My two cents.

I haven't endorsed this conversation up until this point, for reasons that some of you know. But, though I don't think it will make a difference in the way things are run, it seems like the rules are changing.

The rules as they are don't work. So, I think we should change the rules to reflect the way things actually work and to make sure members have a proper understanding of what's going on and how to deal with issues.

Thus, my proposal. This can probably be combined with Andrew's draft of the rules, but to make things easier I've started a separate topic.

And let me note that I'm not going to listen to or allow any flaming of me or anyone else in this thread. The goal here is only to discuss positive changes that can be made to the rules and nothing else. If your post disappears, it was off-topic.

Anyway, let's get to it.
_________________________________________________________

WELCOME TO THE NLSC! We want to keep things as clear as possible here, so this is our 8-point manifesto for the board.

1. This board exists to serve the interests of the NBA Live Series Center, Andrew Begley, the NLSC team and NLSC members.

The NBA Live Series Center board exists for members to discuss the NBA Live Series of games, patches, the NBA and life in general. There are specific sections for each type of discussion. Each of these sections is organized into a number of "threads," or individual pages where members post their thoughts, information or questions about different topics and reply to each other's thoughts.

2. This board has moderators and administrators.

These are forum members who are volunteering their time to enforce the rules and help you have as much fun as possible on the boards. They are necessary to keep the forum running smoothly.

3. There are certain behaviors that will make this board less fun for members. Moderators and administrators are here to regulate and control these behaviors, they include:

Flaming - Any negative comment directed towards a person and not towards that person's argument. The only result of flaming is bad feelings, grudges, and people ultimately leaving the board.
Nitpicking - Members here are from all different backgrounds and age groups. Some do not speak English as a first language. Do not annoy them by nitpicking them. Nitpicking is posting to correct a person's spelling or statements when doing so is not necessary for understanding them.
Mocking- Attempting to embarrass other forum members.
Spamming - A post that does not present new information to be discussed, ask a question or present an argument. These are often annoying to other members and can derail discussions.
Obstruction - This includes any type of signature that is of a size that will distort the screens of members with smaller monitor resolutions. This is because large images cause those members to have to scroll to read every post on the site and it is extremely irritating for them. This also includes limiting the size of animated .gifs or other files that would significantly slow a user's ability to load pages.
Posting off-topic - Posts that are not in the proper discussion area or that do not address the topic of a thread.

4. The NLSC is hosted by Gamespy and endorsed by EA Sports. Thus, it is necessary that certain standards be strictly enforced to keep those sponsorships. These include:

Regulating illegal activity - We will not allow any member to endorse or facilitate crime. This includes but is not limited to software piracy, drug use, and threats toward other members. What you do on your own time is your business, but it cannot be allowed here.
Keeping child-friendly content - We will not allow any member to post or link to adult images or websites. This site must be safe for video game fans of all ages to view.
Regulating advertising - We will not allow unsolicited advertising by members of anything that is not related to the NBA Live series of video games or patches for NBA Live.

5. As an NLSC poster, you must realize that posting here is a privilege, not a right.

These rules are essential to insure a positive forum environment that continually attracts and keeps new members. As such, members MUST respect these rules and their fellow posters to keep posting here. You will be reminded about breaking the rules, but depending on the severity of the violation, you may be warned about possible suspension or removal of your account. Members in gross violation of the rules may be removed without warning.

6. Forum moderators are also members and must be respected.

Forum administrators and moderators are not paid. In addition to being normal posters, they have volunteered to help enforce the rules and keep the site growing. This might mean that a moderator may warn you or remind you about a specific rule that is being broken. They may do this whenever a rule is being broken and only when a rule is being broken.

Your reminder or warning will include information about the rule that is being broken. You may find yourself receiving multiple reminders or warnings from moderators when multiple rules are being broken. This does NOT mean that they dislike you or hold a grudge against you, but only that you are breaking a rule and that they are doing their duty. This will be proven by the listing of the rule that is being broken.

Moderators and administrators are often very busy helping other members and enforcing the rules, so you must take extra care to be respectful of them and to make their job as easy as possible. This means that flaming or attacking a moderator will carry a stiffer penalty than flaming or attacking other members.

7. Moderation is not an exact science.

Many rule-violations and warnings are up to a moderator's judgement. Thus, members are allowed to get a second opinion at times if they feel that they need one.

