Field Gulls Mod-Enforced Rules and Standards
We're early on in the new season and we've got some new folks here. Seems like a good time to brush up on the FG Rules and Standards.
Attention prospective new users: to combat trolls and spam accounts (you wouldn't believe the sheer number of spam accounts we're being flooded with), there is a two day waiting period before new accounts are activated. Please keep this in mind if you plan on participating in things like game threads.
Cheers
The following is the final set of rules and regulations decided upon by the community of Field Gulls.
Zero Tolerance
Abuse of the following rules will lead to comments being hidden or deleted as well as immediate banning, possibly without chance of reinstatement.
Sexism, Racism or other Bigotry: MTV raised you right. You know better than to use "gay" in the pejorative. Cull the sexist, hate-filled slang from your vocabulary or expect an immediate ban.
No Politics: Just don't do it.
Name Calling: Except to call Scruffy "Lance". He likes that. This has never been a problem here, but for the sake of comprehensiveness, let it be known that name calling of any kind will not be tolerated.
Spam: One and you're done.
Hoaxes: False headlines used to capture attention will be rewarded with a deletion of the post and a banning. Misreported news of any kind is not allowed.
Standards
Mods will enforce standards through a three strike system: correction, warning and finally banning. Mods will not punish innocent errors, but habitual abuse.
Links: A link must be provided for all news and quoted material.
Spelling and Grammar: The readers of Field Gulls are Field Gulls. Therefore you are held to basic editorial standards. Commenters must attempt proper spelling and grammar within the best of their ability. Many internet browsers have a spell check included.
Subject Line: The subject line is the small box above the body of a comment. SBN software requires this box be used. Use it.
Reply: The reply button is below and to the right of a posted comment. It's a wonderful organization and communication tool. Use it.
Site Etiquette
Site etiquette is to be enforced at the moderators discretion. It is a catch all for behavior not explicitly covered by the above rules that can be abusive to the site, those who contribute to the site and its readers.
Belligerence, Fault finding and Trollish behavior: Rudeness can be couched in the nicest words and divisive and destructive commenting can be framed as civil discussion. Persistent negative comments, thread-jacking, fault finding, petty correction, stubborn ignorance or illogic, meanness, calls to perfection, refusal to drop an argument, unfounded claims of prejudice and other acts of self-importance will be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Respect the moderators.
Keep front page posts on-topic: Comments in the front page post should be about the post itself.
Use the Rec button!: It is there to be the virtual equivalent of a head nod/fist bump/Amen Brother. This keeps the comments sections clean, concise and content heavy while allowing people to express their agreement in a visible way.
Never root against the Seahawks.
Fantasy discussion is for the weekly fantasy post: Fantasy comments outside of the post may be met with sarcasm.
Rosterbation: Fanposts containing logical, supported and novel roster moves are accepted, even endorsed. Fanposts that propose farfetched trades, signings, schemes or that endorse exhausted topics (ie Michael Vick, Mike Holmgren, the officiating of Super Bowl XL, etc) are not allowed.
Chat Speak: No longer accepted. "+1", "LOL" and "roflcopter" are examples of this.
147 comments
|
42 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Put this in the "recommended fanpost" section???
A good list, but not draconian by any means, and nice to have it out in the public’s eye permanently.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 16, 2009 4:08 PM PST reply actions
Let's rec this up and I will update the post time so it's stays in the fanposts section for the rest of the season.
I didn't realize "rec's" were how something got to the recommended fanpost section.
I thought a mod just placed it up there. Yay for democracy.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 16, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
Define spam
Does that mean something like those stupid Brits that keep hounding me for my info after winning their lottery?
I’m fine with everything else.
Fire Bruce DeHaven.
Spam is solicitation, essentially.
The most likely form of spam on a blog is a post that’s primary goal is to redirect readers to another site.
The best example I can think of right off the top of my head is Seahawks Addicts repeatedly spamming the Seahawks Insider comments about two years ago.
There was talk about Fanshot vs Fanpost the other day.
I think a Fanshot would be the best place to put a link to a blog or site. If someone here starts their own blog and wants to share the link, the fanshot would be a good place for it.
SEA!
