:

posted in a forum that is readable by all.

 

Am I missing this?