If you disagree with a warning, suspension or banning, you may appeal that decision to an administrator or head administrator Andrew. An appeal is simply a respectful PM or other contact that demonstrates a moderator's warning and how the rule in question was not being broken. If you have a strong case, Andrew or the other administrator may change your punishment or discuss the issue with the moderator.

But, it is important that you communicate with the people who run the forum to insure a good experience. Their contact links are included with all of their posts. Don't be scared to use them, especially if you're a new members. We're human just like everyone else and enjoy friendly chats.

8. Above all, have fun!

Members here like to discuss basketball, play games on the board, or just trade advice on life in general. We value everyone who adds to the board and all these rules exist to help everyone have fun. So make sure you do.



Thank you,


Andrew Begley and the NLSC Team
______________________________________________________

I'm sure certain people might get a kick out of the word "manifesto."

Last edited by EGarrett on Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:34 am, edited 4 times in total.

What about moderator rules? All of these rules seem to only apply to regular members. Also, Andrew is trying to promote a democratic standpoint by allowing people to vote on whether or not they like the rules. I think it's only right that your proposal be allowed to be voted on.

In addition, i see you've suggested in your proposal that there is another administrator other than andrew...which is a bit mis-leading. He's the only administrator. I've been afforded the ability to moderate as well as have abilities on the main site..however i still am not an administrator.

Hmm.

Nitpicking - Members here are from all different backgrounds and age groups. Some do not speak English as a first language. Do not annoy them by nitpicking them. Nitpicking is posting to correct a person's spelling or statements when doing so is not necessary for understanding them.

Nitpicking isn't just something that applies to non-English speakers being made fun of or whatever by native English speakers; it is being extremely picky about ANYTHING. If someone posts that Vince Carter averaged 22 5 and 5 last year, someone could nitpick on them and say 'No, he averaged 21.8 ppg, 5.2rpg, and 4.7apg.' That is also nitpicking. With that being said, moderators nitpick as well, enforcing rules to the point that "having fun" is impossible simply because of profanity or sarcasm or good friendly fun that violates the rules but does not hurt members feelings, violate their rights, or anything of the sort.

With that being said, moderators need to be able to differentiate between flaming and good natured teasing or good, "unclean" fun. If moderators nitpick on the rules, they can destroy that fun - be it clean or unclean - and if they destroy that fun by locking a post, banning a member, or whatever, then the overall atmosphere of the board turns into what is currently happening on the NLSC - an overhaul of everything.

While the family environment thing should be adhered, censoring everything is absurd. Perfection cannot be acheived, and trying to create a utopia will kill the personality of the board. The NLSC needs posters like Jae (sarcastic assholes), Psycho Jackal (longwinded, arrogant know-it-all), Homer (um...yeah), and so on. If everyone followed the rules to a T, if everyone was completely polite, if everyone respected everyone, the point of the board would be lost: discussion. Discussion needs disagreement, it needs conflicting personalities, it needs a little rudeness. Parity destroys everything, be it sports or life or a message board on the internet. Variety of posters is what makes this place interesting, and if we didn't have the annoying spammers, the assholes, the uptight pricks, the laid back posters, the long posting people, the Aussies (;)), the board would be boring and more members would quit than do because of flame wars that "hurt" their feelings.

Essentially, I'm saying that posters understand the rules, and they know when they're breaking them, and they know when they have wiggle-room and when they don't; it's when they are forced to strictly adhere to every single rule that they begin to intentionally break rules to incite...whatever. If you take freedom away from posters, they'll fight back - as Psycho Jackal did. People don't like losing "rights" (yes, you say a privelage, but I'll get to that in a moment), and when they do, bad things happen.

Posting on the board is a privelege, yes; however, the rules that we must adhere to must be lenient and more democratic. If you get a speeding ticket, say, a 75 in a 55, most cops will knock it down to 65 or 70 in a 55. Or they'll give you a warning for a rolling stop at a stop sign, or your boss might let you get away with eating something without paying for it, as long as it doesn't happen all the time. The world is full of little compromises where rules are broken, but they're rules that don't matter all that much. As long as the person is aware they are violating a rule, they are less likely to do it, and as long as it isn't blatant and hurtful to someone else, leeway should be given depending on what it is. The attitude towards profanity should be the attitude towards everything - you shouldn't do it, but if it isn't going over the line, it's ok.