Signature is probably the best way to go for all involved
A signature is more visible and is, theoretically, affixed to content. Also, the blogger can contact me and I can put it in the links. The best way for someone to launch a blog, the Seahawk Addicts example not withstanding, is to write quality content. Write quality content and point it out to me and I won’t hesitate to link to it. Posting a link to your blog on another blog is generally considered rude.
One exception to this was (whats his name) that kept posting his stuff in fanshots
But actually discussed his stuff here which I was fine with.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 16, 2009 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
*Hawkblogger was his name.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 16, 2009 4:50 PM PST up reply actions
John do we consider this ok?
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 16, 2009 4:51 PM PST up reply actions
Sure.
I did not personally like it, but it’s not spam in the worst sense. He didn’t bombard the comments section or anything. As always, the standard for fanshots is very low.
When I think spam, I think
erection pills and secret inheritances. It’s not worth banning someone that is trying to get their work attention. We can all empathize with that.
Chat speak is fine in moderation.
I am not going to enforce something that is as much culture gap as standard. Excessive use of chat speak or use of chat speak (like +1) without other content falls under site etiquette. I will update that. Thanks.
That's a very reasonable middleground.
I get annoyed by constant usage of chatspeak but also get annoyed at those who jump on someone for a rare usage.
I like this +1 and what it means.
Facebook did some research and found that a remarkable percentage of messages left in comment threads was some form of “I like this” but added nothing else to the conversation (e.g. “stub” comments).
It was posited that this is a semi-conscious replacement of conversational body language akin to nodding your head while listening as a cue to the speaker that you are engaged and wish to continue the conversation. This hypothesis was the primary motivator of the facebook “like” button, and subsequent research by facebook has been in line with the predictions that accompanied the intuition.
Rec’s could fill the same niche from a technology standpoint but culturally at Field Gulls I have found Rec’s to be like a “super” cookie that doesn’t get tossed around lightly and would therefore preclude usage as a “like” replacement.
It seems to me that 1 is an attempt to fill this communicative void. While I agree with the policy because a board filled with "1" messages quickly becomes unruly and irritating to read, I believe we should attempt to find an acceptable way of filling this communicative void in some non-intrusive way.
by timlin45 on Sep 28, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would say "Rec" the comment.
Then say “Rec’d for sheer awesomeness” Or something like that to give the person acknowledgement.
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 28, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
So maybe we can change the culture?
And add to the Standards sections something like:
Use the Rec button. It is there to be the virtual equivalent of a head nod/fist bump/Amen Brother. This keeps the comments sections clean, concise and content heavy while allowing people to express their agreement in a visible way.
I'm kinda of one of those guys who likes to post a "I liked this"
in addition to a Rec. You don’t see “recs” when you Z through the comments to see what it new. Sometimes I like to leave someone a reply to something they wrote because it was informative or funny, and I want them to see the reply as opposed to never seeing their Rec. The reason I do this is to encourage them to continue to contribute informative or funny content, and that it isn’t just disappearing into the ether.
However if the majority thought it was wasted bits they just have to Z over then I understand.
Go ahead and keep saying "I like this" as well as Rec the comment.
I’m the same as you. But if you can’t add anything and it just made you laugh then just hit the rec button and move on.
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 28, 2010 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Thank you for including "roflcopter."
Nothing makes me want to strangle people like that word.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
Which usually leaves you with a fierce case of the roflclap.
All The Way, AIRBORNE!!!
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Nov 16, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions
I am so out of touch with "chat speak"..
What the hell is a roflcopter?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I hate myself for reading that.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 17, 2009 8:31 AM PST up reply actions
I love urban dictionary, however I KEPT reading definitions this time.
I guess it just didn’t seem worthy of defining and I was waiting for some payoff that never came…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 17, 2009 8:44 AM PST up reply actions
That is exactly how I feel.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 17, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions
You just saved me from clicking the link.
Thanks brother
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 28, 2010 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions
how about
Chicken & ROFL’s?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCK7njbgDO8
Prepare for scare
"It's always a bad play when the other team scores." - John Madden
by jubelthebear on Sep 28, 2010 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
1 being most similar
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 28, 2010 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions
How about images?
