HF Rules Poll

Are the HF rules too harsh or unrealistic?

  • Yes. Name-calling and personal insults should be allowed.

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • No. Better to keep it civil.

    Votes: 55 98.2%
  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
Dionysus

Dionysus

Idoit
Admin
From the Posting Guidelines:

Please be respectful of your fellow members, as well as the coaches and players. Personal attacks, name-calling and aggressive messages are not acceptable. If you disagree with someone, attack the idea, not the person.

Most of you are well aware of this rule. On a few occasions I have had to enforce it, resulting in the banning of some member accounts. For what it’s worth, I detest banning. I don’t want anyone to leave, I just want the dialogue here to be better than that.

I have second-guessed myself many times on this rule. Is it too harsh or unrealistic for a public forum? Should everyone just be allowed to personally attack and insult others?

I understand the urge to lash out sometimes. People get triggered and angry about some things. But I think that makes Hornfans worse, and degrades the quality of conversation.

I’d like to know what y’all think. What do you want for Hornfans?
 
Dionysus said:
From the Posting Guidelines:

Please be respectful of your fellow members, as well as the coaches and players. Personal attacks, name-calling and aggressive messages are not acceptable. If you disagree with someone, attack the idea, not the person.

Most of you are well aware of this rule. On a few occasions I have had to enforce it, resulting in the banning of some member accounts. For what it’s worth, I detest banning. I don’t want anyone to leave, I just want the dialogue here to be better than that.

I have second-guessed myself many times on this rule. Is it too harsh or unrealistic for a public forum? Should everyone just be allowed to personally attack and insult others?

I understand the urge to lash out sometimes. People get triggered and angry about some things. But I think that makes Hornfans worse, and degrades the quality of conversation.

I’d like to know what y’all think. What do you want for Hornfans?
Click to expand...
I am strongly against personal attacks on this board. Attacking someone personally is a choice that is within 100% control of the poster (and really not necessary as there are socially appropriate ways to insult people without being overtly personal).

I say this in contrast to posting political stuff in sport forums like On the Field, which admittedly I have crossed the line, where folks (media, players, etc) outside of HF have politicized sports. Thus, not really a choice by the fan and more leniency should be given.
 
mchammer said:
I say this in contrast to posting political stuff in sport forums like On the Field, which admittedly I have crossed the line, where folks (media, players, etc) outside of HF have politicized sports. Thus, not really a choice by the fan and more leniency should be given.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with this.
 
I prefer keeping it civil, even though I have had to be admonished occasionally.

If we didn't work to keep it civil, how long until the board devolves into Shaggy?
 
I prefer to keep things friendly, there is enough vitriol in public discourse
Is Shaggy even a thing any more? I thought it was called something else now
 
I left shaggy bevo a looong time ago because of the absurdity.
We have some good spirited debate her, but insulting just leads to ridiculousness and then the whole forum turns into a teenage cat fight instead of football.
 
I say keep the rules the way they are. Do not denigrate each other; the coaches; and most of all, the players, even if they're making money.

Keep politics in the West Mall. If I thought politics was okay, I would have a lot of haters because I would have lambasted many posters for over the last 20+ years.

And since I'm on a rant, (I've held my tongue - or fingers long enough.) those folks who jump the the gun on posting stuff is so...









Chip Brown-esque.
 
everette said:
I say keep the rules the way they are. Do not denigrate each other; the coaches; and most of all, the players, even if they're making money.

Keep politics in the West Mall. If I thought politics was okay, I would have a lot of haters because I would have lambasted many posters for over the last 20+ years.

And since I'm on a rant, (I've held my tongue - or fingers long enough.) those folks who jump the the gun on posting stuff is so...









Chip Brown-esque.
Click to expand...
Like my Boutee from LSU is in the portal.
 
I have been guilty of name calling a few times and deservedly ***** slapped for it. Granted in both cases they were a sooner and a husker.... just sayin'
 
everette said:
I say keep the rules the way they are. Do not denigrate each other; the coaches; and most of all, the players, even if they're making money.

