Question Concerning Posting Rules

"IMPORTANT:Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult! No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here."

I have a question concerning the following line:

Treat everyone here with respect

Does that mean that we can treat people or groups who are non-members disrespectfully?

Didn't the line used to read "Treat everyone with respect"?

For example, when guitarists are critiqued around here, the majority of it is normally done without insults, but there's always a bit that is disrespectful and insulting to that individual.

Thank you in advance

Paul can always chime in here, but I'm pretty sure the intent was to treat your fellow posters with respect, i.e., no insulting others, no flame wars, etc. As to comments about other musicians, all the best players I've ever met had nothing but good things to say about other players. I don't think that's just a coincidence. ;-) CS

I think what it means young Lerb... is that you either are analyzing things too much or have WAAAAAYY to much time on your hands spent on the TDPRI.

When you are "here" you are to treat everyone with respect. What you do with the rest of your life (such as it may be) outside of the TDPRI, I have no opinion on.

What is a flame war?

I think what it means young Lerb... is that you either are analyzing things too much or have WAAAAAYY to much time on your hands spent on the TDPRI.

Jerk! :grin:

When you are "here" you are to treat everyone with respect. What you do with the rest of your life (such as it may be) outside of the TDPRI, I have no opinion on.

What I was trying to get at in this was that a while back we had our Michael Vick thread. Now this was even before the more current ones, I'm talking back in the spring.

Anywho, people were discussing as we normally do, when someone basically made death threat to him. Now it wasn't a death threat per se, more like a death wish, but that's beside the point.

I'm just wondering if we should be tolerating hate for an individual like that.

Are you just gonna tell me that I spend too much time here again as an answer? :lol:

just curious, if it happened this spring, why the post about it on August 25.....just sayin...the time lapse MIGHT give a reader the opinion you dont have enough to do....just an observation

I'm not sure what you are getting at. But if you want to pull one thread and use it as an example of how respect wasn't shown in that thread then yeah, sure. There's a lot of that.

There are 5 mods. All of 'em are volunteer. There are 2,500 (appox) posts a day 70,000 posts a month. I'm guessing we read 30,000 posts a month altogether. So, we miss, what, 50,000 posts a month?

So, if you see a post that violates the rules and you think that because we haven't addressed it that it is somehow "approved" you couldn't be more wrong. We just don't read 'em all. I know I'd gladly skip reading even one post on Michael Vick. So, I guess none of the other mods wanted to waste their time reading that one and no one reported it to us with the "report post" feature.

The change in wording at add the word "here" was not intentional and shows no change in our moderation standard.

just curious, if it happened this spring, why the post about it on August 25.....just sayin...the time lapse MIGHT give a reader the opinion you dont have enough to do....just an observation

Perhaps I was reminded of this occurrence by another thread that is happening right now, but I want to be discreet about...

Or maybe not. :wink:

I'm not sure what you are getting at. But if you want to pull one thread and use it as an example of how respect wasn't shown in that thread then yeah, sure. There's a lot of that.

There are 5 mods. All of 'em are volunteer. There are 2,500 (appox) posts a day 70,000 posts a month. I'm guessing we read 30,000 posts a month altogether. So, we miss, what, 50,000 posts a month?

So, if you see a post that violates the rules and you think that because we haven't addressed it that it is somehow "approved" you couldn't be more wrong. We just don't read 'em all. I know I'd gladly skip reading even one post on Michael Vick. So, I guess none of the other mods wanted to waste their time reading that one and no one reported it to us with the "report post" feature.

The change in wording at add the word "here" was not intentional and shows no change in our moderation standard.

That's what I needed to know Paul.

Like I said before, I was just using that thread as an example.

I didn't think it was 'approved' but I wasn't sure whether or not it was not allowed either. Kind of like our typical day to day can of worms discussions.

I wasn't saying that you guys were incompetent or anything, the exact opposite!

What I was trying to ask is whether or not I should report those things.

Now it's clear me to that I should do so.

Thanks

In general we remove any post that calls for the death of some figure even if they are not members of the TDPRI. We don't do it to protect the individual in question, we do it stop potential flame wars. Because when someone says they wish X sports figure or celebrity... whatever... dead that always brings a strong opposite remark that easily flames into a bigger fight.

Whether anyone shows Mr. Vick respect or not is not a concern of ours. We only care about preserving the relative peace around here.

We always find this a problem with posts like the Michael Jackson posts, especially.

I'm new here, so forgive me for butting in, but this, over all, has to be the most civil group of posters I've seen to date. Other sites seem to want to squabble and fuss, and insult one another as a general practice. I salute you all.......but I gotta ask...............

Does Michael Vick play a Tele?