FanDuel - WFBC

August 14, 2006

Guidelines plus.

posted by justgary to editorial policy at 04:25 PM - 97 comments

Sportsfilter's guidelines are a little sparse, so I created sportsfilter.info to help new members acclimate themselves to the site and also give actual documentation to community etiquette which will help with both admin and self policing. The advantages of having the site on a different server are one, if sportsfilter goes down updates can be given on sportsfilter.info, and two, as problems arise the guidelines can be edited at a moment's notice. This is just the basic guidelines. I'm going to be adding much more (where can I buy a sportsfilter t-shirt? Can I change my user name? Where can I chat with other sportsfilter members? etc.), and other uses may arise (bring back the wiki?), but the guidelines are most important and I wanted to get them up asap. So please, all opinions are welcomed. What do you like? Not like? What would you change? Take away? Add? Should something be worded differently? Brutal honesty is good. Also, chicobangs and ufezjones both helped immensely with the guidelines, both in content and writing, so a big thank you to them. Lastly, I just used the most basic template to get the guidelines up as fast as possible. Eventually, there will be color, links, etc. etc. In other words, ignore the ugly design for now and concentrate on the words. Thanks.

posted by justgary at 04:26 PM on August 14

Great job, all. My only comment relates to the personal attacks guideline. Name calling is the obvious no-no. But when does snarkiness become an attack? Because I can't see a debate occuring without people speaking directly to others. Just something to think about that might need further clarification. Or perhaps I'm just obtuse.

posted by garfield at 04:39 PM on August 14

This is a great start. Perhaps we need a FAQ, and can link directly to that at the top and bottom of these revised guidelines, and many links back to the guidelines from the FAQ. It doesn't hurt to drive the message home.

posted by rocketman at 04:49 PM on August 14

/Stands and applauds. A couple thoughts: Perhaps something about using punctuation (i.e. put a period at the end of a sentence) should be added to the part about grammer and spelling. Will a new user be automatically directed to this page when they sign up, or will there just be that "check out the guidelines" link?

posted by MrFrisby at 05:19 PM on August 14

Nice job Gary. By the way- can you change your screename without getting another account? Anywho, its good the guidelines are more specific, especially now that SportsFilter has over 15 thousand people. *Good job to Chico and Ufez as well*

posted by Kendall at 05:28 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

Awesome. Thanks.

posted by yerfatma at 05:37 PM on August 14

There are still a couple of things that I'd like to clean up (frexample, that very first bullet point could be cut by two-thirds), but yay for them seeing the light of day.

posted by chicobangs at 06:30 PM on August 14

I like this. Well done, all involved. Maybe the entry exam should ditch questions about Beijing and have questions about these guidelines instead?

posted by Mr Bismarck at 06:50 PM on August 14

Where's the dancing banana?

posted by worldcup2002 at 07:18 PM on August 14

Job well done to all involved. Thank you for taking the extra time to do this. Maybe the entry exam should ditch questions about Beijing and have questions about these guidelines instead? Not a bad idea at all.

posted by jojomfd1 at 07:27 PM on August 14

Because I can't see a debate occuring without people speaking directly to others. Just something to think about that might need further clarification. Or perhaps I'm just obtuse. posted by garfield Good point. We probably need to reword that a little bit. Perhaps we need a FAQ posted by rocketman Yeah, I'm thinking of having the FAQ under the guidelines. Perhaps something about using punctuation (i.e. put a period at the end of a sentence) should be added to the part about grammer and spelling. Done. Will a new user be automatically directed to this page when they sign up, or will there just be that "check out the guidelines" link? posted by MrFrisby Not sure. Hopefully one or the other when it's finished, but that'll be up to rcade. can you change your screename without getting another account? posted by Kendall At this point, no. Your best bet is to do what you did, new name and link to the old (and about the quiz you asked about on the front page, it's been there for a couple of months). One easy to read set of rules. I hope no matter how big the FAQ gets those basic rules stay on page one. posted by ?! Agreed. Maybe the entry exam should ditch questions about Beijing and have questions about these guidelines instead? posted by Mr Bismarck Not a bad idea. Where's the dancing banana? posted by worldcup2002 It'll be in the faq section, of course. FWIW, I wish we didn't need such detailed guidelines. We open ourselves up for members complaining about cases they were and were not applied. But I think the benefits will be greater than the negatives.

