UPDATES TO THE CHARTER

First and foremost thank you all for the feedback. I'll just give everyone my general thoughts to start off with - I started this forum for enjoyable discussion on the sport of american football. I did not start the forum so that people can have a medium for 'slamming' organisations and players that they dislike, or for sparking rows with fans who they don't like. Furthermore, I did not start the forum to favour fans of any particular team, or to offer them a place to gang up on anyone.

But over the years the board has descended into far too much of the latter, and not enough of the former. The new measures are to move us back to football related discussion. No other reason. Further, they are measures that have been employed in other fora, where similar issues have surfaced. The key concern is to avoid ad hominem, which I consider to be a gateway to bigger problems. So you call one team a name, next thing fans of that team take the hump, start getting defensive and snotty and next thing you've a row of several pages to clean up. Moderators are volunteers, and believe it or not, we have jobs and lives outside of settling arguments like this. So by restricting the personal abuse and ad hominem rules in the manner that I have, I am just trying to curb problems before they start and keep discussion on the sport of football.

There's no hidden agenda and no favouritism. They may be reviewed over time, but I want to give them a bedding in period of a few months to see how they get on. In the meantime, and there's no polite way I can say this - if you would rather engage in tribalist arguments, ad hominem or 'slam' people and organisations you don't like, I urge you to avail of a different website. The Internet is a very big place.

I'll now try and deal with a few concerns that were raised by some posters to try and clear up some ambiguity. If I don't respond specifically to your post it's because I felt I answered it elsewhere, but bring it up again if you are not satisfied:

For example, the reference to personal abuse of organisations. That surely impersonal. Nor is there any criticism exemption, as exists for players. So we cannot, say, slam the Ravens or the NFL for the way they handled the Ray Rice matter? That seems excessive.

Just to be perfectly clear on this - criticising and disagreeing with previous proven actions of an organisation is not abuse. So of course you can criticise and even condemn how the Ravens (and indeed the NFL) handled the Rice issue, Peterson's actions, etc.

It's when you extend that to sly digs that it becomes an issue. "The patriots have cheated" is a very different statement to "the patriots are cheats".

Personal abuse against players again seems excessive. So from now on, we can't say Meriweather or Suh are dirty players, that being a character attack, and we must say they are players who have repeatedly played dirty?

Over time I hope we'll find an equilibrium, but basically yes - you can highlight a players actions, but no name-calling. Depending on the context, statements like, 'he's a dirty player' may fly, but it will really depend on the tone and intent of the poster.

Surely a rule involving personal abuse against other posters, along with rules about trolling, repetition and the like, should be enough?

You would think, but the evidence (number of reported posts and personal messages I get from users complaining) suggests otherwise. The problem is in extracting the intent. Some posters have become very nuanced and adept at using insults of organisations to really just troll other users. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like how users go overboard in retaliation, but again, they have become very good at staying on the post just enough to avoid sanction. So we needed a clearer framework, and that's why the previous rules weren't sufficient.

So you can't accuse teams of cheating anymore or discuss teams that may be cheating? Seriously? That seems way over the top and a complete over reaction to the deflategate thread.

Well first off, it's not an over reaction to a particular issue, though deflate gate certainly provided a catalyst. The tone on the board has been a long standing concern and pain for the mods.

And as addressed above - you can discuss previous issues and proven misdemeanors without resorting to name calling. All we want to do is impose civility on all sides here.

on further thinking, it genuinely feels like pandering to the biggest supporting base on this forum with this rule. As we all know it is to do with the Patriots.

It really isn't. These measures will prevent majority fanbases from being abusive, just as much as minority fanbases.

Plenty of players have major character issues, sometimes worthy of attacking. On the minor side of the scale, Josh Gordon is a fool for running afoul of the league drug-testing policy. Adrian Peterson is guilty of whipping his 4 year old son with a branch. Johnny Manziel is immature and a waster (thus far).....all these are fair comment imo

The part I've bolded is pretty much the definition of ad hominem. It serves no function in debate other than to hype up people's emotions and for the time being will not be tolerated.

