Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

Referee Whistle Revision #3

Posted by Scott R on 4/27/01 at 06:21 (045932)

This post was judged to be against the posting agreement for the following X-marked reason(s). In most cases, no one should reply to this or the original message.

[] The post was off-topic. The post was not about foot pain.
[] The post was not nice.**
[] The post was an offensive, suspicious, or repeating advertisement.
[] The poster attempted to be anonymous by not using their usual nickname.
[] After 3 fouls of this nature, a block may be placed on the IP address of the poster to prevent posting for 20 days or more.

** It's always OK to be honest and factual in a post that is critical, but it's not OK to merely attack, anger, or otherwise encourage useless, off-topic posts. In all posts, the emphasis should be on facts, foot pain, and helping others.
Arguments against declaring this and similar posts 'foul' should be sent to scott@heelspurs.com . This form should be used only by approved 'referees'.

Re: Referee Whistle Revision #3

wendyn on 4/27/01 at 08:03 (045943)

Scott - how about 'moderator' instead of 'referee'?

Re: Referee Whistle Revision #3

Scott R on 4/27/01 at 12:43 (045982)

Wendyn, 'moderator' typically has a specific and more stringent meaning, so I didn't want to use that term. A moderator would review posts before they are made and may block something like 20% of the messages. I'm wanting our regular visitors to stop posting off-topic messages. We do not have any trouble from newcomers unless it's advertising. If the regulars can become aware that it's not OK to violate the posting agreement, then we would rarely need to use the whistle, so that newcomers will rarely know it exists and therefore not feel bashful about posting. 2 or 3 posted that they want to keep it a 'free-for-all' (implying not even a posting agreement to violate in the first place), but I personally feel the most recent series of posts clearly show a certain percentage of our regulars insist the message board should degenerate as far as possible in order to remain interesting and fun rather than useful and informative to people with heel pain.

Re: Referee Whistle Revision #3 Attn:Scott

Kim B. on 4/27/01 at hrmin (045986)

Scott, I understand how Wendyn feels about the word 'Referee'. It's silly. and It almost insinuates that you can start a fight, and if you're in the right, we have an onsite 'Referee' to help show you are right. It's a bit far flung, but you get the gest of what I mean. Would the word 'MODULATOR' be applicable? As in, someone who keeps the 'NOISE' to a minimum. Just a thougth.

Also, for better clarification I have a suggestion for Referee Whistle Revision #3:

Where it says, 'This post was judged to be against the posting agreement for the following X-marked reason(s). In most cases, no one should reply to this or the original message.'

you might want to interject the word 'Therefore,' after '...X-marked reason(s).'

It would read: This post was judged to be against the posting agreement for the following X-marked reason(s). Therefore, in most cases, no one should reply to this or the original message.

Re: Referee Whistle Revision #3

wendyn on 4/27/01 at 08:03 (045943)

Scott - how about 'moderator' instead of 'referee'?

Re: Referee Whistle Revision #3

Scott R on 4/27/01 at 12:43 (045982)

Wendyn, 'moderator' typically has a specific and more stringent meaning, so I didn't want to use that term. A moderator would review posts before they are made and may block something like 20% of the messages. I'm wanting our regular visitors to stop posting off-topic messages. We do not have any trouble from newcomers unless it's advertising. If the regulars can become aware that it's not OK to violate the posting agreement, then we would rarely need to use the whistle, so that newcomers will rarely know it exists and therefore not feel bashful about posting. 2 or 3 posted that they want to keep it a 'free-for-all' (implying not even a posting agreement to violate in the first place), but I personally feel the most recent series of posts clearly show a certain percentage of our regulars insist the message board should degenerate as far as possible in order to remain interesting and fun rather than useful and informative to people with heel pain.

Re: Referee Whistle Revision #3 Attn:Scott

Kim B. on 4/27/01 at hrmin (045986)

Scott, I understand how Wendyn feels about the word 'Referee'. It's silly. and It almost insinuates that you can start a fight, and if you're in the right, we have an onsite 'Referee' to help show you are right. It's a bit far flung, but you get the gest of what I mean. Would the word 'MODULATOR' be applicable? As in, someone who keeps the 'NOISE' to a minimum. Just a thougth.

Also, for better clarification I have a suggestion for Referee Whistle Revision #3:

Where it says, 'This post was judged to be against the posting agreement for the following X-marked reason(s). In most cases, no one should reply to this or the original message.'

you might want to interject the word 'Therefore,' after '...X-marked reason(s).'

It would read: This post was judged to be against the posting agreement for the following X-marked reason(s). Therefore, in most cases, no one should reply to this or the original message.