posted by justgary at 07:37 PM on August 14

As far as the personal discussions thing goes, I keep imagining the guidelines as the Marquess of Queensberry rules: no cheap shots, keep it above the belt, respect your counterpart, don't kick someone when they're down, and aside from that, have at it. I've been wrestling with a way to say that. Any ideas?

posted by chicobangs at 07:43 PM on August 14

where can I buy a sportsfilter t-shirt? Where can I buy a SpoFi shirt? As for the keeping it on topic, I have found some very interesting discussions occur on things not really related to sports. While that may fill a FPP with "clutter", usually the off topic discussions usually occur at the end of a thread, where most people have moved on. I'm not saying there should be no action against off topic things but is it a crime to discuss off topic things in a pretty much forgotten thread?

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 07:43 PM on August 14

I'm not saying there should be no action against off topic things but is it a crime to discuss off topic things in a pretty much forgotten thread? They're just guidelines, not rock solid rules. I don't think anyone's going to complain when at the end of a thread members start riffing on movie quotes. It's when it gets in the way of the discussion that it becomes a problem. There's still a human element to all this. For instance, this is not an english class. I misspell words all the time. But there's a point where the lack of spelling and punctuation gets in the way of the discussion, and that's what the guidelines are referring to. I hope the guidelines aren't looked at as an attempt to creat a 'no fun' site. On the contrary, the guidelines are designed to minimize noise so we can have, you know, more fun.

posted by justgary at 07:56 PM on August 14

I love 'em, and would only change/add two things: - Third bullet point: "criterion", not "criteria". - Where appropriate, links to examples. To use the rule about editorializing as a f'rinstance, have a link to a FPP where there is editorializing, and then one where it's done right but showing the comments where the FPPer has added his/her own opinion. That way, the guidelines can still be sparse, but you can get specific about exactly what you mean (some of this is obvious, but some of it will be over people's heads).

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:58 PM on August 14

Third bullet point: "criterion", not "criteria". See? My english not-so-good. Done, thanks llb. Where appropriate, links to examples. To use the rule about editorializing as a f'rinstance, have a link to a FPP where there is editorializing, and then one where it's done right but showing the comments where the FPPer has added his/her own opinion. That way, the guidelines can still be sparse, but you can get specific about exactly what you mean (some of this is obvious, but some of it will be over people's heads). posted by lil_brown_bat I actually thought about that. In many cases examples would get the point across better than words. I think that's definitely something to add in the future. My only worry was using actual member posts as 'bad examples'. Not sure how that would go over.

posted by justgary at 08:11 PM on August 14

I demand odd, unrelated, obscure numbering associated with each rule so we can cite them as though they were baseball sub-rules. "Violation of 3b., sub-section 1.c.!!" And why can't user names just be edited in the database, in cases of anti-Red Sox names?

posted by yerfatma at 08:16 PM on August 14

My only worry was using actual member posts as 'bad examples'. Not sure how that would go over. I'd gladly create one for you to link to. Shouldn't be too hard.

posted by rocketman at 08:25 PM on August 14

And why can't user names just be edited in the database, in cases of anti-Red Sox names? I'm sure they can, but not by me, so I'm passing the buck until I hear otherwise from those that can.

posted by justgary at 08:33 PM on August 14

What rocketman said. We wouldn't need that many examples, and they wouldn't be hard to come up with. Just sing out if you want 'em. Second yerfatma's request for the odd, unrelated, obscure numbering. But that's "paragraph 3b., sub-section 1.c", yerfatma.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:08 PM on August 14

justgary Fabulous, you rock dude! Thanks for your hard work. Kudos to chico and ufez also.

posted by skydivedad at 09:08 PM on August 14

And why can't user names just be edited in the database, in cases of anti-Red Sox names? I have a couple anti-Red Sox names I'd like to yell about now. Guidelines look good. Need some time to let them sink in.

posted by jerseygirl at 09:16 PM on August 14

Where's the dancing banana? posted by worldcup2002 at 7:18 PM CDT on August 14 Right here of course!

posted by Kendall at 09:25 PM on August 14

Very nice! Although I notice a distinct lack of an infield fly rule. What happens if a new user drops an infield fly with runners on first and second and fewer than two outs? That's just not fair.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 09:53 PM on August 14

Very nice job. I would only strengthen the point about posting to your own site. Saying it is "particularly uncool" doesn't capture it. My understanding is that such FPPs would be immediately removed. The guidelines should say so.

