Sorry guys ... fucked up again. So what's new, huh? So solly!

An early start, eh 'goo?

What happened, one of your cats got a hold of your password?

Yep! Vman, but notice I DID openly apologize ... sumphin which ain't in either yer character nor yer vocabulary. And sumphin ya deperately need to acquire cuz it should follow almost every one of yer posts.

Want proof? Witness yer far out responses to yer TRULY fucked up "Morman" post. A straight-forward, "I'm sorry!" woulda done nicely there.

Try it - ya might like it ... and surely folks might? learn to like you. NAH! That's jest fer us "wrong thinkers", and beneath the dignity of a (self-styled) "super-brain" who's being "picked on" by everyone. Doesn't the "everyone" give ya clue? NAH!

'goo

Hey 'goo, I haven't responded to your attack posts because you're old as dirt. You've used up your passes. Back off or strap your [Edited By Facemask] ass in. Got it?

Didn't your mama teach you to respect your elders?

Or did she leave that'n out of the household curriculum?

I've long suspected she never hugged you either.

I have been D Rock. He posts attack threads and I've given them a pass, but as I said, the passes are used up.

Attack?

Are you serious?

He merely suggested you add an "apology" to your r'epertoire.

He wasn't busting any more balls than you in your initial reply to him.

Geeebus H Popsicle-sticks (how's that for ya moose? ) I thought you of all people would have thicker skin than that.

Not to pile on, but do ya need some vagisil? Does your pussy hurt? I'm sure RF has plenty to spare.

That was over-the-top.

Our man 'goo fought *against* the third reich in WW2, so if I were you I'd take that one back.

Moose, posts like this are unhelpful. If you have a fresh issue, PM me.

Thanks,
Aquila

Deleted.

First of all, Moose, I'm not sure of the "wisdom" in your attempt to force the admins to have a public discussion. I personally don't care much for that approach. I've chosen to let your post stand for the time being, although Acquila may take it down again, in which case he will probably take this down as well.

There are a number of problems here that you (and other posters here) should understand. There are six admins here, all of whom lead busy and (hopefully) productive lives. The last thing we want to spend our time on is being hall monitors handing out demerits to posters whose feelings have been hurt and strike back in anger.

We discuss things privately, but that often takes a good bit of time because it's not like we have a nightly conference call. It's a private section of this board and works the same way -- somebody posts a thought and somebody else replies hours later or the next day. So that often slows down action on a particular problem.

Our goal is to establish a place where civil discussion can be engaged in by folks passionate about the Eagles. I think for the most part we have accomplished that goal. There are periodic flare-ups, but eventually things die down again. That's to be expected among passionat people, wouldnt you agree?

To address the "big questions" you raised:

1. Trolls are allowed here, we have all kinds of fun with them. I might be mistaken, but I think the ban on name-calling does not extend to obvious trolls. To me a "troll" is defined as an admitted fan of another team who comes here to stir shit and bust on the Eagles while promoting their own lame team. That definition does NOT extend to long-term posters who maintain Eagles-fanhood, regardless of how irritating or "baiting" some may view them to be. The definition also does not extend to fans of other teams who are respectful and wish to share information. We have a Dallas fan here who is respectful and knowledgable and apart from his apparent mental illness (i.e., being a cowpukes fan) seems like a decent guy.

2. See #1. Trolls as I've defined are not protected. With regard to warning levels, it's simply a way for admins to keep track of how many times we've had to warn a specific poster about namecalling, primarily. I don't believe it's ever been stated that 5 warnings would get a poster banned, but I could be mistaken about that. The only people who have ever been banned from here basically asked for it explicitly. You've gotta pretty much set out to be banned to achieve it.

3. I'm not aware of a widespread credibility problem that we have. I'm aware that you're not particularly happy with us at the moment, and perhaps a handful of others, but we're doing our best. I dont anticipate putting any board administration decisions to public vote. The obvious problem is "whos the public?" Do long-term posters votes count equally with a guy who just signed up last week?

Please give us the time required to discuss these matters, and please stop trying to force a public discussion when it's clear that at least for now, we don't wish ot go that route.

I think Watchdog has pretty much covered it all.