Connor is also correct in saying that organisations can't be victims of a personal attack. There was plenty of vitriol being thrown around about the NFL and Roger Goodell recently. Much worse than what we have seen in recent days. Nothing was mentioned then and rightly so.

The NFL and Goodell should be protected from vitriol, but not from criticism, that's what we're trying to do here.

Not having a go at Neil3030, but here is an example of a post that could not be allowed here...by Neil3030...

Wow, of all the quotes you could have picked, you've let me off pretty lightly! But you are absolutely right, I could have worded that less antagonistically. Actually this gives a nice opportunity to explain what I'm looking for in posts:

Yeah... guiding a fractious ego-maniacal Chelsea team to a European final and probable Champion's League spot, impeccably rotating his squad through a hellish schedule, all while the fans persistently berate him with vitriol. What a mountebank...

Could just as easily be worded as follows, and get the same message across without the name-calling:

Yeah... guiding a Chelsea team with a fractious dressing room and many extremely challenging personalities to a European final and probable Champion's League spot, impeccably rotating his squad through a hellish schedule, all while the fans persistently berate him with vitriol. What a mountebank...

That seems over the top. If busier forums can manage it, why can't this one?

Other forums operate on the exact same rules. In fact, the rugby forum have extended the personal abuse to referees, though i don't think that will be as necessary here.

It’s also highly amusing that people can’t state facts such as that the Patriots are a cheating organisation, when this is a proven fact.

If a certain organisation has cheated in the past, it does not mean that they are (currently) cheats, and therefore calling them a 'cheating organisation' serves no purpose but to troll. Why else would you bring it up?

Do we effectively have a situation here where a little New England mafia (who in fairness, might all be high-volume contributors to the forum) have gone crying to the mods like babies and cause these totally unreasonable rules to be implemented? I’m asking a question here and not saying this is what has happened btw.

This is another great example, because you asked a legitimate question using the phrase "crying to the mods like babies" - this is the exact kind of behaviour we are trying to cut down on here - why not just say - "complained to the mods"?

And to address your question - absolutely not. Believe me, I would be LOATHE to give any team special treatment, especially a team that holds a majority of users. In my mind this will restrict and improve everyone's behaviour and cut out a lot of bickering from both sides of the ball.

I have to admit I think these new rules are going a bit too far. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying you don't like a franchise or a specific player.

Adding something about him like an unproven reason for not liking him is going too far though.

For example Big Ben is a good example. Saying you don't like the guy over the Lake Tahoe or the Capital City Nightclub incidents for me is fine, but coming out and saying that he is a rapist or anything like that would be very wrong imo.

You hit the nail squarely on the head, to be honest. And the new rules will encourage this practice, not restrict it.

The problem with this reasoning is that much of what we love to discuss on a fans forum is speculation and what ifs.......if we restrict it to what can only be proven a lot of the fun and discussion goes away.

Speculate all you want, the new rules will not preclude this. All I want to do is extend ad hominem to cover organisations and fans. So speculate that a team may have cheated, but back up your opinion with evidence and avoid name calling. That keeps you the good guy. If someone then responds to you saying that you are just trying to stir sh*t, the new rules will now see them sanctioned for attacking your posting style. Is this not fair?

I think there just needs to be infractions issued for comments whose only purpose is obviously to goad other posters as well as all the back-handed insults and petty crap.

I know that's terribly broad and is difficult to put into words in a charter but a sweep of infractions for those kind of comments would clean this forum up a lot faster imo as I think this updated charter is basically saying that nothing bad can be said about anyone or anything ever. Our version of the blasphemy law if you will

This is the whole problem we face as mods - trying to set clear rules for situations that can often be nuanced and subtle. I think I've made clear above that criticism grounded in evidence and logic are fine, while ad hominem is not.

WTF? So what if you don't think it's fair, it's some people's belief (and not mine btw) that the Patriots consistently try to bend (and sometimes break) the rules in trying to win. It can kind of be likened to people's belief that United always got soft penos and decisions given to them because of Ferguson and because of who they are.

