Why We Are Refugees

[Ravana]

The following post is to answer the questions many have asked about why there is a sudden flood of "refugees" from CBS Sportsline. I decided to be nice and make it the second post on the thread, so that anybody just dropping in and who doesn't want the long version can pop back out without getting stuck with my mini-dissertation. :lol:

It doesn't have all the details; it just summarizes a particular instance... the one that finally set off all the gathering frustration. :redhot: There is far more that happened before, and there is more that has happened since. But this is the core.

It is perfectly safe and correct to say that uncommonsense is the reason we are all here. He is not our "leader"; in fact, he took some time before deciding to follow us to this site. He is just the one we rallied around when the storm broke. If anyone can be said to be a "leader" in this, it was initially a member named rivers-side (haven't seen him around here), and it is now unquestionably myself.

Sportsline has not heard the last of me... not by a longshot. In the meantime, I will come here when I want to talk sports... not there.

Enjoy.

[Ravana]

[copied from CBS Sportsline board]

Dec 13, 2006 6:33 pm

Admin: I have looked very carefully at the history of uncommonsense's warnings... and those posts he was warned for that have not yet been removed... and, most importantly, the individuals that warned him. And I can honestly say that, in this case, as with REATT's some time ago--you remember that one, I assume?--you have performed an injustice.

I like to think that I am fair, perhaps even to a fault, in looking at cases where members complained about their treatment... and I have seen a great many. As you no doubt know, I have spoken out in your defense when people protested warnings that were justified; I have defended you against charges of censorship and upheld your right to administer your own message board in whatever way you please--as long as you are consistent about it. I have taken flak for this, and will continue to do so, because you do have that right. As you also know, I have spoken out in defense of those who have been treated unfairly. Such is the case here.

I don't know what uncommonsense said to earn those first three warnings, since the post is no longer there—but I have never known uncommonsense to use language that is consistently banned by Sportsline. As for the three warnings that are still outstanding: one is for a word that is borderline "vulgar"... but which is widely used without being warned. He did spell it backwards: that may or may not matter to you. (I see no reason why it should; I merely point it out—and if it does not matter, than neither should its numerous appearances where it is spelled with an "x" in place of "cks." I also remind you of your decision concerning "we cannot assume what members mean by 'STFU'," as an instance where a term that was not spelled out was not regarded as justifying a warning. Not a precise parallel, but a possible precedent—and a good decision, in my view.)

The other two outstanding warnings, however, are completely spurious: if his post had been warned for the reason given, every other post on that thread ought to have been as well... for the same reason. One of the warnings (I can't remember which; I believe it was one of the ones the challenge has already been denied on) even lists "not appropriate to a sports message board" as part of its reason: if so, not only should every post on that thread have been warned, but several other complete threads--one of which is now well over 100 pages--ought to have been as well. But they weren't. Whether or not that particular reason was upheld--I can't imagine it was--does not matter: the point is that the same reason ought to have applied to all the other posts on that thread... and a great many others. However, the sole warning to any post on that thread was to uncommonsense's post. It is obvious that someone is targeting him, specifically, with these warnings--a violation of the "stalker" rule, as I recall. (The warnings in question come from nowayhosee and commonloser.)

Furthermore, I would point out that four of the six "people" (actually, "profiles"--I would give good odds that some or all of them are the same person) have absolutely no activity other than that single warning given out by each of them. Since the warning in each case was given out immediately following the creation of these profiles, it is fair to assume that the profiles were created for the sole reason of giving uncommonsense a warning. The profiles in question are those for cybercop2026, gonnagetcha, lookout67, and commonloser--the names alone indicate that they were created for the purpose of giving warnings, and the last in particular is clearly in direct response to the target's own profile name: unCOMMONsense, COMMONloser. He is being targeted, plain and simple. These profiles have no other activity whatsoever: they have sent no messages, have given no ratings (why they didn't rate the posts they were warning is beyond me), and have no connections, either of their own choice or being chosen by others as favorites. These are not participants on the CBS Sportsline message boards. They exist for one reason only: to persecute someone.

