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

[y2kcanucks]

As someone who has been banned multiple times from the hf political forum, it definitely isn't lol.

Good to know. And congrats...that's a very high bar

 

[y2kcanucks]

The Political Forum no longer exists on this site, and discussion of politics is prohibited.

Ohh, didn't realize that. For the best.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

Interesting.. is this decision similar to other 30 teams discussion areas? I havent had the time to look.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

*that didn't really come off in the good natured spirit it was intended. Sorry.

 

[HelloCookie]

This is a bit off-topic, but in the realm of meta discussion, so I guess this is the most appropriate place to post? While the battles between tankers and anti tankers are rather painful to read and reducce the quality of content discussion-wise, I find it more difficult to read player-centered topics here. The Juolevi topic for example. I do get why controversial draft picks get evaluated as mismanaged assets, but that seems to be the main narrative way too often and derails the discussion regarding the individual. In these topics it's more common to give the management and coaching staff a spanking rather than discuss the player in a constructive manner. At the same time I acknowledge that spanking can be constructive so by no means is it either-or situation.

I don't think that should be moderated per se, but as someone who wants to read "peer" reviews about players, especially prospects, it get's very taxing to comb through the sidetracking arguments. I'm not trying to tell how to post and what to discuss but rather point out places of improvement. That's all, thanks for posting guys, makes following the team much more diverse in here, overseas.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

This is a bit off-topic, but in the realm of meta discussion, so I guess this is the most appropriate place to post? While the battles between tankers and anti tankers are rather painful to read and reducce the quality of content discussion-wise, I find it more difficult to read player-centered topics here. The Juolevi topic for example. I do get why controversial draft picks get evaluated as mismanaged assets, but that seems to be the main narrative way too often and derails the discussion regarding the individual. In these topics it's more common to give the management and coaching staff a spanking rather than discuss the player in a constructive manner. At the same time I acknowledge that spanking can be constructive so by no means is it either-or situation.

I don't think that should be moderated per se, but as someone who wants to read "peer" reviews about players, especially prospects, it get's very taxing to comb through the sidetracking arguments. I'm not trying to tell how to post and what to discuss but rather point out places of improvement. That's all, thanks for posting guys, makes following the team much more diverse in here, overseas.

HelloCookie - if you feel this way about the Juolevi discussion (or any, really) please follow the process outlined here:

This is particularly tough as discussion of a player or prospect usually involves how they were acquired, which leads to some discussion around management. If it organically forms part of the conversation, that’s one thing - we can’t (and won’t) remove all references to management in a prospect thread. But if the thread has become derailed by a long series of posts in sequence debating something that is not the topic of the thread, please use the report post feature to alert the moderators so we can review it.

 

[Shareefruck]

What's the policy on posters making snarky or passive aggressive comments rolling their eyes at/ridiculing opposing viewpoints from within their protected thread? If we can't debate these posts, then can we report these types of posts to get rid of them?

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

What's the policy on posters making snarky or passive aggressive comments rolling their eyes at/ridiculing opposing viewpoints from within their protected thread? If we can't debate these posts, then can we report these types of posts to get rid of them?

If you feel a post is violating a Site Rule, please use the "Report" function (blue link, left of the like/reply options). This will report the post to the Moderating team so we can evaluate the situation. It is also important to not reply to a post that you feel is violating a site rule - that will only 1) exacerbate the situation, and 2) potentially land yourself in trouble as well.

 

[Shareefruck]

If you feel a post is violating a Site Rule, please use the "Report" function (blue link, left of the like/reply options). This will report the post to the Moderating team so we can evaluate the situation. It is also important to not reply to a post that you feel is violating a site rule - that will only 1) exacerbate the situation, and 2) potentially land yourself in trouble as well.

I don't think that answers my question.

I understand that the purpose of separating these threads is to allow people who have a certain viewpoint to discuss things according to these interests without having to constantly defend their interests. I'm in total agreement of that.

However, posters will also feel inclined to go beyond that and boast about the validity of these interests while scoffing at the alternative, from within these protected threads (eg. a pro-tanker in the pro-tanking thread will want to boast about pro-tanking and scoff about the alternative.... the opposite is true of an anti-tanker). Normally, these types of remarks would not be against board rules, because they could be contended by those who disagree, but if we deny the ability for others to contend them, should the initial remark/implication still be allowed?

If we can report these types of posts and get them deleted in order to keep them purely about "discussing topics according to these interests", that makes sense and seems fair to me. However, if we cannot do that, and we're just being asked to suck it up and ignore any shade thrown from within those threads and mind our own business, that sounds pretty objectionable to me.

