RULES OF SERVICE

Due to certain postings in the last couple of days that we have unfortunately had to delete for various reasons, it has come to a point we never thought we would have had to go when we started this site over three years ago.

I guess since every other one of the major Rangers Hockey news blogs out there have had to do it, why should we be immune? We knew there would come a point where we would have to deal with this as well and today is that day. So here goes...

Certain ground rules:

1) EVERYONE posting here, whether it's us or the fine folks that write in on a semi regular basis, are entitled to their opinion whether you agree with it or not. Respecting that is not only what makes this site a better place to visit, but is a cornerstone of the American was of life. Respecting the differences in our vast and various opinions is how we all grow.

2) It's important to note that enjoying and then wanting to participate on this site does NOT REQUIRE that you MUST AGREE with everything that is written here either by me or any other poster. HOWEVER, this site will NOT tolerate name calling, derogatory (as in nasty, NOT thought-out critical) comments towards players or coaches or the organization or those of the opposition. If you want to be critical, that's perfectly fine. There is no problem with that WHATSOEVER. But by all means, bring your critical view in a civil, respectful manner without resorting to nastiness or name-calling as the delivery agent. That will NOT be tolerated by ANYONE for ANY reason. NO EXCEPTIONS... If you've had something deleted and you still want to make your point, then rewrite and rethink what you've written and change the tone. Make your remarks civil and there won't be any need to delete them. The next choice will be to edit your comments, which frankly I don't have the time to do.

3) If you don't think a particular person is doing a good job, whether it's us, the players, the coaches, the organization, there's no problem with that it's totally fine. But try this, instead of just attacking, anyone can do that after the fact, offer some insight as to how you think it could be better. Put a little thought into it. That's the great kind of debate that we're after here. NOT slinging mud or insults or just frustrated screaming.

4) Be as respectful towards others as you want them to be towards you.

Lastly, this was created to be an open forum where people can feel free to share their ideas and thoughts AGAIN, as long as it's civil. We have no desire to do it, but if we have to ban people from the site for violating these simple rules of conduct then we will.

We'd really rather not resort to that...

Let the conversation continue...

Comments

[Wolfpack Dan]

Good thought! I think you see the point. My recent comment was not posted, but was an opposing opinion to the writer. My comment carried a much kinder tone more critical of the writer than anyone else. You should have posted the comment so others could see the other side of the story, the bigger picture of the team and its season. Now, I think you owe some apologies to players you have so viciously condemned in past articles. You should also remove your vicious articles. Take responsibility. Don’t condemn actions you yourself don’t practice. It is a team effort, not one or two players.

[Mitch Beck]

Dan,

First of all we owe no apologies to anyone, least of all you. Your post lacked a single word of articulate criticism. What you posted was a vile, bitter, diatribe that did little more than attack me. In your earlier post, under Ranger Dan, you went after Laurie, who I know for a fact knows as much about the sport as anyone I know in the inner circles. Then you added a bunch of nothing less than ridiculous nastiness towards the team.

Whether you like it or not, this is my blog and it's run with a level of class and professionalism that I won't allow you, or anyone else like you, to ruin. Your comments were taken down, not because you disagree with me. That's happened here plenty of times by people who thought through their thoughts and posted them intelligently. That was NOT what you did.

Even this posting above is absurd and foolish, but that seems to be the approach you are looking for. Continue on this path and unfortunately action will be taken. You're welcome to participate in the discussions here as long as you conduct yourself in the appropriate manner. If you find you can't abide by our rules, then feel free to visit someone else's site where you will feel more comfortable. Here there are rules of conduct.

This is the last that I am going to talk about it.

[rcm]

Mitch-Your right. Ad Hominen attacks ,i.e. attacking the person rather than what is said is a waste of time for anyone to read.

here it is as said in wiki encylopedia An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.