August 14, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

Awesome. Thanks.

posted by yerfatma at 05:37 PM on August 14, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

Well done, all involved. Thanks!

posted by scully at 09:08 AM on August 15, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

fer sail: spel cherkr, werks grate onlee usid wonce

posted by ptluigi at 03:01 PM on August 15, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

SportsFilter: No one cares about your artistic expression.

posted by jerseygirl at 06:17 PM on August 15, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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

posted by justgary at 01:46 PM on August 16, 2006

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, 2006

;

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:11 PM on August 16, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

LOL

posted by chicobangs at 08:37 PM on August 16, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006

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, 2006