posted by Amateur at 09:55 PM on August 14

I have to admit, I was secretly hoping for a bit more dissent, but it looks like Gary and Chico's hard work (along with my 15 minutes of input) has fallen on good ears screens. My only other input would be A)putting this in the sidebar (which will have little inpact on the most egregious of offenders, but might still be worth doing) and B) culling volunteers for the "Still have questions? Here are people you can e-mail to clarify things" at the bottom, as we had discussed via e-mail. And why can't user names just be edited in the database, in cases of anti-Red Sox names? Well, that would leave users "omgtehmarinerswearsailorhatsandhavelotsofskinnyasiansandtheyrgay" And "thedbacksmascotonlyprovesthattheyliketehtrousersnakes=theyrgay" and I'd rather not, you know, discriminate. And, just in case I've not said it enough, thanks again, Gary.

posted by Ufez Jones at 10:05 PM on August 14

I must admit that I will miss the speculation about the sexuality of Red's oxen.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:12 PM on August 14

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

Thanks for the latest suggestions. I'll try to work on them later this morning.

posted by justgary at 01:30 AM on August 15

Nice. You should fix it so that's the first thing every single member sees next time he/she signs in, maybe even add one of those "I accept/decline the guidelines and rules" buttons. Don't accept, you don't get to log in. /stands /applauds /weeps openly /tries to grab jerseygirl in the confusion

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:27 AM on August 15

I'd be interested in the wording of the "racist attacks" part too. Will result in immediate bannination is going to empty out the cycling threads pretty quickly, of people who are less than enamoured with our Gallic friends.

posted by Mr Bismarck at 08:03 AM on August 15

Well done, all involved. Thanks!

posted by scully at 09:08 AM on August 15

And then there's the distinction between racist/derogatory remarks aimed at someone else in a thread, and racist/derogatory remarks aimed at a sports figure, some other public figure, or a class of people. Is the n-word or the f-word or the b-word just fine as long as it's aimed at someone holding a golf club or riding a bicycle?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:24 AM on August 15

You should fix it so that's the first thing every single member sees next time he/she signs in, maybe even add one of those "I accept/decline the guidelines and rules" buttons. Don't accept, you don't get to log in. And if there's a scroll bar involved, then the buttons to accept or not accept are not even activated until the scroll bar hits bottom. They way I've seen this done is that the programmer put the guidelines in a smallish frame that forced a scroll bar to appear. The buttons to accept or not accept were outside of the frame; beneath it actually. When the scroll bar hit bottom, then the buttons would activate. It sort of forces the potential new user to interact with the guidelines text somehow, someway. 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. Maybe the last part of the guidelines should be something about reserving the right to enforce unwritten rules and that there shall be no whining about fascism/communism/PCism as a result of editing or banning. Anyway, this is some great stuff and I, for one, welcome our new guideline overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted SpoFi personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground guideline caves.

posted by NoMich at 11:06 AM on August 15

Woah, my alter ego's comment are being deleted. Sorry about the double (now deleted) comment, I thought maybe I left it in preview the first time around. Pony time: when a post/comment is deleted, the poster should be emailed a notification. The deleter should be able to indicate which guideline was violated. The whole thing should be worded in a way that clearly states that the message is for information purposes only and that the deletion is not up for discussion.

posted by qbert72 at 11:38 AM on August 15

In with the racist and derogatory line, I think we might want to address sexist commentary specifically and not let it fall under derogatory's umbrella.

posted by jerseygirl at 12:41 PM on August 15

Agreed.

posted by chicobangs at 12:50 PM on August 15

Next you'll be asking for a separate clause to deal with your fan club.

posted by yerfatma at 12:55 PM on August 15

I have a fan club? Do we have stickers? Jackets? Magnetic ribbons for your soccermom-mobile? Are there yearly membership dues that I have totally not been getting a cut of?

posted by jerseygirl at 01:08 PM on August 15

I have a fan club? You keep asking that like you don't see them at each and every game.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:11 PM on August 15

Last time you said I had a censorship cabal and that's different than fanclub because dictionary.com said so.

posted by jerseygirl at 01:13 PM on August 15

Forced scrolling doesn't do anything- people still ignore it. I'm totally in favor of a quiz during signup. Otherwise, looks great.

posted by tieguy at 01:34 PM on August 15

Hell, after seeing a comment just now where the poster mis-spelled Jordan, I'm in favor of an essay exam instead of a quiz. (boggles) On a sports board, that's like mis-spelling God.