I would appreciate some clarification about that.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I don't think that answers my question.

I understand that the purpose of separating these threads is to allow people who have a certain viewpoint to discuss things according to these interests without having to constantly defend their interests. I'm in total agreement of that.

However, posters will also feel inclined to go beyond that and boast about the validity of these interests while scoffing at the alternative, from within these protected threads (eg. a pro-tanker in the pro-tanking thread will want to boast about pro-tanking and scoff about the alternative.... the opposite is true of an anti-tanker). Normally, these types of remarks would not be against board rules, because they could be contended by those who disagree, but if we deny the ability for others to contend them, should the initial remark/implication still be allowed?

If we can report these types of posts and get them deleted in order to keep them purely about "discussing topics according to these interests", that makes sense and seems fair to me. However, if we cannot do that, and we're just being asked to suck it up and ignore any shade thrown from within those threads and mind our own business, that sounds pretty objectionable to me.

I would appreciate some clarification about that.

Your question is covered under our Site Rules #1 thru #4.

1) Flaming: Critique the opinion, not the person. Personal attacks against members are not permitted. Report flaming, do not respond to it. Counter-flaming is also prohibited.
2) Trolling: Do not make posts that could be interpreted as though they were made to cause an argument or provoke others. Posting questionable content on team boards, particularly those of rivals, is likely to be seen as trolling.
3) Spamming: Posts that advertise anything without the authorization of site Administrators may be considered “spam”. If you wish to advertise on HFBoards please contact [email protected]. No money leagues are allowed in the Fantasy Talk forum. Do not post the same content multiple times, whether on the same forum, or across multiple forums.
4) Threadjacking/OT: Posts that waste space or time on the site, annoy users due to characteristics or repetition, disrupt the site functionality, or cause threads to veer off topic may be considered “threadjacking/OT”. This also applies to signatures, user titles, avatars, profile fields, and so forth. Stay on topic as much as possible. Post new threads in the appropriate forum only. Political discussion is not permitted on the forums except within the narrowly defined scope of hockey-related matters.

Full Site Rules: Terms of Service and Rules | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Any post that violates the Site's Rules, regardless of which thread it is in, is not permitted. And again, if you see/think/feel a post violates our site rules, report it. Do not respond to it.

 

[Zombotron]

Conversely, GDTs and the Pro-Playoff thread will be reserved for fans who are actively cheering for the Canucks to win their games.

Does this extend to Pre-Game Talk as well

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Does this extend to Pre-Game Talk as well

Yes.

 

[Var]

Good point - that nuance is necessary regardless of the Pro-tank vs. No-tank alignment. The danger being that if we separate these two organizational ideas on the forum, that in their own sandboxes it may silence a rational amount of criticism. The whole, you're either with us or against us thing.

My hope is that there won't be a huge number of rules laid down about it more than there have been and that we'll just have to use a bit of common sense.

All I know is I'm happy they're making this change. It's such a fundamentally different way to back the team that they just don't belong side by side. Hopefully grey area subjects like, "Should we tank?" or "Under what circumstances will tankers begin supporting team wins again?" aren't off limits.

 

[DomY]

This might be a dumb question, but is this "Pro-Tank" Thread also exclusively a "Boooo Management" Thread as well? Or is this a "Big Tent of Negativity" thread?

Because I am in the camp that thinks we need a few more picks and I'll cheer for a loss after the fact, but I also don't really feel strongly either way about management, nor do I think losing will replace GMJB any sooner. I would also like to debate the merits of when a tank should end, but that may violate the rules of this thread.

Just trying to wrap my head around this thread before I decide whether to participate or just stay out of the way. Thanks for laying down rules.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Good point - that nuance is necessary regardless of the Pro-tank vs. No-tank alignment. The danger being that if we separate these two organizational ideas on the forum, that in their own sandboxes it may silence a rational amount of criticism. The whole, you're either with us or against us thing.

My hope is that there won't be a huge number of rules laid down about it more than there have been and that we'll just have to use a bit of common sense.

All I know is I'm happy they're making this change. It's such a fundamentally different way to back the team that they just don't belong side by side. Hopefully grey area subjects like, "Should we tank?" or "Under what circumstances will tankers begin supporting team wins again?" aren't off limits.

It's not off limits, you can discuss those topics here: Tanking vs Winning thread

The purpose of these 3 threads is to funnel rational criticism to the appropriate place.

This might be a dumb question, but is this "Pro-Tank" Thread also exclusively a "Boooo Management" Thread as well? Or is this a "Big Tent of Negativity" thread?

