Question - constructive criticism

[OrangeBengal9]

"You agree not to post any material which is obscene, vulgar, slanderous, libelous, threatening, sexually-orientated, racially offensive, any other material that may violate any applicable laws, or anything negative about the Bengles, players, coaches, and/or fans, even if true."

Does this mean we can't b!tch about play calls, lack of player effort (rather true or opinion)?? I don't understand.

[derekshank]

If that's the rule, it's certainly not being enforced. Go read the post histories of TJJackson and Shula.

[membengal]

Gotta tell ya, I smell another troll...

[OrangeBengal9]

If that's the rule, it's certainly not being enforced. Go read the post histories of TJJackson and Shula.

Thanks.

[derekshank]

Gotta tell ya, I smell another troll...

I think he was just asking if he's allowed to complain without getting booted.

There's not much to complain about right now though... so whatever.

[membengal]

Derek, perhaps, and if so, I will be proved wrong, but new posters who are Bengals fans, with the team coming off of an 11-5 season and off to a 1-0 start, are not usually concerned with the ability to be critical.

Now, Steelers fans posing as Bengals fans? That would be something they would worry over...

Check out orangebengal9's act in smack talk.

I stand by my hunch. Troll.

[OrangeBengal9]

Derek, perhaps, and if so, I will be proved wrong, but new posters who are Bengals fans, with the team coming off of an 11-5 season and off to a 1-0 start, are not usually concerned with the ability to be critical.

Now, Steelers fans posing as Bengals fans? That would be something they would worry over...

Why do you constantly fear trolls? Be real.

The Bengals should crush the browns this weekend, they're definitely the step children of the division. Anyone that says they're not chafing for week 3 is a liar. I just hope we don't look past this week's opponents.

[membengal]

No one here "fears trolls". What the mods work hard to do is leave this one area a place where we can talk Bengals without having to deal with childishness from passers-by from other teams.

Sometimes its fun to, ya know, just talk sports, and talk sports about your favorite team, without dealing with ritalin fueled rantings of children...

[duus]

"You agree not to post any material which is obscene, vulgar, slanderous, libelous, threatening, sexually-orientated, racially offensive, any other material that may violate any applicable laws, or anything negative about the Bengles, players, coaches, and/or fans, even if true."

Does this mean we can't b!tch about play calls, lack of player effort (rather true or opinion)?? I don't understand.

I'm goinig with the thought that this is a troll until proven otherwise. Seriously ... does anyone believe this quote was truely copied from some agreement text when signing up? Need proof? ... just look at how BENGALS is misspelled within the quotes. Hmmmm.

[TJJackson]

If that's the rule, it's certainly not being enforced. Go read the post histories of TJJackson and Shula.

I think it is a good thing that not all of us are marvin-aide drinking drones like derekshank, but that's just me

[derekshank]

If that's the rule, it's certainly not being enforced. Go read the post histories of TJJackson and Shula.

I think it is a good thing that not all of us are marvin-aide drinking drones like derekshank, but that's just me

I was just giving you a little jab there TJ. It was a joke. You're right. It's important to have pessimists on a discussion board, or there is no discussion.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

If that's the rule, it's certainly not being enforced. Go read the post histories of TJJackson and Shula.

I think it is a good thing that not all of us are marvin-aide drinking drones like derekshank, but that's just me

Yeah, I've never understood that mentality. What the hell's the point of a message board if it's just I LUV MARVIN when you're winning and MIKE BROWN SUXXRS when you're losing? Gets kind of repetitive.

[DesperateDerelict]

Sometimes its fun to, ya know, just talk sports, and talk sports about your favorite team, without dealing with ritalin fueled rantings of children...

[Stripes]

If that's the rule, it's certainly not being enforced. Go read the post histories of TJJackson and Shula.

I think it is a good thing that not all of us are marvin-aide drinking drones like derekshank, but that's just me

Count me as a proud drone until I'm given a real reason to act otherwise.

[membengal]

If that's the rule, it's certainly not being enforced. Go read the post histories of TJJackson and Shula.

I think it is a good thing that not all of us are marvin-aide drinking drones like derekshank, but that's just me

TJ, he was using you as a positive example of a Bengals fan who writes plenty of negative things about the team. Then again, the troll above is a Steelers fan just looking to stir things up. So, if it was a serious query, you (and hoosier, and me, and HOF and pretty much everyone) are proof that we are plenty critical up in here. But that criticism comes from the heart, as opposed to whatever it is that Steelers fans tend to bring up in here (like, say, a pic of Palmer as he lay injured on the field last year that got the new MD guy his vacation...)

[HoosierCat]

The "rule" cited by OrangeBengal9 doesn't exist (which anyone could confirm simply by reading the Forum Rules post at the top of the page).

However, there is a rule that reads:

4. Do not use more than one member account concurrently

Use only one user account. If you want a different username please contact the Administrator to request a name change. Making a new account after a ban will result into a permanent ban.

So, let's see: OrangeBengal9 and MDStripper both registered from the same IP address within the last 48 hours...hmmmm?

