Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Questions, Comments, Concerns

Recommended Posts

Greetings to all members!

First, let me start by thanking our team of moderators for their great work in general on this forum in both languages, and also for coming up with this idea and working at putting everything together. You are the best!

The purpose of this thread is simple: to inform all members on the topic of moderation and to encourage open constructive discussion on the matter. While it might not always seem that way on the surface, we respect and value the contributions of each member here. Have a question about the forum rules? Want to know why certain posts are deleted? Feel that there’s a way for us to be more effective in doing our job? Then this thread is for you.

Ground rules for posting in this thread

1. Respect
When it comes to feedback, moderators aren’t different from other members. We’re perfectly happy with constructive criticism, expressed in a respectful manner. We dislike sarcasm, personal attacks, swearing, mockery, and veiled insults. If you have a problem, question, or concern, please express yourself in a civilized manner. Failure to do so will mean trouble for you, so just save us all the headache and be courteous.

2. No names, please
This thread is not an invitation to air personal grievances in public. If you have a problem with a particular moderator, the best thing to do is to PM him or her and resolve the issue in private.

3. Be part of the solution
As much as possible, we encourage you to offer practical solutions to any issues or problems you bring to our attention. Who knows? Your solution may be better than anything we’ve got! smile.gif

4. Catch up on your reading
Before you post anything in this thread, we strongly advise you to read this site’s official Code of Conduct first. If you’re still confused or upset about something, come back here and post. We expect all members to be familiar with the Code of Conduct, so please don’t clutter this thread up with questions that even a brief glance at the Code of Conduct would answer.

5. Remember who owns this site
We’ve said it before, but we can’t stress it enough: this message board is owned and operated by the Montreal Canadiens. It is the official message board of the most storied franchise in hockey. Consequently, we have an obligation to monitor these boards more closely than we would if we were moderating your average online forum run by a private citizen.

6. Warnings Are Private
If you have been banned, you will be told the reason, you will have received warnings, and therefore appealing to the moderators for more explanation in this thread is not useful (please PM the moderator who issued the warnings to discuss personal warnings). If someone you know has been suspended, asking the moderators to reveal the reasons or justify the suspension is not useful either, since we do not discuss one member's status with other members. However, if you have broken a rule and would like this rule clarified, this thread is a great place to ask.

7. Rules Still Apply
While this thread exists as a place to comment on the moderation of this forum, all forum rules still apply. If you are unsure if something you wish to post in this thread is against the rules, please PM a moderator first.

Rule Clarification: Constructive Criticism vs. Bashing

We all love to criticise the players, coaches, managers of our favourite team. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be posting here. After all, this message board is an outlet for fans to speak their mind about their passion: the Montreal Canadiens. A hockey message board without criticism is like an empty plate: it looks nice and clean, but really has no use unless you put food on it. If you feel a player hasn’t given his best on a particular night, you’re perfectly entitled to make your voice heard. If you dislike an element of the team’s on-ice strategy, you’re free to share your opinion with your fellow members. If you think a player should be traded, or a coach or manager fired, you have the right to say so.

So why, you might ask, do we delete certain posts because their content constituted an “attack” on a member of the Habs organisation? You may have received a warning for “bashing” a player. You might be confused about the difference between constructive criticism and player bashing. Or you might have seen us delete a post you thought was perfectly reasonable, and now you’re worried about the content of your own posts. Relax — we’re not out to get you! In fact, we hope the following exercise clears the issue up and ensures that we never have to send you a warning about your behaviour. Trust us, we don’t like issuing warnings anymore than you like receiving them.

Constructive Criticism: What you should strive for

Constructive criticism focuses on perceived problems or deficiencies without becoming personal. It is thoughtful, engaged, and respectful. When you offer constructive criticism, the tone and wording of your posts lets everyone know, implicitly, that what concerns you is the issue at hand, not the player, coach, or manager himself. You do not use race, nationality, or language as a tool to belittle the target of your comments, nor do you engage in unnecessary personal remarks, (e.g. making fun of the person’s appearance). While frustration is sometimes an unavoidable part of criticism, especially when the team is losing or the player is in a prolonged slump, you should never let your frustration lead you to substitute insults and sarcasm for informed, level-headed criticism.