Because I am in the camp that thinks we need a few more picks and I'll cheer for a loss after the fact, but I also don't really feel strongly either way about management, nor do I think losing will replace GMJB any sooner. I would also like to debate the merits of when a tank should end, but that may violate the rules of this thread.

Just trying to wrap my head around this thread before I decide whether to participate or just stay out of the way. Thanks for laying down rules.

MC can correct me if I'm wrong here, but debating the merits of when to tank _does_ violate the rules of the pro-tank thread. Instead, that thought should be directed here: Tanking vs Winning thread

The pro-tank thread is not a management thread. There is a separate thread for management talk here: We've fallen and we can't get up. 18/19 MGMT thread VI.

All that said, pro-tank talk does often align itself with management change talk. Those tangents can happen. However, when pro-management individuals choose to contest that talk, it can derail the thread. I would suggest taking the contested quote to the management thread and continuing there. That keeps the debate where it should be.

 

[alicia]

I 'member when everyone on this board used to get along, excitement overtook misery, and yes, even the negative nancies were accepted, and the team was fun to watch.

It's such a shame that we have to put users into bubbles so that they don't engage each other in a pissing contest about who was right and who was wrong, or why winning hockey games is meaningless or losing them isnt entertaining.

I just hope that one day, we can all get along again, and that the team fits everyone's needs, so that I can return to this board and feel the excitement through my fellow fans instead of feeling doom and gloom on a sport that gives me distraction and entertainment from a rather miserable routine that's called life.

 

[Canucks LB]

I 'member when everyone on this board used to get along, excitement overtook misery, and yes, even the negative nancies were accepted, and the team was fun to watch.

It's such a shame that we have to put users into bubbles so that they don't engage each other in a pissing contest about who was right and who was wrong, or why winning hockey games is meaningless or losing them isnt entertaining.

I just hope that one day, we can all get along again, and that the team fits everyone's needs, so that I can return to this board and feel the excitement through my fellow fans instead of feeling doom and gloom on a sport that gives me distraction and entertainment from a rather miserable routine that's called life.

Well said

 

[NuxFan09]

I 'member when everyone on this board used to get along, excitement overtook misery, and yes, even the negative nancies were accepted, and the team was fun to watch.

It's such a shame that we have to put users into bubbles so that they don't engage each other in a pissing contest about who was right and who was wrong, or why winning hockey games is meaningless or losing them isnt entertaining.

I just hope that one day, we can all get along again, and that the team fits everyone's needs, so that I can return to this board and feel the excitement through my fellow fans instead of feeling doom and gloom on a sport that gives me distraction and entertainment from a rather miserable routine that's called life.

Bang on. I'm barely in the Utica thread anymore and I always used to be in there. It's just endless bickering. All. The. Time. Something that used to be fun is a slog now.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Bang on. I'm barely in the Utica thread anymore and I always used to be in there. It's just endless bickering. All. The. Time. Something that used to be fun is a slog now.

Sounds like a microcosm for being a Canucks fan in general.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

I'm in the Utica thread almost every day and I certainly haven't noticed 'endless bickering' or anything remotely of the sort. It's pretty much been rational hockey discussion between fans or at least that's been my experience there. Of course there are some arguments; it's a hockey forum fan after all.

 

[tyhee]

I 'member when everyone on this board used to get along, excitement overtook misery, and yes, even the negative nancies were accepted, and the team was fun to watch.
....

Ah, the good old days of good teams and winning, when everyone had lots to feel good about, both the optimists who come to forums to cheer and the analysts who come to discuss.

It wasn't so hard to get along when the team and management made everyone feel good.

 

[xtra]

Where’s the line on calling people fake fans, these damn trolls coming in here making accounts and calling us fake fans though we have been here since the 2000’s is absurd.

A straight ban needs to be put up

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Where’s the line on calling people fake fans, these damn trolls coming in here making accounts and calling us fake fans though we have been here since the 2000’s is absurd.

A straight ban needs to be put up

If you see this happen, please use the report post feature so the moderators can address it.

 

[4Twenty]

Don't know where to ask this, but I've just found the ignore user function and it's a good feature, but has there been any talk with the developers of this platform about fixing it? It makes for really tough reading and the ability to follow along in discussions.

Seems like it would just be better to allow you to see that people are quoting the post of an "ignored user", you just don't need to see the content.

 

[Melvin]

Don't know where to ask this, but I've just found the ignore user function and it's a good feature, but has there been any talk with the developers of this platform about fixing it? It makes for really tough reading and the ability to follow along in discussions.

Seems like it would just be better to allow you to see that people are quoting the post of an "ignored user", you just don't need to see the content.

The xenforo developers are extremely stubborn and won't change it.