posted by tieguy at 01:36 PM on August 15

Fan club, censorship cabal, tomato, tomato. Forced scrolling takes away the ignorance excuse. I'm for it.

posted by chicobangs at 01:37 PM on August 15

I think they look great. If you have space, discouraging all caps might be a good idea.

posted by bperk at 02:14 PM on August 15

Leave poor, cute, and fuzzy dictionary.com out of this. re: getting personal - I don't have an answer, but my best idea is to use the Largest Common Denominator as a reference point. I'd suggest the ubiquitous Golden Rule as a "guideline". But that has problems because everyone has a different pain threshhold, and for that matter a different defintion of 'pain.' Some people have kind supportive friends, while others have friends that constantly mock them as an expression of their bond, and you never know what kind of fruit you are biting into. The moral philosopher in me is quipping "The universal ethic debate, oh hurrah"

posted by garfield at 02:37 PM on August 15

discouraging all caps might be a good idea. I THINK THAT IS AN AWFUL IDEA!1!!! Oh yeah, I wouldn't mind a speel check.

posted by HATER 187 at 02:52 PM on August 15

fer sail: spel cherkr, werks grate onlee usid wonce

posted by ptluigi at 03:01 PM on August 15

And (again) keep the spelling or grammar mistakes to a minimum. Take pride in what you are writing. The world is paying attention. I love that one. I like reading what a person is saying, not trying to decode it. I'd like to think that everyone on this site is somewhat intelligent, too.

posted by wingnut4life at 03:18 PM on August 15

Well done, dudes. Now if only I could be able to remove juvenile references to dope smoking in my user name. However, I don't want to lose my covetted three-digit user number. Meh, I'll live.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:20 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

Now if only I could be able to remove juvenile references to dope smoking in my user name. I wish I could change my username too, don't feel bad.

posted by jerseygirl at 04:06 PM on August 15

Now if only I could be able to remove juvenile references to dope smoking in my user name. I thought it was a reference to burning dandelions or something. Another thing I would like to add is keep bold and italics more to an occasional use, such as quoting or emphasizing. I don't even read comments in all italics, creative looking or not. Also, a suggestion not to put everything in one huge paragraph with no spaces may be good.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:53 PM on August 15

SportsFilter: No one cares about your artistic expression.

posted by jerseygirl at 06:17 PM on August 15

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. I'm going to ask this question again: what if someone makes an attack that is racist, sexist, etc. in nature...but it isn't directed literally and specifically at a SpoFite, but at a whole category of people (women, Latvians, whatever)?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:58 PM on August 15

SportsFilter: No one cares about your artistic expression. Well that multi-colored and scrolling comment of yours a while back was quite stunning.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 07:29 PM on August 15

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

O.k. I worked on it a little more, paying attention to the suggestions. As the thread falls off the page, still feel free to email me with any suggestions/concerns/rewording. It's going to be a work in progress. I'd be interested in the wording of the "racist attacks" part too. Will result in immediate bannination is going to empty out the cycling threads pretty quickly, of people who are less than enamoured with our Gallic friends. posted by Mr Bismarck I think we might want to address sexist commentary specifically and not let it fall under derogatory's umbrella. posted by jerseygirl What about slur words? How are those handled? posted by ?! what if someone makes an attack that is racist, sexist, etc. in nature...but it isn't directed literally and specifically at a SpoFite, but at a whole category of people (women, Latvians, whatever)? posted by lil_brown_bat I tried to make it more clear. Also, I took out any mention of banning and put it at the bottom of the page. I think, as I'm seeing here, being too specific creates questions. There's obviously times banning should be immediate and times where it shouldn't. I think that's a human call, and hard to capture with a guideline. Pony time: when a post/comment is deleted, the poster should be emailed a notification. Yeah, if we could automate it, that would be ideal. Personal attacks will result in immediate banning. What is a personal attack? but with a link to an example. I agree the guidelines should be as simple as possible without being too simple. But I'm also trying to give a feel for the site, and I'm not sure one line with a link to more would be a good thing. We're already trying to figure out how to insure a member reads the guidelines. Getting them to click on a link and read more would be even more difficult. I do think linking to examples would be something to add in the future.

posted by justgary at 02:41 AM 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

Over use of caps, exclamation points, and aol-speak is discouraged. Ooh, I like that part, and the article linked.

