NSFL Media Code of Ethics

[Boomcheck]

What do you mean by inciting drama?

If I write about how bad I think a team is would that be drama? If I write about a team and say that certain guys need to be moved/shipped out for the team to take a different direction is that drama?

A lot of this I see is 'your opinion doesn't match mine so you can't have a voice'.

Lets say a team makes a trade or signing in the off-season and it has like 3-4 pages, am I not supposed to comment on it? Is it just swept under the rug and I have to pretend the move didn't happen?

Am I not allowed to have a take on a player's decisions? A person can have a view that may not be entirely correct, just call them out on it. A lot of people slammed me for my wording in the Toriki article with the term 'selfish', 'mentally weak' etc. What am I, as a new person, supposed to think of a top tier player that only played 1 season of their contract before bouncing. There was no sign and trade and I saw no compensation for the move. How would people feel if Saquon just left the Giants after one season and NY saw no return.

It's true that I like to stir the pot but it's more so based on ...

Ashley Owens>Player fits in the NSFL, mainly used this article research to figure out what weapons teams generally need and I liked the fact he was a receiving back.
Marcella Toriki>Top young player leaving after 1 seasons since there's no real RFA here or compensation.
Rose Jenkins>Chicago probably needs to just tear it down and go in the direction of some form of rebuild unless they can have some pulling power in FA.

I hardly dislike any members and mostly goof around. I thought maybe there would be a lot of SBA/SHL cross over here so people knew what to expect but it seems not so my bad there, but I don't really see my articles as malicious. It's not some profanity laced tirade or anything, just an opinion.

[TomHanks]

What do you mean by inciting drama?

I mean you literally answer this question right here:

It's true that I like to stir the pot but it's more so based on ...

If I write about how bad I think a team is would that be drama? If I write about a team and say that certain guys need to be moved/shipped out for the team to take a different direction is that drama?

As long as you're going after things like sim performance and not users' personal decisions, have at it. Don't go out of your way to upset people, that easy. Fun fact, you can have opinions without being a dick about them.

A lot of this I see is 'your opinion doesn't match mine so you can't have a voice'.

No, no it isn't. At no point has anyone said you aren't allowed to have an opinion and this, like the "I'm going after the player not the user" assertion is purely used to justify not being a nice person. There is a massive difference between saying you think a team made a poor signing based on their current roster in your opinion and saying a user doesn't have a shred of honour in your opinion. One is a hot take, the latter is an attack.

Lets say a team makes a trade or signing in the off-season and it has like 3-4 pages, am I not supposed to comment on it? Is it just swept under the rug and I have to pretend the move didn't happen?

As with above, comment on it. Be a journalist. Don't attack people and go out of your way to make people upset. Ask for comments. See if what you're saying is totally off base. Literally no one at any point has said you can't publish media commenting on things in the league, and you're using a huge logical fallacy to make it seem like people are telling you not to speak at all.

Am I not allowed to have a take on a player's decisions? A person can have a view that may not be entirely correct, just call them out on it. A lot of people slammed me for my wording in the Toriki article with the term 'selfish', 'mentally weak' etc. What am I, as a new person, supposed to think of a top tier player that only played 1 season of their contract before bouncing. There was no sign and trade and I saw no compensation for the move. How would people feel if Saquon just left the Giants after one season and NY saw no return.

It's true that I like to stir the pot but it's more so based on ...

Ashley Owens>Player fits in the NSFL, mainly used this article research to figure out what weapons teams generally need and I liked the fact he was a receiving back.
Marcella Toriki>Top young player leaving after 1 seasons since there's no real RFA here or compensation.
Rose Jenkins>Chicago probably needs to just tear it down and go in the direction of some form of rebuild unless they can have some pulling power in FA. 

You are allowed to have opinions. You shouldn't be allowed to use inflammatory language attacking a user's character based on those opinions. Inflammatory language, by the way, includes the examples you listed. And you could go to the user to ask about all that before publishing, which has up until now been the norm in this league. And another fun fact: this isn't the NFL. We had RFAs once and good god was that a bad idea because at the end of the day we're here to have fun. If someone is unhappy where they are, they should be allowed to move. Cuz they aren't actually making millions of dollars to do this. The only thing RFAs would do is kill retention rates league wide. Shouldn't have to explain why that is a horrific thing.

