I guess these things go both ways. I could interpret Rupert's comment as "shut up until your name is on a ballot", and take offense at that. But I don't.
I'm sure this too will sort itself out. I certainly approve of the board taking action to keep things on the boards more civil, and agree that a new policy is warranted. My concern is only about it's scope.
NEW SERVER FOR PFRA, JULY 7, 2015
-
Jeremy Crowhurst
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:24 pm
-
John Maxymuk
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 10:23 pm
Re: NEW SERVER FOR PFRA, JULY 7, 2015
Mike has a nice compromise here. It's nice to know when a problem arises whether others are having the same experience.Moran wrote:I think it's worth trying to narrow the focus to a discussion of football and football research on the public forums of the PFRA. A thread for discussion of the PFRA, policies, and other membership issues could be in the members only section.
Re: NEW SERVER FOR PFRA, JULY 7, 2015
Or keep it here (on this forum, which is not public as membership is required to view any post or thread here).John Maxymuk wrote:Mike has a nice compromise here. It's nice to know when a problem arises whether others are having the same experience.Moran wrote:I think it's worth trying to narrow the focus to a discussion of football and football research on the public forums of the PFRA. A thread for discussion of the PFRA, policies, and other membership issues could be in the members only section.
At the Board Index level of this forum, currently there are three Topics: Football Talk, Football Obituaries and Football Books. If a "PRFA Membership, Policies and Suggestions" sort of topic is created, could it be added as a fourth Topic on this forum as this is already the group's go-to for engagement?
Of course, that would only work if this entire board continues to stay PRFA member-only (private) or that a Members-only section be private should the other three topics be made public for read-only. I see this model used for other forums I use. I have no idea what that takes on the backend of the forum technically nor logistically for keeping user privileges straight, esp. with separate IDs/password for the PRFA Members section and this forum (maybe those can be synced to a single ID/password for members?).
"Now, I want pizza."
- Ken Crippen
- Ken Crippen
Re: NEW SERVER FOR PFRA, JULY 7, 2015
It usually isn't the rules but the person charged with enforcing them. If things get slippery, that's where it usually starts. Talking any enterprise, not just here.
For example, pass interference isn't a bad rule. It can be, though, if the ref makes a bad call or shows bias.
For my money, the less intrusive the better.
For example, pass interference isn't a bad rule. It can be, though, if the ref makes a bad call or shows bias.
For my money, the less intrusive the better.
-
Mark L. Ford
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 4:57 pm
Re: NEW SERVER FOR PFRA, JULY 7, 2015
Another valid concern. Basically, there's going to be a different philosophy on enforcing the terms of use that we've all been agreeing to since we first had a website. The focus is going to be on the nature of remarks, not on whether the offending party is a member or a non-member. Public humiliation is never cool. To be sure, a member is not going to be banned from the Forum, but suspension isn't out of the question. A non-member who fails to respond to warnings will still be subject to a ban.
However, if it looks like someone is picking a fight -- for instance, if a portion of a post is quoted, followed by comments about how stupid the quoted statement is -- they're inviting our intrusion. That post is going to get deleted, along with the responses to the insult. The moderators aren't going to be concerned about who started the fight. If the thread is about a visit to Canton to use the PFHOF archives, but a post veers off into a comment about why they think PFRA is lousy, that post is likely to be edited. If the purpose of the post is to urge people not to join PFRA, or not to stay in PFRA, they can do that somewhere besides PFRA's bulletin board.
Taunting or picking a fight will be stopped early on, before it gets out of hand. And that's going to be true regardless of who the offender is, even if it's me, or Ken, or Chris. Frankly, I hope that if I act like a jerk on this Board, that someone will fix it early on. Nor will it matter whether the fight is being picked with another PFRA member or a visitor to the Forum. Every current non-member is, potentially, a future member of our organization. Bottom line, if someone feels that he must start a fight with someone else, he needs to do it somewhere other than this Forum.
However, if it looks like someone is picking a fight -- for instance, if a portion of a post is quoted, followed by comments about how stupid the quoted statement is -- they're inviting our intrusion. That post is going to get deleted, along with the responses to the insult. The moderators aren't going to be concerned about who started the fight. If the thread is about a visit to Canton to use the PFHOF archives, but a post veers off into a comment about why they think PFRA is lousy, that post is likely to be edited. If the purpose of the post is to urge people not to join PFRA, or not to stay in PFRA, they can do that somewhere besides PFRA's bulletin board.
Taunting or picking a fight will be stopped early on, before it gets out of hand. And that's going to be true regardless of who the offender is, even if it's me, or Ken, or Chris. Frankly, I hope that if I act like a jerk on this Board, that someone will fix it early on. Nor will it matter whether the fight is being picked with another PFRA member or a visitor to the Forum. Every current non-member is, potentially, a future member of our organization. Bottom line, if someone feels that he must start a fight with someone else, he needs to do it somewhere other than this Forum.