If there's any confusion, I wouldn't be surprised.

As for the word "manifesto," for those of you who don't know what that is:

manifesto : \Man`i*fes"to\, n.; pl. Manifestoes. [It. manifesto.
See Manifest, n. & a.]
A public declaration, usually of a prince, sovereign, or
other person claiming large powers, showing his intentions,
or proclaiming his opinions and motives in reference to some
act done or contemplated by him; as, a manifesto declaring
the purpose of a prince to begin war, and explaining his
motives. --Bouvier.

it was proposed to draw up a manifesto, setting forth
the grounds and motives of our taking arms. --Addison.

Frederick, in a public manifesto, appealed to the
Empire against the insolent pretensions of the pope.
--Milman.

Now you decide if this is an actual manifesto...if I was Marx, I'd say no...

With that being said, moderators need to be able to differentiate between flaming and good natured teasing or good, "unclean" fun. If moderators nitpick on the rules, they can destroy that fun - be it clean or unclean - and if they destroy that fun by locking a post, banning a member, or whatever, then the overall atmosphere of the board turns into what is currently happening on the NLSC - an overhaul of everything.

I think also, they need to be able to tell the difference between a good natured flame, and a bad one... yes there is a difference. It's one thing to argue with someone on a particular point, that's good natured and if anything it's healthy to have strong disagreements. However, when things get really personal thats when it turns "bad". Personally, I wouldnt mind if there were still "bad" flames, because that's the kind of thing I liked. I can see why other people wouldnt want those, but we still cant all co-exist in a sterile Sound Of Music type environment.

The NLSC needs posters like Jae (sarcastic assholes)

Oi!

If everyone followed the rules to a T, if everyone was completely polite, if everyone respected everyone, the point of the board would be lost: discussion. Discussion needs disagreement, it needs conflicting personalities, it needs a little rudeness. Parity destroys everything, be it sports or life or a message board on the internet. Variety of posters is what makes this place interesting, and if we didn't have the annoying spammers, the assholes, the uptight pricks, the laid back posters, the long posting people, the Aussies (), the board would be boring and more members would quit than do because of flame wars that "hurt" their feelings.

People need to realize flame wars arent a personal thing. If you read back over the old forums, I fought with Matthew, Yohance, Shane, Tony etc etc... there's no grudges there or anything now, and my opinion of them has changed dramatically. If anyone leaves the NLSC because of a flame war, I dont think they deserve to be here in the first place. And no, I dont care if you "want peace" or whatever, if that was the case you've obviously done something to get yourself into a situation where you can be flamed. I also think flaming can help new members in a way. Best example is Tales, when he first came to the NLSC he made about 2 billion posts with "LOL " in them. When all of the vets started flaming him about it, he changed and became one of the most popular people on the forum. Sometimes people need to be told.

Essentially, I'm saying that posters understand the rules, and they know when they're breaking them

Anyone who breaks blatant rules (i.e, posting in the wrong section) should just piss off. It's not a difficult rule to follow, however, I dont think there needs to be 3 long paragraphs on posting in the correct section, because if someone is stupid enough to do that chances are they're not going to read 3 paragraphs on anything.

If you take freedom away from posters, they'll fight back - as Psycho Jackal did. People don't like losing "rights" (yes, you say a privelage, but I'll get to that in a moment), and when they do, bad things happen.

When people start denying you the opportunity to express your feelings, no matter how agressive, you feel caged. And when that happens, as Shane said, people fight back. I've never really had this problem because I dont get warned or anything, but I still know my limits... other people dont get the leniency I do, therefore I can see why they would be annoyed. Although I dont agree with certain NLSC people who just jumped on the "we hate NLSC" bandwagon even though they had no right, one of them is back, one of them was banned... I think they should both be gone.

Posting on the board is a privelege

It may be, but if a forum is completely sterile who the hell's gonna want to post here anyway? It would just get boring. The old NLSC (I hate bringing it up all the time but it's true) WAS a privelege to post at, people enjoyed going there and reading things that mostly had substance. Even the spammers could post something relevent if they wanted to.