Yup, mem, I'd say you're right. Troll.

[Tasher]

The "rule" cited by OrangeBengal9 doesn't exist (which anyone could confirm simply by reading the Forum Rules post at the top of the page).

However, there is a rule that reads:

4. Do not use more than one member account concurrently

Use only one user account. If you want a different username please contact the Administrator to request a name change. Making a new account after a ban will result into a permanent ban.

So, let's see: OrangeBengal9 and MDStripper both registered from the same IP address within the last 48 hours...hmmmm?

Yup, mem, I'd say you're right. Troll.

So since MDStripper was banned, does that get OB9 banned too?

[HoosierCat]

A-yup. That'd be the case.

[Tasher]

A-yup. That'd be the case.

Oh. And I didn't even get to say goodbye.

[lando griffin]

If that's the rule, it's certainly not being enforced. Go read the post histories of TJJackson and Shula.

I think it is a good thing that not all of us are marvin-aide drinking drones like derekshank, but that's just me

Count me as a proud drone until I'm given a real reason to act otherwise.

Me too. No reason for me to overly critical of anything Marvin does. I'd rather be a drone than a pessimist. I question every once in awhile, but then I remember how quickly and surely he brought us out of the NFL's decade-plus long black hole

[derekshank]

I don't consider myself a "marvin-aide drinking drone." I just tend to give Marvin the benefit of the doubt.

For instance... the draft. Some called it the "worst draft ever." However we are getting a lot of use already out of guys like Joseph and Peko who were part of that draft. I supported Marvin's picks, even if I didn't know much about them, so at the time it may have looked like I drink a lot of Marvin-aide... but he hasn't given me many reasons to criticise him when it comes to finding talent in the draft... and that continues to be true.

As far as criticism... I'm more than willing to criticise the Bengals. I was incredibly critical of our pass defense toward the end of last year. I was a bit critical of Geathers before the national media changed my mind on the Trent Green hit. I have been very critical of Chris Perry and Henry, and while I usually support most of anything Brat does... I was very critical of the sweep we ran on 4th down against the high-speed and under-sized Colts defense. We'd been running up the middle the whole game effectivlet, and I think he out-thought himself.

Anyway... all of that to say, I'm not a company spokesman... but I do tend to be optimistic, and I like to give the benefit of the doubt to those who have given me reason to trust them.

[tom_bengals]

If that's the rule, it's certainly not being enforced. Go read the post histories of TJJackson and Shula.

I think it is a good thing that not all of us are marvin-aide drinking drones like derekshank, but that's just me

TJ, he was using you as a positive example of a Bengals fan who writes plenty of negative things about the team. Then again, the troll above is a Steelers fan just looking to stir things up. So, if it was a serious query, you (and hoosier, and me, and HOF and pretty much everyone) are proof that we are plenty critical up in here. But that criticism comes from the heart, as opposed to whatever it is that Steelers fans tend to bring up in here (like, say, a pic of Palmer as he lay injured on the field last year that got the new MD guy his vacation...)

Chances are, if you have to ask the question, you are over stepping your boundaries anyway. As stated previously, this forum is created for discussing items of interest between Bengals fans. If someone wanted to post junk or offensive material, I'm sure there are plenty of other sites that would accept it.

[DesperateDerelict]

The "rule" cited by OrangeBengal9 doesn't exist (which anyone could confirm simply by reading the Forum Rules post at the top of the page).

However, there is a rule that reads:

4. Do not use more than one member account concurrently

Use only one user account. If you want a different username please contact the Administrator to request a name change. Making a new account after a ban will result into a permanent ban.

So, let's see: OrangeBengal9 and MDStripper both registered from the same IP address within the last 48 hours...hmmmm?

Yup, mem, I'd say you're right. Troll.

troll

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.” Compare kook.

The use of ‘troll’ in any of these senses is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning “Do not feed the troll” as part of a followup to troll postings.

QUESTION: AREN'T SOME OF MY FAVORITE POSTERS ON THIS FORUM "TROLLS". FOR EXAMPLE, I SEEM TO REMEMBER APPROXIMATELY 674 MILLION WORDS WRITTEN ABOUT "2 CARRY PERRY". AM I MISSING SOMETHING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF A TROLL? HELP ME OUT, BENGALZONE.

[duus]

troll

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase “trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream “trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.

2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.” Compare kook.

The use of ‘troll’ in any of these senses is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning “Do not feed the troll” as part of a followup to troll postings.

QUESTION: AREN'T SOME OF MY FAVORITE POSTERS ON THIS FORUM "TROLLS". FOR EXAMPLE, I SEEM TO REMEMBER APPROXIMATELY 674 MILLION WORDS WRITTEN ABOUT "2 CARRY PERRY". AM I MISSING SOMETHING ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF A TROLL? HELP ME OUT, BENGALZONE.

Like many words, the definition gets a bit twisted with time and application. Obviously, the guys who run this place are welcome to define troll in any way they see fit. I think all anyone can ask is that they are consistent in its designation. As best I can tell, that is exactly what has taken place.