I hardly dislike any members and mostly goof around. I thought maybe there would be a lot of SBA/SHL cross over here so people knew what to expect but it seems not so my bad there, but I don't really see my articles as malicious. It's not some profanity laced tirade or anything, just an opinion.

And ultimately this is what it comes down to. You don't see your articles as malicious, that's fine. You didn't mean to offend anyone, that's great. But you did. And you learned you did. And you chose to continue pushing the issue after the fact. At that point it does become malicious. At that point it is mean spirited and intended to upset people and cause drama. And you somehow still have decided not to apologize in spite of all of this.

[Boomcheck]

No I mean i'm literally asking what inciting drama means.

If I stir the pot by talking about a trade/signing with multiple pages is that inciting drama or talking about what happened?

[TomHanks]

No I mean i'm literally asking what inciting drama means.

If I stir the pot by talking about a trade/signing with multiple pages is that inciting drama or talking about what happened?

Posting a follow up article after HO locks your thread and you've learned that you cause genuine emotional pain towards someone else is inciting anger and drama.

[UpperNet]

Coc?

[Jonny2x]

Posting a follow up article after HO locks your thread and you've learned that you cause genuine emotional pain towards someone else is inciting anger and drama.

Let me know how defining drama works out please.

Hoping for the best here but this is a slippery slope to be sure.

Pretty crazy HO's main job seems to be to protect others from being harassed all while being the target of the most harassment in the league, except everyone says HO sucks instead of such and such user sucks.

[RainDelay]

I still don’t understand why he couldn’t have written an article that questions the USER’s decisions, not the player. Is that so bad?

Why people actually got offended from @Boomcheck 's article is beyond me.

[schauer]

Maybe this is off base since I am a newer member but it seems like there is a lot of grey area on this. I think people should be able to question someones actions + choices whether player or user but I think it should stop before it becomes a personal attack. The grey area becomes "when is it a personal attack" because we all will have slightly differing opinions on when something is satire/critical and when it becomes malicious. Like for instance, in the original post the article linked there I could see how that could be skewed as abusive but others might see that as more satirical.

Maybe a temporary solution is to just segment off the media and see how that plays out? Create a subforum where the more controversial pieces go. That way, anyone who doesn't want to read the stuff doesn't have to and the people who do like to read those style of articles assumes the risk when they enter that subforum whilst still being able to flag things that really go off the rails. Might not work but I think its an easier thing to implement rather than holding on to peoples media money over a grey area thats defined differently with each person

[IsaStarcrossed]

Maybe a temporary solution is to just segment off the media and see how that plays out? Create a subforum where the more controversial pieces go. That way, anyone who doesn't want to read the stuff doesn't have to and the people who do like to read those style of articles assumes the risk when they enter that subforum whilst still being able to flag things that really go off the rails. Might not work but I think its an easier thing to implement rather than holding on to peoples media money over a grey area thats defined differently with each person

Yeah, in my opinion everything is subjective and there is no good way to do this. You can't take away people's money just because of sour opinions. But you can't expect people to not have sour opinions on certain subjects. That is why the easiest solution is to just ask? Like legitimately, it isn't that hard to reach out real quick and be like "Hey, I have an article idea. Is this cool with you?". Like you know you're writing something controversial that will stir the pot. It takes minimum effort to clear yourself first.

[Jay_Doctor]

Create a subforum where the more controversial pieces go.

We have that, it's called the Thunderdome and that's where one of the pieces were moved. I do see what you are saying on the gray area, though. Things are up in the air at times.

For me, The Bex one was way more aggressive than the others, plain and simple. When you compare it to the others, Boom usually calls out the teams in some fashion, but for some reason doesn't even consider SJS to be in the wrong at all. It makes me think he has some connection there, considering he did "research" on the matter.