Single-Topic Posters, Etc.

[RichardGraham]

Hi Folks,

As I've said many times before, I don't have the time or desire to babysit this message board 24/7/365.

One thing that's become obvious is that "single-topic" posters -- those who only rant about one thing -- cause most of the problems on this site.

If a new poster comes on IHC and hammers the same topic into the ground, which has happened very recently, I'm going to ban that person. If you don't want to be censored, go on to a U.S. government web site. This is a private business.)

I will also ban ostensible IHC "supporters" who continually create problems on this site, no matter how smart, well-connected, or "creative" they might be. The message boards have cut into my "quality of life" time quite enough, thank you.

Consider yourselves warned.

[TylerSollberger]

Richard, you might be a nice enough guy, but you, by far, must run the most censored and threatening board I've ever been a part of. Ban me if you want, but the level of censorship and babysitting on this forum is ridiculous. What's the point of this board? Would you rather everyone kiss the RHA's butt in every post? Seriously. Without some arguments and discussion, you don't have a board.

It's no secret why participation here is so low:

1. Any time you want to discuss something, the "powers to be" jump down your throat.

2. There's obvious favoritism.

3. You threaten to censor and/or ban anyone who makes a comment you don't like.

Seriously, Richard, lighten up. Like I said, you can ban me if you'd like, but unless you let people -- oh, I don't know -- discuss stuff on here (including controversial stuff), participation here is just going to further diminish. Ban the people who cuss and make personal attacks, but stop threatening to censor and ban people who are giving you honest opinions, arguments, and are leading discussions on topics that otherwise will be completely one-sided and little more than "Oh, I think that's wonderful."

Are you kidding me? Someone used a tournament directors name and accused them of lining their pockets. Its fine to have arguements, but to post someone's name as the title of your post is classless and unprofessional.

If you dont like the web-site then dont read it.

[Arch Enemy]

I totally agree

[ACCCT2]

Richard, you might be a nice enough guy, but you, by far, must run the most censored and threatening board I've ever been a part of. Ban me if you want, but the level of censorship and babysitting on this forum is ridiculous. What's the point of this board? Would you rather everyone kiss the RHA's butt in every post? Seriously. Without some arguments and discussion, you don't have a board.

It's no secret why participation here is so low:

1. Any time you want to discuss something, the "powers to be" jump down your throat.

2. There's obvious favoritism.

3. You threaten to censor and/or ban anyone who makes a comment you don't like.

Seriously, Richard, lighten up. Like I said, you can ban me if you'd like, but unless you let people -- oh, I don't know -- discuss stuff on here (including controversial stuff), participation here is just going to further diminish. Ban the people who cuss and make personal attacks, but stop threatening to censor and ban people who are giving you honest opinions, arguments, and are leading discussions on topics that otherwise will be completely one-sided and little more than "Oh, I think that's wonderful."

With extreme sensitively to Richard's point of view and what he obviously has to deal with on this one, I generally agree with "OldTimer" on this one (except for the "obvious favoritism" part) -- we're all big dudes and dudesses here and should be able to conduct ourselves as such. As "OldTimer" so logically opinied: Ban the people who cuss and make personal attacks, as well as those who make silly threats against the IHC site or Richard, but don't throw the (other?) "babies" out with bath water, eh?.:eek:

Honestly, I don't know exactly who Richard might be talking about (it might even be me for all I know, and I sincerely apologize if it is), but I think that healthy, hearty, even heated and intense discussion is good for getting to the core of an issue. As I obviously have evidenced many times on many subjects here, I'll press or argue a point as far as I legitimately and reasonably and maturely can. And I've done so on numerous different topics and issues. I try to be intelligent, probing and logical in my posts and I always have a GOOD sense of humor in however I might be viewed or responded to. However, once it turns to immature name-calling, flaming rants or silly 'calling-out', it's at that point that I'm usually aware of the fact that the thread has basically lost its purpose or momentum (towards the truth) and generally I'm out of the discussion at that point.

Having a different opinion or point of view is a GOOD thing and usually, with everyone being open-minded and mature, leads to an even better understanding of the full spectrum of everything needed to be taken into account when deciding 'what' and 'when' and 'why', as well as 'where' and 'who' we all will ultimately 'do' things with. This sport is still big enough that it should never come down to a ridiculous "you're either with us or against us" or "I don't know you so you don't matter" kind of mindset. Live and let live, dudes and dudesses -- there's still plenty of "pie" to go around.