Probably not a big problem, but the general consensus is keep em’ small (especially in game threads). Specifically how small?
I thought it was 300px wide?
But yes try to keep it around this range.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 17, 2009 8:32 AM PST up reply actions
Jealous of tall images?
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 17, 2009 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I've since learned that you can replace "width" with "height" and guarantee the image isn't too tall.
Which reminds me I need to update that link.
I have a question...
Where do smileys fall in the gamut? Are they generally considered annoying?… or bearable?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Fine in moderation.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 17, 2009 8:33 AM PST up reply actions
I think "no plagiarism" should be added here
Doesn’t happen a lot but just in case it does…
Fire Bruce DeHaven.
OK... Just had another thought (my last of the night)...
A guy (or gal) makes comments that are misunderstood by the mod’s and he gets banned.
What is the appeal process?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Anyone that gets banned is free to email us to take the discussion offline and explain themselves.
And 95% of the time will be reinstated.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 17, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
stop by the ESPN forums, and see the difference between how sane it is at Field Gulls in comparison.
That’s the reason for the rules.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Nov 17, 2009 6:01 PM PST up reply actions
That's why I come here
Superior standards translate to superior content. Well-thought out standards and active moderation are vastly superior to automated filters. I mean, how many other comment sections around the web allow profanity but have so little? Field Gulls is some good shit.
That is also why this is the only blog that I belong to.
I’m not a blog fan, I do not have facebook or anything like that. But I love this site, the way it’s run, and the quality information and insight I always recieve.
What do you mean?
I think the idea here is that with as much user created content as SBN allows, everyone is a reflection of FG and everyone’s individual input improves or degrades the site. The most strongly enforced of these guidelines are to keep the comments above a minimum threshold of readability and civility. The ones which fall under etiquette seem to be primarily gentle nudges toward a standard in the comments’ substance. If all have to say is lol, are you actually adding anything at all? Does the entire readership need to see that you found something amusing? Did you even laugh out loud, for that matter? The answer to all of these is probably no. Besides which, there’s a handy ‘rec’ feature that can be used to much greater effect if you want to highlight a comment you find amusing.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 28, 2010 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions
You may be the only one on that boat.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 21, 2009 7:40 PM PST up reply actions
Here's a question on some of these more recent fanposts.
Are they a bit too close to rosterbating/speculating? Or if enough thought is put into it and it is a new idea, is that acceptable?
Hopefully with the Minnesota matchup in the rearview
the Hutchinson stories will disappear. I have a feeling that “Holmgren for GM” is going to be a reoccurring annoyance though.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Nov 24, 2009 4:06 AM PST up reply actions
I think there's been more
but as the season falls apart and there’s not much else to say about anything until some solidification in the front office and the direction the personnel is moving, what pieces to keep and what not to, I can see being more flexible there.
That being said, if it’s not John doing it, I’m not very interested. So maybe it does clutter up the place and we need more moderation there now than normal.
by jacobstevens on Nov 24, 2009 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
Rosterbation sounds more like a jail-able offense than a ban-able offense.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Byron your from NY...yes?
I have seen some crazy things in Soho after hours that weren’t nearly as bad as what “rosterbation” sound like.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Hey Byron.
I live in NYC too. Are you making it to the draft this year?
I went last year and it was awesome.
Not sure, it'll depend on whether I feel like sitting in line for X hours.
If you aren’t going this year, shoot me an e-mail at TheByron@gmail.com if you want to hit up a draft party with a bunch of other NY Hawks fans!
Rosterbation is a boot-able offense, just like Disparaging The Boot
At least that’s how it works in Australia.
by J.L. White on Sep 28, 2010 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'll throw this out to the community
Should Field Gulls enforce some standard of factual accuracy? Sometimes information is thrown around or used to support and argument and that information is wholly incorrect. Now, in theory it is easy enough to fact check that information and disprove the claim, but not everyone has time to do that, and not everyone does do it for whatever reason.
If someone is fast and loose with their facts, given sufficient transgressions and warnings, should it then be a bannable offense?
There's been a bit too much random percentage slinging for my liking.
