posted by ?! at 03:07 PM on October 16
Assuming it is a public beach the camera(person) didn't need a waiver or permission. Assuming they're all of legal age. Assuming that if it is Brazil, rather than merely Brazillian music, they're all women. Assuming you weren't being sarcastic. :)
posted by ?! at 02:51 PM on October 10
jerseygirl: Yes, I knew exactly what your over-the-top sentence was all about. I think each and everyone knew what you were saying. If you read my comment you'll see that I believed the AOL Speak rule was enough and the mention of caps and exclamation points was superfluous. I also wrote, "I'd drop the caps and exclamation point rule. That will just lead to arguments about commas and semi-colons." I was surprised you took the ball and ran so far with that. Still, I thought that your comment was a good example of AOL Style writing. Even after your latest comment I still think your first comment was a good example of AOL Style in the worst sense. However, this comment is obviously condescending. You don't need to tell me all caps "looks like shit and is hard to read." I am not a 14 year-old new to the net and it's obvious from my comments. I remember when ALL CAPS vs "ups and downs" wars started. Do you remember why some people wrote in all caps back in the "early days?" If not, take a look at this Wikipedia entry. You'll notice the mention of AOL. I'm leaving it there. I still believe AOL Speak is enough.
posted by ?! at 08:08 PM on August 16
Here you go, jerseygirl, et al. And that was as fine an example of "AOL Style" writing as I've seen. justgary, you've got your example.
posted by ?! at 06:05 PM on August 16
Over use of caps, exclamation points, and aol-speak is discouraged. Oh, now we have rules against specific users?! This has gone too far! Seriously, "AOL Speak" is enough. I'd drop the caps and exclamation point rule. That will just lead to arguments about commas and semi-colons. Maybe a requirement that the user has read and understood Strunk and White?
posted by ?! at 02:40 PM on August 16
Ah, I was focusing on the destination instead of the trip. Thanks for the update. See? I told you the admins read the suggestions here.
posted by ?! at 05:59 AM on August 16
lil_brown_bat: I asked the same thing and right after justgary wrote "Thanks for the latest suggestions. I'll try to work on them later this morning." What do mean I shouldn't assume he even saw my suggestions and questions?
posted by ?! at 09:47 PM on August 15
"I think, however, that the most important part of any set of guidelines is to keep them short, sweet and to the point. The longer the text, the less likely that it will get even a glance." So true. Keep them like the 10 Commandments, the Bill of Rights, and Ron Clarks 55 rules. Short, sweet, and with a link for a longer explanation. For example: • Racist, derogatory, sexist and other personal attacks are strictly forbidden. Such terms have no place on SportsFilter. Any use of them will result in immediate banning. becomes • Personal attacks will result in immediate banning. What is a personal attack? but with a link to an example.
posted by ?! at 03:50 PM on August 15
A suggestion to keep the personal attack info to it's own bullet point and pull the "send them an email" to its own point. • Racist, derogatory, and other personal attacks are strictly forbidden. Such terms have no place on SportsFilter. Any use of them will result in immediate banning. • Comments are addressed to the whole community. On-topic replies to specific comments are fine, but if your comment is off topic just send an email. Now a question....will racist, etc terms truly mean immediate banning? I put "will" in the suggestion if they truly are "banning" offences. If not it could be "may." What about anti-community rhetoric? Can I dis francophones? Some of us see that as distasteful. Or is it handled by comment deletion or in-thread by other users? What about slur words? How are those handled? Finally, how often can we request our own comments to be deleted? If I lash out against Italian-American Catholic White Sox fans living in the South can I email an admin the next morning and ask for a comment deletion instead of a banning?
posted by ?! at 10:24 PM on August 14
Buddha is a White Sox fan.
posted by ?! at 05:46 PM on August 14
One easy to read set of rules. I hope no matter how big the FAQ gets those basic rules stay on page one. Even if they get tweaked a bit. Great job to all involved. Thanks.
posted by ?! at 05:36 PM on August 14
It's looks like someone is going to have to order some XXXL shirts for the user numbers.
posted by ?! at 12:36 PM on August 14
I'll be at a birthday party so I can't make it. Please post it if you plan another one. Thanks.
posted by ?! at 04:20 PM on August 12
lbb: Remember the abbr. for Kentucky is KY. And that takes us full circle.
posted by ?! at 09:07 PM on August 11
"Hit Somebody" by Warren Zevon. Skreech.