A lot of you find me somehow distasteful or in some way not legitimate simply because you don't personally know me. I've been around the game of hockey since the age of 3 (of which a lot of you still are:confused:) and for over 25 years have travelled extensively thoughout the world (over 43 countries and counting) actually playing, promoting and assisting in the organizing of events and cultural exchanges that are primarily grounded in the sports of ice and inline hockey. I've seen all kinds of INCREDIBLY GOOD, INCREDIBLY BAD and INCREDIBLY CORRUPT federation and sport officials almost everywhere I've played-&-stayed. Generally, the rule has been that anywhere there's a GOOD and FORWARD-thinking individual who's getting things done in their own time and place, there's also inevitably either an NGB or currupt official bureaucracy that they've unfortunately had to work over, around, against or in spite of. THIS is where I get my own personal "need for clarity" about 'how' things get done. I HATE seeing GOOD hard-working people being snowed or taken advantage of by anyone and I'll do my best to "kick the tires" of any new "elixer" salesman's 'vehicle' that rolls into the neighborhood -- as ANY of you would absolutely have the right to "kick the tires" of MY vehicle if I roll into town selling a "cure-all" for what might ail y'all (NOT to be confused with what might AIHL y'all, BTW:eek:).

When our (as it is more than simply me) "million-billion" dollar "European tournament" is ready for announcement, trust me -- ALL of you can "kick" the "BEJESUS" out the "tires". Take it for a spin, check it out -- make sure that EVERYTHING 'IS' as the event announcement says it "IS". And you DON'T have to "buy" into (or "line" MY pockets) with ANY of your hard-earned cash if you don't feel like it. I have enough faith in MY 30 years of advertising/marketing/entertainment experience, as well as in my own VERY passionate and practiced love and devotion to the game, that we'll do just fine in the end.

NONE OF YOU KNOW MY "BUSINESS" and NONE OF YOU "KNOW" EXACTLY what MY "business" or "hockey" experience and expertise really is -- just as I don't really "know" anything outside of what I personally have either witnessed or experienced at some of the various and sundry tournament/events that I HAVE (YES, I HAVE:cool:) been to or played in. Besides my own player experiences, I've learned a lot about our sport from the considerable marketing research (both published by others and that which was commissioned by my company) and my own day-in/day-out involvement with the game. And yes, I have my own ideas about what might work and what doesn't (or hasn't) worked in our sport. And no-one has the right to say or expect that I have to "prove it" to them by "volunteering" what certain others reading would otherwise profit off of and would otherwise have to pay for. MY business is MY business. MY opinions are just that: MY opinions. And I'll NOT divulge important, expensive and proprietary "business" strategy or plans simply to placate an immature ranter's demands. It's that simple.

If Richard wants me to, I'll go away and never return to these boards. But if it is NOT his wish that I be another "straw that stirs the drink" (maybe sometimes even "annoyingly" against the swirl) and that my opinions and voice might actually be constructive in a professionally 'strategic' and deeply 'philosphical' way, well then, I'm here to stay (and "annoy" some you even more:eek:).

Personally, I like the positive story posts (like the "Kids-for-Kids, Kids-for-Hockey/Tommy-Tom" one posted by "zipyaj" earlier today) and blogs like the "The Ref Room" (which we ALL could learn a LOT from, BTW!) and I'd prefer to dwell on better things than those that might be classified as "mandatory", "certified" or "unifying"...ummm, eh?:)

Once again, I sincerely apologize to Richard and Mike B if I am indeed one of those "posters" he was referring to.

PEACE ON Y'ALL!;)

[RichardGraham]

Hi Folks,

I knew I should have locked this post as soon as I'd written it... :D

My sincere apologies if my recents posts about deleting posts and banning users has gone overboard. That could well be true. I'm trying to write a book on the history of Roller Hockey International, and my patience has worn very thin trying to deal with the constant interruptions of lawsuit threats and flame wars on IHC's Forums section.

I find it ironic that OldTimer is the one to call me out, as I have not particularly noticed his (her?) posts as problematic. Perhaps I'd better go over the record. ;)

OldTimer, here's my response to your post, point by point:

>1. Richard, you might be a nice enough guy, <

That's your first mistake...

>but you, by far, must run the most censored and threatening board I've ever been a part of.<

At least IHC is number one in something.

>Ban me if you want,<

As I said, I wasn't considering banning you. Why do you have such a guilty conscience?

>but the level of censorship and babysitting on this forum is ridiculous.<

Hmmm... I looked at the list of banned posters yesterday and was surprised at how few people had ever been banned on IHC. "Censorship" is a loaded word. I've explained many times that this is a private site, and censorship doesn't really apply. My first interest is in the survival of this site, and if certain posts or threads by readers are likely to draw lawsuits, I'd rather pull the offending posts than put my livelihood on the line.