Only thing I would add is that I get pissed off when people try to class as a troll anyone whose opinion on the Eagles is contrary to theirs. Since there's so much attention being paid to the House Rules at the moment, I think everyone should remember that they explicitly state that views can be positive or negative, as long as they are polite.

Deleted

I along with the others do not wish to address discipline issues out in the open.

Public humiliation is not what we're all about.

For the latest flare-up, all PM's have been sent and any warnings have been given in private, and of those who have responded so far, they've done so in a mature manner.

We feel we have a good group of participants on this board and from time to time good people screw up and we feel in private is the best way to handle it.

Imagine if you were getting a correcting PM from an admin on any of the issues you have been involved with over the last few years and that notice was made public, only to have people who you may not care for to "pile on" and have fun at your expense.

That would be counterproductive.

It is a myth that people are on the verge of being expelled. If I would guess, I would say our CUMULATIVE warnings may be less than fifty. That doesn't indicate a problem.

A valid Eagles fan who has an opinion different than the majority is not a troll.

Difference of opinion is what a message board is about. Otherwise if becomes a majority rule circle jerk. Avoidance of that is one of the reasons this place was created.






Stop yelling fire in a crowded theatre Bullwinkle.

Fact: You have been issued three warnings in total during the years we've had the system.

Fact: Three warnings is not 60% of the way to being banned.

Fact: The warning system is just a tracking system for admin use to be able to tell how many past discipline actions were needed.

Opinion: You seem to be playing the victim card here. Wasn't that one of your complaints?

Deleted. I recommend deleting this whole thread. It seems to be negativrely impacting discussion.

One thing that perhaps you're missing is that everyone is free to only read posts from posters they enjoy or appreciate on some level. People who read Vman's stuff and reply do so of their own choosing. All that is required is that he simply be ignored by any poster who finds him so annoying that they just can't help but call him names. We even have a feature that aids in that effort, I know you're aware of that.

Even when another poster quotes him and his words show up no your screen, YOU make the conscious choice to actually read what was said. I suggest that if it upsets you to that degree, you simply make the opposite choice and flip past it. Other posters read things and make a conscious choice to insult and call names. We just ask that a different choice be made in those instances.

This admin gig is really easy, let me tell you. We have you angry at us for our attempt to enforce the rules and VMan leaving b/c we didn't enforce the rules fast enough. Fabulous.

I'd be interested if you could point me to the three times VMan said he posts things he himself doesn't believe. I think I missed those. Not that I don't believe you or that it will make any difference to the topic at hand, but I'd like to see those.

Do you have a search tool that would help me do that? I'd like something that would allow me to scan for strongs of words from a particular poster. I don't have time to read thru every post of his.

I don't know if you keep logs of posts that are reported. But I did report the first time he said this, And that was less than 4 months ago.

Yes. At the bottom of each forum there is a search box. You'll also find it at the bottom of each thread, and at the top of the main board (before a forum is selected) which you can use to search all forums.

I cannot get his search to work. And google isn't allowed to crawl wingheads.

I did report the first post he said that within the past 4 months. And he said it again when asked about why he was posting stuff from Cobb sometime in the past 2-3 weeks. And there was a time in between those two events where he said it again.

If you will notice, I stayed out of the thread VM reported last night. I got involved in this one because of these comments by him. "Hey 'goo, I haven't responded to your attack posts because you're old as dirt. You've used up your passes. Back off or strap your constipated borderline illiterate Third Reich sympathizing ass in. Got it?" Yet he is the victim here. I don't get it?

This statement is often true, however, there are times when something is posted that reflects badly on the board if it is allowed to fester in the open like a rank old pile of shit. The recent "Mormon" thread was an example of a time where silence by the rest of the board would have appeared to be tacit acceptance. That would be unacceptable.

True.

Is it at all possible that Vman's post re: Mormons was an unfortunate choice of words which was interpreted in the light of how the reader feels about Vman? Just asking, don't really want to re-open that can of worms.

Not to speak for our fearless leader, but I believe what he said was "5 warnings will earn you a temporary suspension."