posted by ?! at 03:00 PM on August 09
Venicemenace: You're right. In an edit I replaced a duplicated response to yerfatma with your nick. My apologies. The next paragraph was an agreement to something you wrote and that was where your nick belonged. Jerseygirl: As important, but not as interesting to the general population. It's not apples and oranges. It happens on the main site also. I'm sure you've noticed that. They chaffed my ass too. Remember? And they were dissenting (typed it correctly that time didn't I?) The majority of the commenters were of a different viewpoint than his. Hence "To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree." I don't have a problem with the admins closing bad threads. I expect that. What I fear is the deletion of certain arguments and certain "off-topic" comments. I know boards are usually dictatorships. I just want the admins to realize not everyone on the board thinks deleting those certain comments is a good idea. They can certainly ignore my comments. Maybe I am the dissenting voice in this case, but I am still a member of this community with an opinion on the topic at hand. As far as "insulting the entire member base" by claiming a minority of members can consistently alter the dynamic of a thread... Whatever the number -- 10, 20, 30, 42 --- we are all not equal members in terms of "verbosity," "skill at crafting humor," "experience," "popularity," "knowledge," or even level of administration. That's simply a fact. We all join as equals, but some become more equal than others. For an example compare us: You've been here almost exactly a year more then me. You've posted 100 times what I have and commented almost 6 times as much. You've proved your knowledge -- at least in the threads I frequent. You're better known. Your opinion obviously counts to a great many people. You've developed a reputation. Not too long ago someone even suggested you as a new style admin. You can't seriously believe we are equals in the impact we have on this community or even in some threads. There is a reason communities such as Sportsfilter develop leaders. Those leaders move and shake this board far more than any "troll" or dissenter. In this case I truly believe we gave the trolls credit for more havoc than they wrecked.
posted by ?! at 08:27 PM on August 08
We see how easily we can drift off topic with jokes, etc. So, being off topic is not the issue. It's a particular type of off topic comment we rally against. Let's face it. There are slightly less than 10 members here who can turn a thread on its ear or stop it in its tracks. They do it with jokes, well reasoned arguments or stats, or sheer volume of content. This is their board and the rest of us just occasionally pop up like prairie dogs in an arcade game. But, yet, I'll press on with my vocal minority opinion. SummersEve (god, that name makes me smile each time) hit the nail on the head. Sportsfilter, as all long time boards, is cyclical. What has changed is the amount of vitriol. It's true for all "sides." It's the vitriol we rally against...and we use vitriol to rally our friends.
Most of you can stop reading there, but I'd like to address a couple of jerseygirls's points: "All it takes is one asshole...": Simple solution that works for Metafilter - Ban 'Em. "It doesn't say you have to be an adult to join...." - But all the political problems mentioned have been from one or two adult members, no? "We need to adapt to survive...." - And censoring disenting voices has never been a successful adaptation. "my car would run on orange generic Kool Aid instead of unleaded, I'd be married to Matthew McConaughey" -- Mine does, though I favor iced tea and from what I've read there is a better chance of MM and I getting together.
And for Venicemenace: I am not sure who is arguing that "anything goes." I certainly wasn't. I am arguing that we can't let the one or two posters decide what is or isn't acceptable content for Sportsfilter. Even if they do it as negative examples. You wrote: "more substantial guidelines and tactical moderation" is the cure. I agree. I am just afraid this unnecessary thread is an overreaction to a problem that isn't worth our time.
posted by ?! at 03:30 PM on August 08
Somehow "turds on the street" became a "turd covered street." Try again. Sportsfilter is not now and has never been completely "turd covered." If you look at the threads and rank each comment as "on topic" you'll find a minority of threads have a few "turds." Note they're not always political. Some people like to throw in a one-liner. Some like to call attention to their hate of the sport in question. Some like to waste a comment telling everyone they need to stay on topic. There is always a signal-to-noise ratio. And noise never reaches zero. Ever. It's true in the world. If you walk or bike anywhere you are passing many more turds than you notice. Most are in the grass and you never even have a clue they're slowly decomposing. Some are just candy wrappers or cigarette butts and you don't even see them any more...because you ignore them. I know you do, because my daughter and I are the only ones carrying trash bags. You ignore them like those topics on rugby, cricket, or baseball or whatever doesn't float your boat. You ignore them like the in-jokes or the constant Yankees Suck, No, the Red Sox Suck! one-liners spread over the baseball threads. I've been a member of one discussion board or another since the early 80s. They. All. Had. Turds. And each and every board stayed active and happy as long as the majority of the conversations stayed friendly. I never said "anything goes." I know some comments are over the line. For me less troublesome than the political comments are the comments where one member lashes out against another. I have been guilty of that myself. It's the only time I later wished I could delete my own comment. But, instead of trying to censor an entire topic, why not let it have a forum? We have topics on the major sports. Why not a topic on "Political and Social Aspects of Sport." And if you don't want to see those threads...you simply ignore them. We have the bandwidth and the adult membership to allow a free-flow exchange of ideas and opinions.