It's obvious to me that you don't know who is threatening threatening lawsuits against IHC's readers, and it's not RHA. I have my own issues with some of the people who make up RHA, and they'd be the first to tell you that I'm not all that "nice" a guy. I try to deal with everyone fairly, but when I feel I'm treated unfairly, I let people know it, with emphasis.

> What's the point of this board? <

The point of the Forums section is to have a civil, wide-ranging discussion of issues facing the sport, as well as a place to make jokes, find tournaments to play in, discuss equipment to buy, etc. For the most part, the Forums do that job very well, and have done so since I started IHC in January 1998. What do YOU think is the point?

> Would you rather everyone kiss the RHA's butt in every post? Seriously. Without some arguments and discussion, you don't have a board. <

Hmmm... I think that there has been an extremely wide-ranging discussion of RHA on the IHC Forums section, on both sides of the issue. There have been thousands of posts on IHC over the years, and very few have been deleted or "censored," percentage-wise.

> It's no secret why participation here is so low: <

I'm pretty pleased with reader participation on IHC. What am I missing? Should there be more teenagers bashing each other, as I once saw on another similar site?

Actually, over the years, I've learned that there are far more people who don't post on IHC because of vicious personal attacks and immature posters than people who don't participate because of "censorship."

> 1. Any time you want to discuss something, the "powers to be" jump down your throat. <

Counting the posts on IHC versus those deleted, that's a silly statement.

> 2. There's obvious favoritism. <

Toward whom? Show me a pattern and I'll be astounded, as I dislike everyone in the sport equally.

> 3. You threaten to censor and/or ban anyone who makes a comment you don't like. <

Hardly. There are hundreds and thousands of comments that I don't agree with or dislike, many made by long-time posters and newbies alike. You'll just have to take my word for that, because I don't know how I'd prove that to you, but I think that most IHC readers would agree that I bend over backwards to be fair to all. If you create a poll (one of the many options available to you on this site) as to whether I am biased one way or another, I would be quite surprised if a decent percentage of IHC's readers could determine whom I'm supposedly biased toward.

> Seriously, Richard, lighten up.<

I think that the majority of my posts are friendly and fun and encourage participation. Perhaps you are projecting.

>Like I said, you can ban me if you'd like,<

Again, I think thou dost protest too much.

> but unless you let people -- oh, I don't know -- discuss stuff on here (including controversial stuff), participation here is just going to further diminish. <

Traffic has increased on IHC fairly steadily over the past couple of years.

> Ban the people who cuss and make personal attacks, but stop threatening to censor and ban people who are giving you honest opinions, arguments, and are leading discussions on topics that otherwise will be completely one-sided and little more than "Oh, I think that's wonderful." <

Thanks, I'll take that into consideration...

By the way, I put my name on all of my posts. Why do you remain anonymous? Don't you have the courage of your convictions?

[RichardGraham]

Hi ACCCT2,

If I banned posters due to popular vote, you would have been locked out long ago. :D

[ACCCT2]

Hi Folks,

I knew I should have locked this post as soon as I'd written it... :D

My sincere apologies if my recents posts about deleting posts and banning users has gone overboard. That could well be true. I'm trying to write a book on the history of Roller Hockey International, and my patience has worn very thin trying to deal with the constant interruptions of lawsuit threats and flame wars on IHC's Forums section.

I find it ironic that OldTimer is the one to call me out, as I have not particularly noticed his (her?) posts as problematic. Perhaps I'd better go over the record. ;)

OldTimer, here's my response to your post, point by point:

>1. Richard, you might be a nice enough guy, <

That's your first mistake...

>but you, by far, must run the most censored and threatening board I've ever been a part of.<

At least IHC is number one in something.

>Ban me if you want,<

As I said, I wasn't considering banning you. Why do you have such a guilty conscience?

>but the level of censorship and babysitting on this forum is ridiculous.<

Hmmm... I looked at the list of banned posters yesterday and was surprised at how few people had ever been banned on IHC. "Censorship" is a loaded word. I've explained many times that this is a private site, and censorship doesn't really apply. My first interest is in the survival of this site, and if certain posts or threads by readers are likely to draw lawsuits, I'd rather pull the offending posts than put my livelihood on the line.

It's obvious to me that you don't know who is threatening threatening lawsuits against IHC's readers, and it's not RHA. I have my own issues with some of the people who make up RHA, and they'd be the first to tell you that I'm not all that "nice" a guy. I try to deal with everyone fairly, but when I feel I'm treated unfairly, I let people know it, with emphasis.

> What's the point of this board? <

The point of the Forums section is to have a civil, wide-ranging discussion of issues facing the sport, as well as a place to make jokes, find tournaments to play in, discuss equipment to buy, etc. For the most part, the Forums do that job very well, and have done so since I started IHC in January 1998. What do YOU think is the point?

