Clarification of rules regarding tank discussion (ALL USERS MUST READ)

[ErrantShepherd]

"Any users opposed to the tank who enter that thread to instigate argument, discussion... "

Thought it better to relocate this discussion to this thread, over derailing the Tank thread... with a discussion over whether or not me even participating in conversation was derailing the tank thread.



...theres some massive double standards being applied between the pro-tank thread and pro-playoff threads and game threads.

I interpret that statement as stay on topic, stay civil. If you want to talk about being anti-tank or anti-playoff, do it in it's own thread. Don't start stuff. Not, don't you ever dare post in here. If that's a misinterpretation, that's on me.

I think interpreting it as don't ever go in that thread, or post, is frankly ludicrous, but if that standard is going to be applied then it needs to be applied equally across the board. There are dozens of clearly pro-tank posts within the "pro-playoffs" thread, many clearly instigating or mocking the concept or posters within it.

...but honestly, wouldn't you rather just have a civil conversation, Puck? Over this antagonistic segregation?

 

[tyhee]

Thought it better to relocate this discussion to this thread, over derailing the Tank thread... with a discussion over whether or not me even participating in conversation was derailing the tank thread.



...theres some massive double standards being applied between the pro-tank thread and pro-playoff threads and game threads.

I interpret that statement as stay on topic, stay civil. If you want to talk about being anti-tank or anti-playoff, do it in it's own thread. Don't start stuff. Not, don't you ever dare post in here. If that's a misinterpretation, that's on me.

I think interpreting it as don't ever go in that thread, or post, is frankly ludicrous, but if that standard is going to be applied then it needs to be applied equally across the board. There are dozens of clearly pro-tank posts within the "pro-playoffs" thread, many clearly instigating or mocking the concept or posters within it.

...but honestly, wouldn't you rather just have a civil conversation, Puck? Over this antagonistic segregation?

I hope you're right but worry there are too many on this board whose opinions are so strong it is next to impossible for them to post in the opposite thread to their views without crossing the line.

Otoh, there is much to be said for allowing civil conversation. Because my opinion favours giving priority to the future over the present it is unusual for me to have something worth saying that imo can be said in the pro-playoff thread. Still, it can sometimes happen and when something that could be useful can be said in the pro-playoff post that makes no argument in favour of losing or giving priority to the future over the present, it would be nice to think it can be said.

One simple example is if someone gets a fact wrong. If someone writes that Beagle's $2.4 million three year contract is no burden to the Canucks because they have the cap space, I would consider it ok to post that Beagle's contract was for four seasons at an annual average value of $3 million per season. Imo continuing with "so it is a burden to the Canucks" would be crossing the line.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

I hope you're right but worry there are too many on this board whose opinions are so strong it is next to impossible for them to post in the opposite thread to their views without crossing the line.

Otoh, there is much to be said for allowing civil conversation. Because my opinion favours giving priority to the future over the present it is unusual for me to have something worth saying that imo can be said in the pro-playoff thread. Still, it can sometimes happen and when something that could be useful can be said in the pro-playoff post that makes no argument in favour of losing or giving priority to the future over the present, it would be nice to think it can be said.

One simple example is if someone gets a fact wrong. If someone writes that Beagle's $2.4 million three year contract is no burden to the Canucks because they have the cap space, I would consider it ok to post that Beagle's contract was for four seasons at an annual average value of $3 million per season. Imo continuing with "so it is a burden to the Canucks" would be crossing the line.

That's pretty reasonable.

Idk, I'm of the mind if someone is on topic then whichever philosophy they subscribe to, or whoever they are doesn't really matter as long as they aren't trolling or instigating something.

But then, my experience has been moderating in smaller arts based communities... so maybe the dynamics are just straight up different when it comes to a large sports board?

 

[Teflon Jim]

Good to know so I can continue my glass half full take everywhere but the tank thread which i avoid now.

 

[ScottishCanuck]

It's a ridiculous policy.

 

[Shareefruck]

This is nitpicking, and I don't think it's a big deal, but I'm curious about why it was decided that GDTs are reserved specifically for fans who are actively cheering for wins. Isn't that kind of taking sides? GDTs seem like they should remain either neutral about that or open to both sides, and following the game with either attitude seems equally valid to me.

 

[Hit the post]

It's a ridiculous policy.

You’re a CDCer!

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

This is nitpicking, and I don't think it's a big deal, but I'm curious about why it was decided that GDTs are reserved specifically for fans who are actively cheering for wins. Isn't that kind of taking sides? GDTs seem like they should remain either neutral about that or open to both sides, and following the game with either attitude seems equally valid to me.

It’s a moot point now, with the season being nearly over. I think we can retire this thread and rule set (for at least the time being).

Closed.