To be fair, AF has admitted he does the same thing. As discussed, sometimes our "extremist" brethren stretch their "opinions" to further their particular agenda. For all his rhetorical efforts as a Matt McCan't booster, we all know AF is more than saavy enough to recognize the truth that Matt simply McCan't do the job.

I honestly hope VMan comes back. I hope Dutch comes home too. I dig all our guys here. Even Buddy'sScrot has value as comedy relief.

Let's all take a deep breath and not take this stuff so seriously.

It is after all, entertainment.

I think is all really a shame. This board was fun because of the different opinions etc.. so I really hope Vman comes back. But honestly I can understand how he feels because I have been the target of a lot of attacks also.. and it really made posting not as fun for me.

I just got tired of trying to post topics to debate and getting stupid off topic replies from a few users like "YOUR AN ASSHOLE" or YOUR A TWIT" etc. It has got to the point where I don't even really post on this board much anymore.. which is probably what a few of the people posting that garbage wanted so there you go. I guess mission accomplished. I just float by once in awhile now and read a few things and move on... it's just hard to want to try to contribute a topic for discussion when you some people are allowed to reply off-topic and just resort to name calling out of nowhere.

Lastly, i really don't agree with the whole baiting excuse to name calling. If you don't agree with a persons topic you can always just not post in it or reply to it and debate the topic and try to prove the poster wrong.. theres no reason to act immature and call people names. Now when i'm called all sorts of names.. isn't that baiting? Whats more baiting than being called a scumbag or asshole? Well, i still dont resort to name calling and that sort of bs even though im being "baited" by people calling me out like that. I just try to reply on topic and debate.. because thats what its supposed to be about.. thats the fun of message boards. Its just really a shame that theres a handful of people that don't understand that.

DROCK was right above when he says that this is supposed to be entertainment.. debating can be fun and even hilarious.. but all this name calling takes the fun out of everything.. to the point where some of us dont even feel like posting and others just have left the board. There really has to be a no tolerance rule on that type of thing. Otherwise, eventually theres just gonna be like 15 people left on this board who all agree on everything.. what the hell fun is that.

You want to start a topic about football, and back your opinions with more than Madden ratings. Then some might actually engage you in the "debate" you seek.

But, if you continue to come with "Carson Palmer is better than McNabb, just look at the Madden ratings" and expect a reasonable discourse....you're either kidding yourself, dumb as a stump or 11 years old.

I honestly can't make up my mind which of those 3 choices I'd bet on.

Madden ratings are very accurate and even NFL players themselves discuss them often.. I think your insistence on not understanding the validity of ratings from a game that sells millions of copies each year is just some type of generational gap thing. But even though I don't agree with you, im not going to call you as dumb as a stump or 11 years old.. i'll let you mature users resort to that type of behavior. Yawn.. more name calling.. dude you win.. i give up.

I wonder if either of you (DRock or Buddysballs) can recognize how frustrating this type of exchange is from an administrative point of view?

I mean -- how fine a line do we need to draw here?

From a technical English comprehension point of view, DRock didn't call any names. He offered three options only two of which were insulting, leaving "just kidding yourself" as an option. "Not sure which he'd bet on," yada yada.

He cleverly (tongue-in-cheek, there) left himself an out while still being able to throw around "dumb as a stump" and "11 years old."

Meanwhile Buddysballs fails to let it roll and points out the "namecalling."

Anybody else want the hall monitor job? I'm getting pretty tired of it, frankly.

For crying out loud.

Moose here's the search tool you asked for...

You can filter by name and key phrase. Its found in the upper right corent of the page, where it says 'Search'.
http://wingheads.com/index.php?act=Search&f=3


Not the leader here, and far from fearless. Also, I was incorrect. Each infraction lasts for 60 days. After 60 days, the infraction expires. If you accumulate 10 infraction demerits, then your account will be suspended until your infractions drop below 10. Some infractions may cost more than 1 demerit.

I think you'll see an increase on how many infractions are handed out, as a result of recent events.

60 days? Mine hasn't changed in months. I've been "warned" twice. Both occassions were at least 6 months ago. My "indicator" still lists those 2 "warnings." If subsiquent "warnings" were sent my way, I was never made aware of them.