As with “troll,” I’m not sure “personal attack” means what you think it does.
We might disagree on it. Even more reason for a definition set in the rules.
As with “troll,” I’m not sure “personal attack” means what you think it does.
We might disagree on it. Even more reason for a definition set in the rules.
We don't want you banished or suspended, we just want to know why you continue carrying on about what we all understand to be your position. We got it. No further questions. None of us has the power to intervene with Fitz on your behalf.Two problems - many people don't like to involved or speak up, secondly, that also threatens the value of the minority.
As a country, we are proud of protecting all people equally. Sex, race, religion. Here, I could foresee a bunch of people ganging up on me, or Puke, or Willy - and declaring us ******** worthy of banishment. In fact, there was a thread on the Rock in that very vein targeting me.
I think that a clear rule that can be easily understood and cuts both ways would be fair. If Lou wants to become the Purple Homer page and a code is established, fine. Anyone that lands here will know exactly what it is. Might impact the visit numbers, but whatever. I think the intent is a place where folks can talk about NU football and basketball - that's it. And so more people visit and read than post. And some built the ignore function to make it easier to immediate individuals that one cannot tolerate - closed minded, but great.
And we have the occasional battle royales - which I find interesting and entertaining too. But they tend to fall outside the original intent (see above). If the interest to avoid those instances were important, then a fairly written and evenly applied code of conduct might be a way to accomplish it. To the disappointment of some, Lou and FA haven't elected to play favorites, run off members at the demand of other, more well liked members and most folks are ok with it.
Notice the lack of response by FA or Lou about the prior rules or interest in establishing new rules. Maybe they are content with the status quo. Maybe they want the retain the trump card of booting someone if they simply so feel like it. Who knows. After Saturday night and yet another battle, and another member of two calling for banishment or suspension or just complaining about various posts, I got to thinking about how to fairly raise our game. I don't expect any Code of Conduct to ever come to fruition and will sit back and wait for the next round of entertainment I guess.
When nearly everyone recognizes that someone is being an *******, that would be called agreement.
I would agree with ECat, that it is not what you say, but how you say it (and how many times).
Two problems - many people don't like to involved or speak up, secondly, that also threatens the value of the minority.
As a country, we are proud of protecting all people equally. Sex, race, religion. Here, I could foresee a bunch of people ganging up on me, or Puke, or Willy - and declaring us ******** worthy of banishment. In fact, there was a thread on the Rock in that very vein targeting me.
I think that a clear rule that can be easily understood and cuts both ways would be fair. If Lou wants to become the Purple Homer page and a code is established, fine. Anyone that lands here will know exactly what it is. Might impact the visit numbers, but whatever. I think the intent is a place where folks can talk about NU football and basketball - that's it. And so more people visit and read than post. And some built the ignore function to make it easier to immediate individuals that one cannot tolerate - closed minded, but great.
And we have the occasional battle royales - which I find interesting and entertaining too. But they tend to fall outside the original intent (see above). If the interest to avoid those instances were important, then a fairly written and evenly applied code of conduct might be a way to accomplish it. To the disappointment of some, Lou and FA haven't elected to play favorites, run off members at the demand of other, more well liked members and most folks are ok with it.
Notice the lack of response by FA or Lou about the prior rules or interest in establishing new rules. Maybe they are content with the status quo. Maybe they want the retain the trump card of booting someone if they simply so feel like it. Who knows. After Saturday night and yet another battle, and another member of two calling for banishment or suspension or just complaining about various posts, I got to thinking about how to fairly raise our game. I don't expect any Code of Conduct to ever come to fruition and will sit back and wait for the next round of entertainment I guess.
Your attempts to fall on your sword are kind of awkward.
I nominate this as the single stupidest thread I have ever seen in more than two decades of membership on Wildcat Report. Can't we just go back to more productive arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Good grief.
I feel dumber for having read itI nominate this as the single stupidest thread I have ever seen in more than two decades of membership on Wildcat Report. Can't we just go back to more productive arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Good grief.
The one apologizing for NU beating Wisconsin would give this one a run for its money though......I nominate this as the single stupidest thread I have ever seen in more than two decades of membership on Wildcat Report.
You are a weird troll. No sword, no kamikaze here. Sorry your pleas to FA and Lou fell empty. Suppose you think more of yourself than anyone.
Check the top of the board. You want rules, I'll give you rules!![]()
I feel as if the recent push for board rules is motivated by certain posters desiring to have the ability to act like jerks while not allowing anyone else the chance to tell them they are acting like jerks.
I don’t believe I posted my opinion.”would agree with you in that the definition would be anyone that posts anything critical of NU or the program.”
I don’t believe I posted my opinion.
You aren’t trying to attack me by attributing statements to me that I didn’t make, are you??
Agree, and considering some of the dog crap we've all stepped in on this board, that is quite the accomplishmentWorst thread ever!
![]()
On the anniversary of 11/22/63 I will say:Guess that depends on the definition of jerk.
Hello, phatcat! Are you there?However - to be fair, I've had certain...posters...on ignore for a very long time
I just wanna be MEGuess that depends on the definition of jerk. I suppose the PKK would agree with you in that the definition would be anyone that posts anything critical of NU or the program.
Sorry, but not sorry for their loss. Long overdue. It is supposed to be a place where fans can debate football and basketball topics. Debate requires two sides at a minimum.
isn't calling someone a jerk, against the rules?I don’t believe I posted my opinion.
You aren’t trying to attack me by attributing statements to me that I didn’t make, are you??
Which was exactly my point.isn't calling someone a jerk, against the rules?
I propose a 1 week modification to the following rule to specifically allow E-Cat to post his OSU hate with reckless abandon.
5. No repetitive negative posting. What makes a repetitive post? If you come to the forum and consistently say the exact same thing about the exact same topic day in and day out, that is being repetitive. Be sure to understand that no one is saying that you can not be critical. But this site will not be overrun by the same people coming on the site day after day saying the same negative things.