An example of constructive criticism:

"I do agree with you in that, being Guy's first season behind the bench, we can't really tell what he's made of yet. But we got a good look at how he handled adversity, and the rest of the league just rolled past us while we were still trying to command the locker room. He was a player long enough to know these things are inevitable, and that he would need a plan to handle them. My worry is that we may have seen his "plan" in full. And the results speak for themselves....a team that STILL, for no good reason, is the most inconsistent thing I have ever seen on skates! "

In the above example, the poster has doubts about the coaching, but never degenerates into personal attacks not relating to hockey. He’s open-minded enough to acknowledge when the other person makes a valid point, and doesn’t fly off the handle or become sarcastic because someone happens to disagree with him. There’s no mud-slinging or name-calling, but he’s gotten his point across loud and clear.

Another example:

"Maybe if he actually EARNED his keep and played up to his talent but he has not. He only skates when he wants to, I was looking at the highlights of the last game he played in yesterday on TSN and on one play he coughed up the puck in the neutral zone and instead of coming back in the play to help out the defence he just coasted behind the play and we got scored on... pretty sad if you ask me and he's being paid top dollars for what? If I was him I would keep quiet."

The preceding example is more animated. Frustration is evident, but the poster sticks to the subject matter, using specific in-game examples to support the argument. There’s no rancor, gratuitous insults, or obscene language.

A Third Example:

"I agree to an extent.

The flu has hurt this team a lot. It's been going around for months now.

The whole Sammy situation has hurt the team as he is a good player and both sides have made bad decisions this year.

If the team had Huet right now they might be in the playoffs. It's a big if, but it's very possible that he would have stolen some games like he did early in the season. He seemed to be playing better when he got injured.

With all that said I agree that this team could probably do just as well playing a more aggressive system that takes more risks. As Rivet said he is allowed to pinch in and take risks there. The thing is I doubt Carbs believes in such a system. I think he believes in what hes using now and thats the way he has played hockey his whole career. I doubt he is experienced in the use of an offensive system enough to employ one and I also doubt he believes a system like that would win the cup anyway. Right now he is the coach though and the players will have to listen to him and do what he says."

Once again, the member debates the point without getting personal or degenerating into non related attacks.

Bashing: What you should avoid

Bashing takes many forms, but the key ingredient in any type of bashing is a lack of respect. The tone of the post is usually scornful, sarcastic, and contemptuous of the player or coach in question, yet the poster doesn’t bother to provide any kind of support for his position. He’s already made up his mind about the issue, and he’s just looking to pick a fight. He doesn’t mind using obscene language and derogatory terms when talking about the object of his ridicule, and if you happen to disagree with him, he has no problem using the same language to attack you. A basher loves making unsubstantiated generalizations about large numbers of people, based on nothing but his own personal likes and dislikes, and then using his self-made evidence as the basis for unwarranted personal attacks. Once he’s decided he dislikes a player or coach, he uses every available opportunity to poke fun at their expense, regardless of whether he’s off-topic.

Some examples of Bashing:

While we can't post any true examples, as these break forum rules, here are some general ideas of what constitutes bashing:

comparing players to non-hockey players, animals or inanimate objects
referring to any players as "pathetic", "terrible", etc. (calling a single game or skill by a player "terrible" is fine, but not the player in general)
any other insult that becomes too personal against the player.

In short, bashing is often a brash commentary that attacks the character of an individual, rather than a comment that critiques the play or performance of that individual.

Rule Clarification: Attacking Other Members

Just like attacking members of the team is against the rules, so is attacking other members of the forum. A forum is always going to have lots of debates, that's what makes it interesting (we certainly don't want everyone to agree on everything). However, members must stick to the subject matter and debate it appropriately, not let the debates become personal.

Some examples of personal attacks that are against the rules and may result in warnings:

Give your head a shake
Open your eyes
Those who disagree don't know hockey (or what they're talking about)
Get a life
Are you drunk (or on drugs)?

All of these types of comments can only draw a negative response and are against forum rules.