posted by MrFrisby at 05:59 AM on August 16

I do like the bottom of the page banning message in bold. Looks good, Gary.

posted by jerseygirl at 06:15 AM on August 16

Top notch game, justgary & crew. Top notch!! Thanks for your hard work. One small suggestion. The linked article that describes AOL Speak takes a real beating in the comments below it. 19 out of 20 people either found the argument ill founded, or the writer a pompous ass, or both. I would suggest using something else to get the point across... maybe this?

posted by BullpenPro at 10:09 AM on August 16

I think these guidelines are terrific; they address a lot of the necessary issues without being too strict, and counterbalance the inherent sobriety of a rulesbook with amusing examples: "yelling the name of your team at random only makes you sound like a Saturday Night Live character." I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that the exemplar of crappy discussion is "yankees suck, red sox rule," however. I mean, those are facts, Jack. A few other issues: * I'm not a big fan of that aol-speak article; it doesn't just define aol-speak but it has a speculative thesis that's controversial at best. I think the expression "aol-speak" speaks for itself... * I don't think a policy that simply states "no personal attacks" is incompatible with one-on-one exchange between participants in a debate. As I understand it, "no personal attacks" means address the argument, not the person making it. So: "Bob, you're totally wrong about Cristiano Ronaldo" is OK, "Bob, you're a little bitch just like your boy Cristiano Ronaldo" is not OK. * Perhaps a link to sportsfilter.info could be placed at the top of page at all times?

posted by Venicemenace at 11:57 AM on August 16

I like Venicemenace's personal attacks example. Remember, though: while we hold it as self-evident that Cristiano Ronaldo is a little bitch, we can only call him that as long as he doesn't get a SpoFi account, because then it's a personal attack. (Not that I'm holding my breath; I could see a few footballers on here, but cronaldo doesn't strike me as much of a reader*.) And yeah, that AOL-speak link is a bit too Steve-Allenish to be worth the trouble. * Rolling On the Floor Laughing Out Loud Oh My God What The Fuck Barbeque Okay, Got To Go Thank You Good-bye!

posted by chicobangs at 01:20 PM on August 16

Aol speak link is gone. and counterbalance the inherent sobriety of a rulesbook with amusing examples: "yelling the name of your team at random only makes you sound like a Saturday Night Live character." All credit for humor goes to chicobangs. He is the funny man. Perhaps a link to sportsfilter.info could be placed at the top of page at all times? Eventually, when it's pretty much done, I hope.

posted by justgary at 01:37 PM on August 16

"no personal attacks" means address the argument, not the person making it. Nice.

posted by justgary at 01:46 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

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO DROP THE CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINT RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THAT SEEMS SILLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11I MEAN IF THERE ARE NO RULES FOR ALL CAPS AND EXCLAMATION POINTS THEN IF WE GET FPPS LIKE THIS WE'D HAVE NO CAUSE FOR DELETING THEM NOW WOULD WE?>?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!CONTROL-ONE!!111ELEVENTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S. NO ONE CARES ABOUT SEMI COLONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by jerseygirl at 02:56 PM on August 16

No one cares about colons until you get a blockage. Then even a semi-colon seems desirable.

posted by yerfatma at 03:04 PM on August 16

;

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:11 PM on August 16

I must admit, I had no idea how to properly use a semicolon.

posted by MrFrisby at 03:57 PM on August 16

Can we add one more line at the bottom: "Don't fuck with grum@work." No explanation, no other comment, just that. It would finally give me an air of toughness that I've never had the chance to experience (given my penchant for geekiness and my emaciated build). I'd never DO anything that would imply a reason for a bully's swagger, but it would be interesting nonetheless.

posted by grum@work at 04:03 PM on August 16

I'd need to see your swagger first.

posted by yerfatma at 04:53 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

Yeah... not so much. That was actually a point I was making to you of why ALL CAPS and exclamation points needs to be in the guidelines. Because all CAPS and !!!! looks like shit and is hard to read. We've all seen it before and its considered yelling online, universally. The SpoFi oppressors didn't make it up as a way to keep the man down. Nothing major. A sentence. That's all. I don't know why you object. Hey, I should give you something as an example, right? Something that suggests that it does occasionally rear its head as an issue here. Here's another recent example... from yesterday. AOL speak is "OMG R U serious ?! Wat up?"