I’d be okay with this being a bannable offense if it’s a recurring problem with a user.
Studies have shown that blog content really begins to suffer
When the “random percentage slinging” begins to approach 40%.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
by shams on Sep 28, 2010 1:41 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
how was this not rec'd
Okay.... I'm in.
by The Manchild on Sep 28, 2010 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I spend hours crafting these zingers
And you just rip my heart out.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Tough one...
I have seen sites on the net that contain stats that contradict each other… some references are more accurate than others.
How about this as food for thought:
Stats that are used as “evidence” to support a claim in a debate should have a source cited. This way, a person is held responsible for having done a modest amount of “due diligence” but isn’t responsible for possibly inaccurate resources.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I'm wary.
I think an important part of the Field Gulls (and SBN) community is the assumption of good faith, but also the understanding that we don’t do this full-time. Not everyone fact checks everything others say, but enough do that I don’t think we let a ton of BS stand without being challenged. Further, we sometimes suffer from information overload and are forced to use our memory (hence the prevalence of IIRC and similar qualifiers). However, if it’s a repeat offender (and by “repeat” I don’t mean “second time”) and if the person has been warned multiple times then I’d tentatively be on board.
John, or anyone
Can you give an example of something recently that you considered false or misleading statements? Just as a point of reference?
by Big E-Z on Mar 16, 2010 7:12 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
This is the age of Google and Wikipedia.
We have more access to information than any previous generation of humanity. It’s inexcusable for someone to not do simple fact-checking before posting.
I wouldn’t make it a bannable offense, but it should definitely be worth a paddling.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
If someone intentionally makes shit up all the time isnt that the same as trolling?
I’ve only recently started reading the comments on your blog, though I’ve been reading the front page for a long time, so I don’t know the exact nature of the problem here. But over at LL if someone comes with misinformation or outright lies it’s usually a matter of seconds or minutes before another user calls the lie and a dogpile ensues. People learn quickly not to dick around.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 28, 2010 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions
If it's not clear what I'm trying to say is
it seems like this is the sort of thing that takes care of itself and doesn’t require moderator action. Nobody likes being laughed at for being wrong all the time.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 28, 2010 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions
John
Does this mean I can’t always try and bring a thought back to Kafka?
1.Brandon Graham 1.Charles Brown 2. Syd Thompson 3.Torell Troup 4.Andrew Quarless 5.John Jerry 6.Mike Kafka 7.Quinton Andrews 7.Preston Parker
feels a touch elitist to me
as if waiting a few days for my request to join wasn’t elitist enough, now there’s the field gulls style guide. you don’t have to ban me—i’m leaving.
I really don't see the elitism in having standards.
Maybe you appreciate buffoonery on a level I do not, but I think the internet is chock full of places that have too few rules and standards. Either way, I wish you good luck in wherever the search for non-elitism takes you.
In a community where anonymity is everywhere
Standards and rules have to be enforced. Nobody likes trolls. Without commonalities, community rarely exists anyway.
Here's why we do these things
In the past, we had serious problems with trolls that commented here only looking for a reaction. We’d ban those people, and they’d immediately create ten alternate accounts to continue trolling and spamming. We had to institute the two-day waiting period so the moderators could have enough time to parse through the new user entries and take care of people who were abusing the system.
As for the commenting guidelines, I won’t sugarcoat it, they are a lot more stringent than most other online communities. However, we expect these things from the userbase for a reason. The comments here at Field Gulls are an integral part of the content provided (for free) on this blog. When you comment, we (the moderators, authors, and the whole community) have the expectation that you will be positively adding to the discussion. These rules help to facilitate that.
Yes, these guidelines are tougher than just about every online community not named USS Mariner or Lookout Landing, but they’ve gone a long ways to making this a better place for both registered users and lurking readers.
by BrianL on Mar 16, 2010 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
This isn't the only blog that does day waiting moderation.
It’s used to stop spammers and trolls.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
I don't see anything wrong with holding the Field Gull's community to a higher standard.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Agreed
Even though you may be reading the site from a cell phone, it’s not a text message.
by Jackrabbit5683 on Apr 22, 2010 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Something is wrong with the formatting at the top of the page where it says "The following is a set of rules...."