Furthermore, if someone insults you, let a moderator know and we'll be happy to delete the message. What you should not do is quote or even respond to the message. This leads to a lot more work for the moderators, and may start what is known as a "flame war" (members constantly personally attacking each other). Even if someone insults you first, you may receive a warning as well for retaliating. Avoid back-seat moderating, or acting as a moderator. This only adds to the problem instead of helping fix it. Using the "Report Post" button () or the Private Message system solves the problem much more efficiently as opposed to attempting to take matters into your own hands.

Because this site is part of the public "face" our team presents to the world, we do have to be careful with the kinds of expressions people sometimes use to express criticism. Things that could be offensive to a portion of our membership cannot be allowed. So for example, it is inappropriate to describe something or someone as "retarded" when there is quite a good chance that some of our forum members have family with special needs or challenges. Remember that many of our forum members are NOT just like you. Try to respect everyone, and to stay away from language that insults or ridicules identifiable groups.

Explanation: Warnings

Warnings are just that ... warnings. Receiving a warning is not the end of the world, it's only a way to inform members that they've crossed the line. Repeating the offense becomes more serious. Many good members have received warnings, some have even gone on to become moderators after showing an improvement in their posting. However, a warning is a sign that you have broken the forum rules and need to be more careful in the future. If you read the rules and are more careful in the future, that warning isn't going to hurt you at all. Essentially, warnings are encouragement to change your personal behaviour for the betterment of the forum; for yourself, and for others.

Members also need to be aware that contributing members who have been permanently banned have already received ample warnings and likely a temporary suspension. We realize that once in awhile everyone makes mistakes, and so the moderators are cautious with giving bannings, although sometimes it becomes necessary.

By respect for our membership, warnings are being issued by Private Messaging and only the moderators and the member in question know about it. We are expecting that members will use the same method to discuss warnings, as going on the open forum afterwards being critical about it could be perceived as showing off or under-mining the efforts of the moderator(s).

To summarize: A warning is YOUR chance to step up and improve the forum by setting an example and making hockey discussions pleasant and civilized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have never used firefox,

works great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest habs1952


If Opera or Camino happens to be your default browser, you’re among the two brainiest groups studied, with IQs in excess of 120. Firefox, Chrome, and Safari users fall near the middle of the pack, with average IQs around 110 or so.

Internet Explorer users don’t fare quite so well. Those who use the oft-maligned (and extremely outdated) Internet Explorer 6 placed dead last and were followed closely by users of IE7 and, somewhat surprisingly, IE9. IE8 users scored slightly better, but were still an average of 20 points behind those who surf with Firefox.

There is, however, one very interesting anomaly. In addition to offering the Chrome browser, Google also provides the Chrome Frame plug-in to people who want to (or have to) use Internet Explorer as their default browser but also want HTML5 support, better standards compliance, and faster page loads. AptiQuant found that people who use Internet Explorer with Google’s Chrome Frame plug-in came out more than 30 points ahead of their vanilla-IE-using cousins. The jump makes sense, since you’d expect users who understand what Chrome Frame does and choose to install it probably have a fair amount of intelligence.

It’s always important to remember that statistics don’t necessarily tell the whole story — American journalist Gregg Easterbrook once said “Torture numbers and they’ll confess to anything.” I tend to agree with him, but I’m still feeling pretty good about my recent switch to Opera 12…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use the Canadiens platform... Was sick of the "leafs" blue. It's pretty fast, can't see a difference between this site and other sites I use. Use to be horrible, but been working great for at least 6 months now.

I get periods of lag still on that board version. Not as bad as it originally was but i still find a difference on occasion when the traffic is heavy in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get periods of lag still on that board version. Not as bad as it originally was but i still find a difference on occasion when the traffic is heavy in here.

For me, it depends which computer I use. If I use the laptop (really good one I bought the wife last year for school-super fast processor), I don't notice or have a lag. If I use the old Toshiba laptop or our desktop (3 yrs old now), then I get the odd lag. Still not too bad, much better than it use to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, Chrome and Firefox are both superior to IE.


I'm sorry.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

the things will change but there pretty easy to find. I have a few ones downloaded(chrome,firefox,safari and IE) so you could try chrome and if you dont like it then you can easily change back and wont lose anything.

You DO know who your talking to,,,right 123? :lol:

Decaying grey matter here. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand.

I do :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • H_T_L locked and unpinned this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...