posted by jerseygirl at 06:57 PM on August 16

I'd need to see your swagger first. Haha! Nice try! I only fall for the "you show me your swagger, I'll show you mine" trick once!

posted by grum@work at 07:44 PM on August 16

Fine. Grum, I bet you can't touch your elbows together behind your back.

posted by jerseygirl at 07:48 PM on August 16

1. Yeah, all caps, as well as all italics, all bold, and all other emphasis, might do good to be mentioned. People wouldn't make their words look like Fred Phelps pamphlets if they bothered to read the site (or, hell, any discussion site on the web this side of Yahoo Comments or certain extremist political blogs I could name) for even ten minutes. 2. That's the third online version of Strunk & White I've seen online. Good to know, even if parts of it are fading in relevance.) 3. I could touch my elbows behind both of your backs! At the same time, even! *Depending on where you're standing.

posted by chicobangs at 07:51 PM on August 16

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

Consider it a miscommunication then. Since the other lockerroom thread, I really don't know how to take your comments anymore. Also, it most certainly was NOT an attempt to be condescending, I do apologize if that's how it came across to you. Of course, I could say your comment about the early days of the internet feels condescending to me. Funny, right? It's all in how you want to see the tone of things. Good old internet. However, I still think a line about caps, exclamation points, or italics and bold for that matter, are not superfluous in the least. A sentence can go a long way and since we're not being charged by the word, why not, you know? Better to lay it on the line than leave it up for individual interpretations of the guidelines.

posted by jerseygirl at 08:23 PM on August 16

I think I agree with JG- I'd rather see a concrete 'caps, exclamation points, etc.' list, than a euphemism ('aol-speak'). More likely to, you know, get read ;)

posted by tieguy at 08:34 PM on August 16

LOL

posted by chicobangs at 08:37 PM on August 16

roflcopter?

posted by jerseygirl at 08:41 PM on August 16

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. Do people writing in AOL Speak know that they're writing in AOL Speak?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:28 PM on August 16

looks good gary, go with it!

posted by ptluigi at 10:04 PM on August 16

Do people writing in AOL Speak know that they're writing in AOL Speak /sound of bell in distance/ I think I just had a Zen moment.

posted by owlhouse at 10:45 PM on August 16

AOLSpeak bites the dust.

posted by justgary at 01:03 AM on August 17

I bet you can't touch your elbows together behind your back Ah, brings back such sweet mammories memories. Somehow my wife had made it through life without hearing that.

posted by yerfatma at 06:09 AM on August 17

/sound of bell in distance/ I think I just had a Zen moment. No, that was a Taco Bell moment. You better find a toilet, and fast!

posted by NoMich at 06:55 AM on August 17

Alternately, we could just replace the whole thing with the last image in The Black Hand's profile.

posted by tieguy at 07:41 AM on August 17

Hee hee. What I was trying to get at was, will people who type stuff like "how r u? lol!!1!11!!!" know that what they're doing is called "AOL Speak"?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:42 AM on August 17

roflcopter? The more time I spend online, the more I become convinced that the internet is owned and operated by a worldwide association of 14-year-olds who meet tri-annually at a Silicon Valley compound belonging to Steve Case called "The Viral Spire." Justgary: I'm not sure anyone was calling for the dropping of AOL Speak; more, they were looking to supplement it with comments about caps and punctuation. Does dropping the "AOL Speak" altogether open the door for "u r right about T.O. LOL?" Some might argue that this sentence does not break any of the rules as they're written.

posted by BullpenPro at 09:48 AM on August 17

KTHXBYE

posted by yerfatma at 11:53 AM on August 17

We are making a big deal out of AOL speak when it doesn't really seem to have been a big problem. Usually those who use it are ignored and don't usually comment again. And those users seems to be quite rare anyway. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem to be that much of a problem.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 12:18 PM on August 17

I'm not sure anyone was calling for the dropping of AOL Speak Well, I wasn't that confident went I used it the first time. And like LBB was saying, I'm not sure those using it know they're using it. I'm southern, but I don't hear an accent. It's just the way I tawlk. We are making a big deal out of AOL speak when it doesn't really seem to have been a big problem. No, it hasn't been a real problem (though I do see it, even today). But if it fits nicely there's no reason we can't cut it off at the pass in the guidelines.

posted by justgary at 01:39 PM on August 17

Right now, today, I'd be ecstatic if we could add (and enforce) a guideline along the lines of "no platitudes allowed".

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:54 PM on August 17

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.