I would urge you to look at one other item while investigating this: uncommonsense's own connections. In particular, look at how many people have chosen him as a favorite... and consider their own rankings. uncommonsense is one of the most popular people on this board... and has been here more than long enough to accumulate a host of warnings if he were the sort of person who made posts that were offensive to a broad range of people, or even a large single category thereof. He has not. Even those who are the targets of his (exquisite) sense of humor do not take offense at him. Punishing him in this way is inappropriate. Punish those who sent him those warnings instead.

I might add that it seems that you have done him an injustice in another way as well: insofar as the four profiles named two paragraphs ago appear to have been created solely to warn uncommonsense, oughtn't they appear on his "members referred" list?

I sincerely hope that you look again at these warnings, both the outstanding ones and the ones that have had their challenges denied. And please do look at the list of members who have chosen him as a favorite. You are offending all those people with the actions you have taken. Which is a far greater number of people than have been offended by uncommonsense. If you are going to punish people for offending others... then I hope you make certain to punish the one who has caused the greatest offense here. I challenge you to do so, in fact.

This board is your property... but I would like to remind you, the owner of this property, of who you are. You are CBS, an acclaimed source of journalism with a lengthy record of performing to the highest standards the industry has--often setting those standards, as viewed historically. It is necessary for such an entity to remain fair and equitable in its endeavors; should its image be tarnished through arbitrary behavior, it reflects on its credibility--as a whole. What you do here ought to be held to the same standards you hold your own reporting. I have no doubt that the single word in question is one that your reporters would not use on the air... but I challenge you to go back through the columns of your own reporters on this message board and see if it is not used in any of those. And I challenge you to apply the same standards of editing (I will not say "censorship" in regard to this) that you apply to yourself, with regard to all the warnings in question... and the same standards of censorship (here, it is appropriate) that you would see applied to you. Anything else is unjust.

Sincere thanks for your attention in this matter.

[Marc]

I'm not going to pretend to understand the politics of another board like that. It sounds to me like it's a faulty system, one I don't truly understand, but it seems to a proprietary system. SCMB, on the other hand, uses vBulletin, an extremely powerful and cutting-edge software used across the web. I don't want to get into an "SCMB vs. CBS" debate, but basically, I think it comes down to them having warnings and all kinds of stuff going on, whereas we just discuss sports and use common sense in banning problem users, etc... Honestly, it's laughable some take an Internet forum so seriously. We've had some controversies over the years, but common sense prevails.

[Ravana]

Turns out, uncommonsense actually sent four of the six warnings in question to himself... in an attempt to point out just how bad and easily manipulated the system was. He expected to be banned and to return to the boards in another (transparently similar) identity, in order to fight his own fight.

What he did not expect was hundreds of members seeing what had happened and rallying to his cause.

He didn't need to do a thing. We all did it for him. Sportsline members have "ratings," based on their activity and the content thereof, and member reactions to their posts (the warnings, of course, also play a major part in your rating...). They have special icons next to the top 10, 100, and 1000 of the ratings standings.

Imagine their surprise when over half of the Top 10 chimed in on this, as well as another 20 or so of the Top 100. The number of Top 1000 posters who joined in, I couldn't even begin to guess. The primary thread that this was going on in (but not the only thread!) jumped from 7.5 pages to over 19 pages... in just 11 hours. Hordes of people threatened to quit, and many did, or at least found second homes; as I recall, it was RavenPoe who led us here, or at least did most of the recruiting for it.

Then uncommonsense hit us with his confession: he was beginning to worry that we'd take things too far, get ourselves banned, hurt our reps, etc.

And we didn't care.

We didn't care, because this wasn't about him: it was about the way those boards have been moderated since day 1. He didn't "expose" a problem; he just highlighted it... and was sufficiently popular that it sparked a revolution. He didn't even need to ask anybody to fight it for him. We all just did it.