Back up your belief, avoid name calling, and everything should be ok.

My problem with this forum over the past year is that the biggest collection by a mile is Patriot fans. And when some of them come to a consensus over some things, it is seen as baiting if you have the opposite view.

I want these rules to also protect minority fan bases. As I suggest above, if you present a supported argumemt that avoids abuse, and are if a majority fan base gangs up on you or your posting style, accuse your post as trolling or **** stirring, etc., they will be punishable under the extended rules.

The ones screaming "is Aaron Rodgers a Cheat" or "Are the Browns Cheats" remain open. They seem far more provocative.

Again, good examples. In future these threads will not be tolerated, unless they relate to a specific situation - "did rodgers cheat by doing X", "did the Browns do Y"

Basically what has happened here is that Patriots fans have decided they don't want the deflation thing discussed anymore and they have gotten their own way, with the thread being locked. That is breathtaking in terms of non-Patriots fans knowing their place on the forum.

This seems to me to be a lazy alternative to moderators actually moderating.

I have not received a single message or request from anyone that the thread be closed. And this "lazy alternative to moderators actually moderating" accusation is completely unfair. We are volunteers who give up our time to try and maintain order in the forum, it is not unreasonable that we try and make this job easier, where we can, while at the same time allowing the proper behaviour on the board - discussion of the sport.

And as it happens, the deflate gate thread may be opened again with these new rules in force, allowing a much clearer framework for more civilised debate on the issue. So watch this space.

Ah will you stop. What does some some speculative troll article justify? Ya, you guessed right , apart from s**t stirring, absolutely nothing.

FYI to people who think these new rules only favour the majority fan base - the new rules specify that this will get a warning under the comment about the article being used to sh*t stir. And to the poster in question, your options are to (1) report the post, (2) dispute the content of the article or (3) ignore it.

Anyway, haven't you missed the point? Because I don't think this thread was set up to discuss that petty little issue. This thread was only set up to discuss the charter

Commenting on the post being petty. Again, the new rules will cover this.

UPDATE: OK, a lot of posts since I started writing this so lets' just keep this thread as a feedback thread on the new rules. I will try to respond to further posts later on tonight

Bateman wrote: »

What has happened here is that Patriot fans do not like criticism of the organisation - fair or unfair. They've decided to "draw a line in the sand" that will make it harder for people to criticise that organisation, or any other organisation all the way up to the NFL itself.

This is simply not true. I don't know where this is coming from as I have never been slightly biased for or against any team. Posters cannot abuse the patriots any more, much like they can't abuse the other 31 teams.

When I criticised Goodell heavily a while back, and backed it up with examples, I had to listen to stuff about how "succesful" the NFL is. As if the argument goes that the person making a negative argument about something is to be held to a totally different standard than the person making a positive argument, which may or may not have any basis in reality. I have never in my life reported a post and I find it strange that grown adults (assuming most on here are) would do so. It reminds you of the old saying that the truth hurts...

It sounds like, at worst, people were offering a straw man argument against your criticism of Goodell, which may be poor arguing logic but it's not banned and it it's not abusive.

Now, had people attacked you or your intentions when defending Goodell, that's where the rules have been breached.

So what remains partially explained?

I know i have other posts to respond to but im on a train here on my phone. Ill be on my comp later and ill get to it.

Right guys, enough about the deflategate thread. The thread will be re-opened once we have had a good chinwag about the new rules, which will hopefully serve to keep the ensuing discussion civil.

This thread will from this point on be for discussion and clarification of the new rules - NOT A PLACE FOR TAKING CHEAP SHOTS AT EACH OTHER

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't find the "organisation rule" in the rugby forum.

And I know the soccer forum is very different.

So we can see the rules in operation, could you identify a forum with the exact same rules? Thanks

If the rugby charter doesn't express it specifically, it is certainly policed under the clauses in the charter for bickering and bitchiness. Posters are not allowed make abusive remarks about teams or their fans. We just want to set this in stone, so people know exactly where they stand.

Out of interest, what do you feel these new rules preclude you from doing that you would like to otherwise do?