> Would you rather everyone kiss the RHA's butt in every post? Seriously. Without some arguments and discussion, you don't have a board. <

Hmmm... I think that there has been an extremely wide-ranging discussion of RHA on the IHC Forums section, on both sides of the issue. There have been thousands of posts on IHC over the years, and very few have been deleted or "censored," percentage-wise.

> It's no secret why participation here is so low: <

I'm pretty pleased with reader participation on IHC. What am I missing? Should there be more teenagers bashing each other, as I once saw on another similar site?

Actually, over the years, I've learned that there are far more people who don't post on IHC because of vicious personal attacks and immature posters than people who don't participate because of "censorship."

> 1. Any time you want to discuss something, the "powers to be" jump down your throat. <

Counting the posts on IHC versus those deleted, that's a silly statement.

> 2. There's obvious favoritism. <

Toward whom? Show me a pattern and I'll be astounded, as I dislike everyone in the sport equally.

> 3. You threaten to censor and/or ban anyone who makes a comment you don't like. <

Hardly. There are hundreds and thousands of comments that I don't agree with or dislike, many made by long-time posters and newbies alike. You'll just have to take my word for that, because I don't know how I'd prove that to you, but I think that most IHC readers would agree that I bend over backwards to be fair to all. If you create a poll (one of the many options available to you on this site) as to whether I am biased one way or another, I would be quite surprised if a decent percentage of IHC's readers could determine whom I'm supposedly biased toward.

> Seriously, Richard, lighten up.<

I think that the majority of my posts are friendly and fun and encourage participation. Perhaps you are projecting.

>Like I said, you can ban me if you'd like,<

Again, I think thou dost protest too much.

> but unless you let people -- oh, I don't know -- discuss stuff on here (including controversial stuff), participation here is just going to further diminish. <

Traffic has increased on IHC fairly steadily over the past couple of years.

> Ban the people who cuss and make personal attacks, but stop threatening to censor and ban people who are giving you honest opinions, arguments, and are leading discussions on topics that otherwise will be completely one-sided and little more than "Oh, I think that's wonderful." <

Thanks, I'll take that into consideration...

By the way, I put my name on all of my posts. Why do you remain anonymous? Don't you have the courage of your convictions?

I LIKE this guy! (in a TOTALLY hockey-macho-intellectual way of course!);)


Hi ACCCT2,

If I banned posters due to popular vote, you would have been locked out long ago. :D

LOL!!! And I like TOTALLY realize this, but it's still a great reminder to have it spelled out every once and a while, eh!:)

[AJ Barnett]

By the way, I put my name on all of my posts. Why do you remain anonymous? Don't you have the courage of your convictions?

Not only that, but like me and other people on this site, his user name is his name. You can't identify yourself more than that.

Personally I think anonymous posters should realize that their posts have more right to be censored because of the fact that they are anonymous. I personally have been attacked here, for many reasons. But I will be the first to tell you that it's nice to know WHO attacked me instead of being attacked by a random person who I may meet somewhere in time. When they know who I am, but I don't know who they are, well that just seems a bit unfair to me.

Moving on, Richard,

I think that this was an excellent post and I completely believe what you are trying to do is what is right for this bored. I will tell you, when at a High School Junior Varsity game the other day, I heard a parent say something that really caught my interest, "I can't believe what some of the other users on Inline Hockey Central say some of the things they do. I've never experienced this in Ice Hockey". Really? So parents are saying this about our sport. Is the next step going to be switching to ice hockey, which is destroying our sport.

I am trying to talk my step-dad and step-brother out of this right now. My step-dad said the other day, "We have to get Nathan out of inline hockey (he is playing High School for both Inline and Ice), going back and forth will ruin his game." I turned to him and said, "Why not let him play both? They are different games with different styles of play. They are completely unique games.". His response was the classic parents response, "Inline hockey is just Ice hockey without the ice and without the hitting (which, in Nathans case, is the reason he is #1 in penalty minutes in the JV5A CHSIHL)."

I went off topic a bit, but I just wanted to put that out there.

[AJ Barnett]

Hey ACCCT2,

I would just like to say that although other people have pointed out that it gives them headaches, I was rather fond of your old posting style (I'll get crap for that you just wait). What happened?

[quick_dry]

Just noting the latest post edits to the 'pro' thread.

Can we say 'painted jezebel' or 'streetwalker' instead?

surely any kids reading along will know that a 'streetwalker' is just someone walking the streets, and just like there are people televised and given money for mundane activities like competitive 'cup stackers' - it only makes sense for people to be able 'walk the streets' professionally, as fully 'pro', 'paid to play', 'streetwalkers' ;)

[RichardGraham]

Steven,

You Aussies. lol. Be careful or I'll begin allowing sheep jokes...