And now, we're here. Many of us still have IDs over on the other board--I, for one, made a commitment to be there at least until the end of the NFL season, for reasons many here know. But I've been there every day since last Wednesday, and I'll tell ya... traffic is down. Way down. A lot of people bolted, whether to here or elsewhere.

Oh, yes: Sportsline hasn't given us an answer yet, either.

So--to use a word I'd get in trouble for over there, as others can attest to--screw 'em.

[Ravana]

Marc: yes, it's proprietary. As they delight in reminding us, this is still their "beta" version--after several months of use--and they are still "working the problems out."

It would be too much to explain in detail (well, I could... but no one would read it :lol: ), but the short version is that you can rate member content on a 10-point scale: this in turn helps set each member's reputation, along with the member's activity (in chat, online games, and fantasy). You can also send "warnings" in what was intended to be a "self-policing" system... for when language or content got out of hand.

Both the ratings and warning systems have been grossly abused. Even that, though, wouldn't have caused this kind of revolt.

It took arbitrary, unfair administrators to do that.:redhot:

I'm guessing that everyone here could give a story about such administrators... so I'll let them, to spare you having to read any more from me (lol).

The "problems" they need to "work out" aren't in their software... they're in their staff. And, since they can't even be bothered to respond to our questions--much less our outrage--we decided to depart for kinder, friendlier, and more sensible shores.

Glad we found some.:)

[NYG Babe 28]

Just want to say HI! I am here for uncommon... wahoo! *giggle* I'm a complete dork. LOL :lol:

[Ravana]

I agree with you, Marc. I'm not trying to start any kind of debate... just wanted to clarify what happened.

I hope no such debate starts... we already know all about it, and you don't need to hear it unless you really want to. (Which is why this is on a separate thread.) I'm not here to trash Sportsline; I'm here because it's trash. (Oops... a little too much like what I said I didn't want... lol.)

But you're right: we don't need that. It won't be good for anything. Let's talk sports. Or politics, or whatever, here in the Lounge.

I just wanted our history here, since so many have asked.

[Marc]

I have to say, I'm still skeptical. You know we all LOVE what you all have brought, but what if CBS sees their error and fixes whatever their problem is? Do you go back and abandon us? Worse case scenario, but you never know.

BTW, let's make this the last CBS-related thread on here, kind of a gentleman's agreement, okay? Last thing we want is SC filling up with stuff about another site. We've got our own issues, characters, and atmosphere and we want to preserve that. :)

But I appreciate you clarifying things.

[uncommonsense]

I am hoping to post the thread in question on Sports Central. How do you know so much, Ravana? How many fingers am I holding up right now?

[uncommonsense]

I have to say, I'm still skeptical. You know we all LOVE what you all have brought, but what if CBS sees their error and fixes whatever their problem is? Do you go back and abandon us? Worse case scenario, but you never know.

BTW, let's make this the last CBS-related thread on here, kind of a gentleman's agreement, okay? Last thing we want is SC filling up with stuff about another site. We've got our own issues, characters, and atmosphere and we want to preserve that. :)

But I appreciate you clarifying things.



Sounds good Mark.
But I will try to recruit others to this site. Once they see how much better it is (of course, since this is my first day, I'm assuming), I'm sure they'll stick around.

[Ravana]

If you're facing me, three. If you're facing Sportsline, one... the obvious one.

I don't think anybody will be "going back," Marc. We're too happy over here. Functionality is better, we don't have the crap from above, and most of the "board bunnies" we all hated haven't come over. (Most of the people who have come over received PM invitations, following RavenPoe's first general appeal.)

Some of us will continute to "split time" on both boards, I'm sure... many others have made permanent breaks, and have said so in as many words.

Best way you could "keep" us, though, as well as bring in newbies... fantasy sports. You've got plenty of time before next NFL season to work something up. (I've got ideas I'd like to see, but it's your board.) That's what seems to draw in the members. Free is better... if you can support it. Many people here would pay, though. Have been paying, in fact; they're not all as cheap as I am (lol).

So don't sweat it; we aren't going to vanish on you.