Keep politics in the West Mall. If I thought politics was okay, I would have a lot of haters because I would have lambasted many posters for over the last 20+ years.

And since I'm on a rant, (I've held my tongue - or fingers long enough.) those folks who jump the the gun on posting stuff is so...









Chip Brown-esque.
Click to expand...

What the hell's that supposed to mean?

:coolnana:

WorsterMan said:
I have been guilty of name calling a few times and deservedly ***** slapped for it. Granted in both cases they were a sooner and a husker.... just sayin'
Click to expand...

We're watching you brother Worster, don't worry.
 
mchammer said:
I say this in contrast to posting political stuff in sport forums like On the Field, which admittedly I have crossed the line, where folks (media, players, etc) outside of HF have politicized sports. Thus, not really a choice by the fan and more leniency should be given.
Click to expand...

Dionysus said:
I agree 100% with this.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, because I kinda agree, but not completely. I remember liking that there were two (2) football boards...On the Field and In the Stands.

When I come to On the Field, I don't want to hear about politics. In the Stands was where the non-football football stuff occurred in the past. When I go there, I assume there's op-ed going on.

As far as leniency, I 'm cool with people being reminded and they agree. That's all. We're all (mostly) civil.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Shaggy isn't a thing any more (and deservedly so). It may have morphed into Surly or something.
Click to expand...
Surly is without question shaggy under a different name. I only go.there occasionally for.recruiting information. There's a very real difference in not minding being thought of as an a-hole every now and then and taking pride in it on regular basis.
 
X Misn Tx said:
Just to clarify, because I kinda agree, but not completely. I remember liking that there were two (2) football boards...On the Field and In the Stands.

When I come to On the Field, I don't want to hear about politics. In the Stands was where the non-football football stuff occurred in the past. When I go there, I assume there's op-ed going on.

As far as leniency, I 'm cool with people being reminded and they agree. That's all. We're all (mostly) civil.
Click to expand...
In The Stands is still there. It is just that most people post every football topic in On The Field. If one reads the descriptions of the Forums, one would see where to post certain threads.

Politics of any kind, even the mention, jokingly or not, of any politician, is strictly verboten outside of West Mall. Maybe an example of an exception would be saying that a certain politician is at a football game or the like.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I remember lurking Shaggy a long ago but after a few weeks of frequent bomb throwing, name calling/ insults and Mack Brown trashing...l left for good.
 
Last edited:
Dionysus said:
From the Posting Guidelines:

Please be respectful of your fellow members, as well as the coaches and players. Personal attacks, name-calling and aggressive messages are not acceptable. If you disagree with someone, attack the idea, not the person.

Most of you are well aware of this rule. On a few occasions I have had to enforce it, resulting in the banning of some member accounts. For what it’s worth, I detest banning. I don’t want anyone to leave, I just want the dialogue here to be better than that.

I have second-guessed myself many times on this rule. Is it too harsh or unrealistic for a public forum? Should everyone just be allowed to personally attack and insult others?

I understand the urge to lash out sometimes. People get triggered and angry about some things. But I think that makes Hornfans worse, and degrades the quality of conversation.

I’d like to know what y’all think. What do you want for Hornfans?
Click to expand...

I haven't had to insult anyone since I muted Bubba and Husker. :coolnana:
 
horninchicago said:
In The Stands is still there. It is just that most people post every football topic in On The Field. If one reads the descriptions of the Forums, one would see where to post certain threads.

Politics of any kind, even the mention, jokingly or not, of any politician, is strictly verboten outside of West Mall. Maybe an example of an exception would be saying that a certain politician is at a football game or the like.
Click to expand...

Here are my examples...
reasonable references to players discussing race...in the stands. it's relevant to football, but politically charged for some

governors for tx/ouSUX mentions about the game bet...in the stands. we're likely to rag on the ouSUX governor, etc...in the stands. someone could rag on an elected official hinting at their recent decisions, but it is about a football game.

i'm comfortable having stuff like that in the stands because it relates to our football team.

but whatever the bosses want :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top