posted by ?! at 08:40 AM on August 08
lil brown bat: You are not forced to ignore or abstain from threads where you really want to comment. You choose not to. Sometimes you don't. chicobangs: Yes, you can carry on as though the turds are not there. You do it every day in real life. Those political turds are no different then every other derail. We do not come to the Locker Room when someone makes a "humorous" derail comment or when they have to flex their "I hate this sport" comments. The political comments are not more powerful simply because they're three paragraphs long. You can skip over them just as easily. Attitudes don't drive people away. People leave a community when it ceases to hold their interest or they choose to spend their time differently. Keep the FPPs interesting and people will stay. Look at some of the early FPPs here. Many didn't even have comments. Some people stayed. Some joined. And Sportsfilter still lives on.
posted by ?! at 07:20 PM on August 07
1) All boards, cultures, etc will eventually hear cries of "This ____ is in decline." 2) If the comment is on topic...and if the post was politically charged to begin with...then let them at it. After a few days most FPPs are forgotten by most users. There may be two or four still posting it a week later, but their comments will not slow down or affect any other thread. We are a divergent culture who will stay on the straight-and-narrow only through active policing. I'd rather we had the occasional "political" thread than see members afraid to express their viewpoint because of a threat of censure or ridicule. 3) Quoting from another thread...
Come on people, it's not like Sportsfilter is a bucket filled by those Internet Tubes. We can handle many posts. You aren't forced to read or comment in the posts you don't like. Skip them. Show your displeasure in the subject by letting it die on the vine. And if 10 or 20 people actually do like the post and want to comment you can be proud you didn't try to derail the thread.
posted by ?! at 05:29 PM on August 07
"I wonder if ..." There is no "I" in FPP.
posted by ?! at 12:52 PM on July 16
yerfatma: Nothing to see here. I screwed up trying to edit my comment.
posted by ?! at 08:25 PM on June 20
This post had a topic? Oh, yeah. Hiccups. But, thanks, for answering the original question. I would love a well written, fact-loaded blog entry over ESPN, SI, or AP any day. But, I can't say blog over news outlet every time. If the entry just copies a few facts from the news article I'd rather see it directly from the source.
posted by ?! at 08:20 PM on June 20
My family gave me the biography of a noted Knicks fan. They also didn't grumble a bit when I left baseball on as background "music" for everything me did today.
posted by ?! at 11:56 PM on June 18
So, in answer to my question, the consensus is that when making an FPP it is better to blog an entry about a warm glass of sugar water?
posted by ?! at 10:21 AM on June 15
lilnemo, I wasn't damning you at all. Your post just brought up my question. I haven't't seen the discussion regarding staying away from the major news outlets. That sounds like a great idea. However, I will say that the blogger's paragraph really didn't add anything to the story. His was just a summary of the SI story without any additional information Since he was an ex-Giant wouldn't a link to a Giants blogger have made more sense? For that matter, maybe a link to a Diamondbacks blogger who thinks Ortiz could have turned it around?
posted by ?! at 07:38 PM on June 14
grum: No Maurice Richard?
posted by ?! at 01:04 PM on June 04
Significant individual achievements is the category. Specifically because someone will see these names 100 years from now on Sportsfilter lists... Sir Roger Bannister Babe Ruth - Baseball of the early 20th Century was and is Ruth. Ali - For a too-brief period Ali was the face of America to so much of the world. Pelé - Futbol always has a "star." No one will ever hold the world's attention like Pelé did. Sadaharu Oh - For helping change the Japanese attitude toward those of mixed heritage. Jackie Robinson - For helping kick Americans into the real world. (Sorry, but Jesse Owens' feats couldn't even change his own country's attitudes, let alone the Germans)
posted by ?! at 01:23 PM on June 02
Flagging just made it easier for matthowie and jessamyn to find the double and problem FPPs. People still argue over the silliest things and posts made while intoxicated are still made. I don't think this site is in any sort of slide or that it needs a major overhaul. It's just the group is big enough now that we're no longer a family at Thanksgiving, but a Family Reunion over a long weekend in August. Any time you have a user base >1 you have trolls. All they really want is attention. The best thing to do is for us to just ignore them and let the admin delete them.
posted by ?! at 02:14 PM on May 27
qbert72: You got a problem with punctuation!? I can confirm I'm a ? with a !, but I've never been to a 711. PS: I know opinions weren't solicited, but I say name changes should be allowed. Especially if the change affects all previous posts. (No idea if these pages are built dynamically.)
posted by ?! at 10:33 PM on May 16
The Florabama, tequila, and the Texas Rubies. Good times. folkways: That reminds me of the Alabama State Trouper discovering the fatal accident on Martin Luther King Boulevard. Unfortunately, it's a joke best told not written.
posted by ?! at 10:13 AM on April 29
I'm covered. Can anyone share notes from the [expletive deleted] lecture on Bonds?
posted by ?! at 06:16 PM on April 16
Copyright © 2013 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.