[Ravana]

BTW, let's make this the last CBS-related thread on here, kind of a gentleman's agreement, okay? Last thing we want is SC filling up with stuff about another site.

I endorse this completely. We can even fold this thread up, after everyone has their chance to look at it. I won't mind. Leave it up for a month, then trash it; that'll be plenty of time.

[KevinBeane]

Best way you could "keep" us, though, as well as bring in newbies... fantasy sports. You've got plenty of time before next NFL season to work something up. (I've got ideas I'd like to see, but it's your board.) That's what seems to draw in the members. Free is better... if you can support it. Many people here would pay, though. Have been paying, in fact; they're not all as cheap as I am (lol).

So don't sweat it; we aren't going to vanish on you.

Yep, we do fantasy sports for all the major and most of the minor sports, as well as pickem contests for college and pro football (pro football features both a straight-up contest and a pointspread contest). It's all free. We are pretty loyal to Yahoo! for running our leagues, except the Pick'em contests, which are entirely inhouse.

I'm looking forward to the slow integration of you guys into the community. You all seem great. Seems like we are pretty much sticking to our own threads though (CBS threads, and SC threads) because, after all, we want to talk to people we are familiar with. This will slowly change.

I do have one quibble (it's a QUIBBLE, not a CRITICISM) in which you guys are violating not a rule of SC, but an idiosyncrasy of SC. You guys double-post like crazy! :) Before the Great Immigration, we would gently chide newcomers for doing so. I guess we sort of collectively groupthought that two posts in a row by the same person looks wrong, and hence you should edit your most recent post to add on to it, rather than make a new one, if yours is still the last post in the thread. So there. :)

[Ravana]

Very much an idiosyncracy... one of the things we couldn't do on the other board is edit our posts. One of the things that a lot of us like about this one... though, obviously, we haven't all gotten used to it yet. We had to post again to say/add anything.... :thumbdown:

Also, I imagine that, since we're all used to that fact, we all assume that readers won't go back through the thread and find what it was we originally said... and subsequently modified. Though I don't think that's what you're talking about... right?

We'll get there. ;)

[Ravana]

Just answered my own question... yeah, Refugees: if your post is the last one on the thread, edit it! Don't add another one until after you've been responded to. Help these guys out, eh?

[later:] In other words, as grifter points out a little bit further on... don't do what I just did. (Oops... heh.)

[da12ken]

I'm actually kinda glad to see that the SCMB reputation system is non-existent lol. Not that rep points would matter here anyway; it's all about street cred.

[grifter]

Just answered my own question... yeah, Refugees: if your post is the last one on the thread, edit it! Don't add another one until after you've been responded to. Help these guys out, eh?

Yea don't do what ravana just did when she posted this one. Haha you did double post while telling everyone not to double post.:lol: J/K that was my fun for the day.

[PPKA]

I'm actually kinda glad to see that the SCMB reputation system is non-existent lol. Not that rep points would matter here anyway; it's all about street cred.

which is exactly the way it should be ken

I was demoted to rookie over at that soon to be forgotten place within the first two weeks and I just stayed there until they finally banned PPKA. I then became BizarroPPKA.

and I still am. :eek:

[buckeyefan78]

We've had some controversies over the years, but common sense prevails.

Right after I leave the discussion. ;)

[Ravana]

Ya got me, grifter. What I get for going too fast. :o (Haven't done it since, unless the second post was in response to a different topic... figure it's legit in that case, to make sure that the second message isn't lost in the first.)

[edit:] Just edited that post to point out that I'd screwed it up... :lol: Editor is cool!

Everybody: check out the "My Orientation Speech to All New Members" thread. Contains some good advice... even though it wasn't actually intended to. :lol: I threw my own two cents in at the end... okay, a little more than two cents; y'all know me.... :D

[JJDoe]

And the rating scale is messed up too.... I don't do anything there except the occasional team-promoting post and checking up on Fantasy sports.... and I still remain in the "Top-100". CBS is so easily manipulated...

[RavenPoe]

All who are interested in unfettered discussion, send me an email at me@macbusinesssupport.com