As long as the person is aware they are violating a rule, they are less likely to do it, and as long as it isn't blatant and hurtful to someone else, leeway should be given depending on what it is.

The things Jackal said about Andrew and EG I would see as unacceptable flaming, however, take out those particular insults and I have absolutely no problem with it. If someone wanted to make a derogatory post about me, I would argue back but unless it was un-necessarily personal, I wouldnt have a problem with it at all.

With that being said, moderators need to be able to differentiate between flaming and good natured teasing or good, "unclean" fun. If moderators nitpick on the rules, they can destroy that fun - be it clean or unclean - and if they destroy that fun by locking a post, banning a member, or whatever, then the overall atmosphere of the board turns into what is currently happening on the NLSC - an overhaul of everything.

I understand and agree, but in my defense it isn't always clear when someone is joking. Tone can often be misunderstood online, and there have been situations when I've warned a couple of people for flaming, only to find out that they know each other outside of the forum and were just having fun. I'd like to point out that I did retract the warning and apologised for the error in judgement.

The problem is finding the balance. If we enforce the rules too strictly, people complain that we're being dictators. If we allow too much leeway, people complain that we're not being tough enough. Believe me, that's frustrating, because it becomes a somewhat helpless "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

What the rules are basically trying to accomplish is a sense of order and that a level of civility is maintained. The problem with flames is that they can completely ruin a discussion. They're often very immature, which doesn't encourage people looking for serious discussion to post.

What about moderator rules? All of these rules seem to only apply to regular members. Also, Andrew is trying to promote a democratic standpoint by allowing people to vote on whether or not they like the rules. I think it's only right that your proposal be allowed to be voted on.

I tried to put forth the moderator rules in point 6. I figured that a lot of the confusion would be cleared up if Moderators always demonstrated what rules were being broken, so members can know that they're doing their job and not just harassing them.

I also proposed an "appeal" system, where people can argue any decision made by moderators to Andrew, in a polite fashion, by presenting their case for why the moderator misunderstood their actions.

I know this site doesn't have any other administrators yet, but I'm on a lot of message boards and some do, so I was just trying to have forethought.

If someone posts that Vince Carter averaged 22 5 and 5 last year, someone could nitpick on them and say 'No, he averaged 21.8 ppg, 5.2rpg, and 4.7apg.' That is also nitpicking.

Yes that is, and many posters might find that annoying, because their intent was clear. Posting to correct other people's spelling and grammar is also a pet peeve of mine, as I find it adds nothing to a conversation and just makes other people feel bad about themselves and the person doing it.

The main thrust of the rule is "do not annoy them by nitpicking," as has been done in the past as a tool to aggravate other posters.

While the family environment thing should be adhered, censoring everything is absurd. Perfection cannot be acheived, and trying to create a utopia will kill the personality of the board.

I agree, but as you said, everyone has different definitions of what is proper behavior. I've had different people, at the same time in IMs, tell me that they think I was being "too strict" and "not strict enough."

Like Andrew said, you can't win. Whenever a mod actually does something, it will upset someone.

The problem is that people want freedom to say whatever they want to people, but they don't want others to say whatever they want to them. We can't provide both, and it gets tiresome hearing from people who don't seem to realize that and think you're not doing your job right if 2 or 3 people aren't happy.

Yes that is, and many posters might find that annoying, because their intent was clear. Posting to correct other people's spelling and grammar is also a pet peeve of mine, as I find it adds nothing to a conversation and just makes other people feel bad about themselves and the person doing it.

I don't agree, being corrected when you make a mistake in grammar or orthograph in your post is a good way to improve your English, and I'd be pleased to see my numerous mistakes being corrected as long as it's not an habit of course.

What I mean is that sometimes, that could be a good thing to be corrected in grammar and orthograph. People shouldn't post just after that, but mentionning it sometimes could be a good way for everybody to improve its English

About freedom: I'm all for freedom and freedom of speech, but I don't think any of us has true freedom. We are still governed by rules and morals that prevent us from doing absolutely anything we wish - or punish us when we do certain things.

The message I'm getting is that there are people who feel we're imposing upon their posts with the enforcement of some rules, rather than simply taking action when appropriate. That's something I'd like to fix, and I know of times when I've been moderating when I could have allowed more latitude. I think I can learn from my past errors of judgement.