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
I hope you don't mind John
but I linked this to the sidebar for quick reference.
While we're banning things my vote goes to the phrase
" noodle arm" It really bugs me.
Almost as much as double posts.
Noodle arm is a perfect phrase
For those who have skinny and/or weak arms.
Also, noodles are tasty.
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
I don't see any mention of politics in your post John
Seeing that I’ve been given a warning over a comment about one of Hass’ relatives, maybe it warrants a sentence in the standards/etiquette area.
Its always been a rule.
Not sure why it wasn’t in there.
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 28, 2010 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions
I miss the days when SBN forced the use of the Subject line.
Anyway we could get that turned back on John?
Well when we first made the switch wasn't it still turned on?
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 28, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
There are some blogs where you get banned for using the subject line
Bandwagon leader for Michael Robinson as Seattle Seahawks starting QB.
by SSreporters on Sep 28, 2010 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I will never understand that.
Reading through a page of comments with no subject lines makes my eyes hurt.
I think that'd be prudent.
Could certainly fit under the “belligerence and trollishness” heading.
Thank you, Walter Jones.
Thank you, Ken Griffey Jr.
One thing I'd really keep an eye on...
…is the piling on of newbs that often happens at these boards. I understand that it can be paid.full to go over the same arguments every year but IMO newbs should be given a little more leeway than longtime posters because, well, they don’t know the etiquette yet. Also, there are instances where a newbie says something dumb, 8 people flame him, and then it turns into a flame war. That’s partially the newbie’s fault but care ought to be taken to see that a huge part of the responsibility also lies with the people in the community who piled on. That’s a 15 yard penalty!
by Johnny Slick on Sep 28, 2010 9:15 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
It's hard to tell if someone is a newbie or just an infrequent commenter
If someone is getting shouted down I suggest you flag the comment, so the moderators can restore order. In the heat of the moment a regular might neglect to pull a punch, and I wouldn’t want FG to get TOO sensitive.
Good point.
Although the banhammer or moderation in general is one of those things a newbie wont necessarily “get”, and so I think it’s up to the vets to see past the groupthink and flag the people they know as much as those they don’t. I’m not saying that’s easy to do.
by Johnny Slick on Sep 28, 2010 12:09 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Since this is a place for this comment to be the least off-topic
I’d just like to thank John, Brian and others for the management of this blog. It’s hands-down the best place to get informed, thought out analysis of all things Seahawks. Maintaining the rules and standards will ensure the continued success of this site, which should be viewed as the gold-standard for any new or existing blogs. Cheers guys.
by m_b on Sep 28, 2010 10:02 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Rules are great but can be overwhelming in terms of enforcement.
What is needed are respectful folks – which seems to the be the case with a few notable exceptions.
As I have mentioned elsewhere – as a leader goes, typically so goes the herd…. I think John does an excellent job of staying above the fray and for the most part the other mods do as well. This is the reason that I frequent this blog.
All that said – beware too many rules as they will bog down your enjoyment and efficiency in running the blog…
Most of these rules are just common decency.
It pretty much boils down to “don’t be an asshole.”
Agreed... and amen.
Rules themselves aren’t the issue – I just know from experience that it can suck having to spend a ton of time trying to enforce things in the interest of common decency… as you can read above, there are a ton of variations and situations that people can come up with when what is really intended, as you say, is an over-arching rule, “don’t be an asshole.”
Wil Wheaton?
That man is an American treasure.
I had to go look that up...
good reference… color me enlightened!
Lost in all this talk is...
This is the most civil forum on the internet that I’ve ever posted on or read. Everybody here pretty much knows the game and knows the team.
It’s only an occasional flare up over some minutia or detail for the most part. And the roster.
But hey, it’s a good fun site.
Other troublemakers are those heretics who don't follow the Holy Church of Nick Reed
Those who do not walk in the path of the injured defensive end risk getting smited and spending eternity trying to play safety alongside Brian Russell. FORGIVE ME NICK REED, FOR PRAYING TO THAT FALSE IDOL CHRIS CLEMONS!!!

by 


























