FanIQ Wants Your Feedback on the New Code of Conduct!

You Might Like

More Polls By: Jess

Who liked it? 51

Dubs (+)
Dallas Cowboys

seal_warrior1 (+)
San Diego Padres

joe_lindberg (+)
Pittsburgh Steelers

ankurnathmishra (+)
India

CRAZY_LADY (+)
FanIQ

Louisiana_Woman (+)
FanIQ

anduaugust (+)
History

Fatal (+)
South Africa

marcus_nyce (+)
Miscellaneous

raja_starkglass (+)
Trivia

... and 41 other fans

| Skip to Next Poll »

FanIQ Wants Your Feedback on the New Code of Conduct! (Edited 10/19/09 03:45PM by Jess)

As you know, we at FanIQ are constantly working to improve the site. In an effort to make FanIQ fun and safe for all users, we are working on a new Code of Conduct.

We would like you, the users, to give us your thoughts on what you think should be included or clarified in these site rules. Keep in mind that we probably won’t be able to make everyone happy (we can’t have anarchy), but we will work hard to make as many of you feel safe and happy to be here as we can. While the results from this poll won’t be what makes up the entire Code of Conduct, all serious replies will be seriously considered. We’re looking forward to your thoughts!

Featured by:

Jess at 10/19/09 3:38PM
| Closed on 10/20/09 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll

Tagged as: FanIQ Feedback

52 Fans
12%	a. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
0%	b. I know a rule that should be added (specify in comments)
0%	c. I know a rule that should be removed (specify in comments)
21%	d. I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
67%	e. Other

	&nbp;
TOP COMMENT
#8 \| 34 days ago Raven73 (+)	FanIQ moderators reserve the right to police the community as they see fit. Just because it’s not in the rules doesn’t make it right, and moderators have the power to make judgment calls on such issues. However, moderators are human and can make mistakes, so if you have a complaint about the way something was handled, please send a private message to FanIQ by clicking here, or the “Contact Us” link at the bottom of the site. The situation will be reviewed and appropriately handled. In my opinion, the "as they see fit" has been the cause of a lot of the controversy since I joined FanQ. If this is how our CoC reads, every user should be able to accept it. Also, upon sign up, could there be a field that SHOWS the FanIQ Code of Conduct? If not that, is there a place that new members must agree to the Code of Conduct? I think that also could be included in the initial welcome message. I just don't think most members who sign up here are even aware of the CoC until the trouble arises. Then it's a free for all with numerous interpretations. I just won't discuss the issue of those who know but don't care. Other
	36


119 Comments \| Sorted by Most Recent First \| Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 \| 34 days ago WV_Mountaineer (+)	(Edited by WV_Mountaineer) Where is it the one I see is old. So you just want input on new one?
	11
#2 \| 34 days ago KitNKaboodle (+)	I think the COC should be complete clear and concise. Based on what I've read in the Locker Room threads, presently that doesn't seem to be the case. I don't have any issues, tho. Other
	21
#3 \| 34 days ago hskrdave (+)	I'd like one on PG-13 words actually allowed and which ones need to be edited. I realize that could be an extensive list, but I think we would all get the gist after the first 10 or so. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	20
#4 \| 34 days ago yruwet2 (+)	As you know, I posted a poll I think last week in regards to the COC, on the subject of posting nudity, and certain other material. In it, it was clarified the distinction of PG13 vs. TV-14.. It's just that there is such a fine line between the two.. Other
	21
#5 \| 34 days ago Raven73 (+)	Link to the Code of Conduct Other
	9
#6 \| 34 days ago Jess (+)	WV_Mountaineer wrote: Where is it the one I see is old. So you just want input on new one? Yep, we haven't posted a new one yet (or expanded the old one; whichever is needed). We want your input before we do so :) I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	18
#7 \| 34 days ago guylake (+)	WV_Mountaineer wrote: Where is it the one I see is old. So you just want input on new one? Raven's link is to the existing COC, which is what is to be revised.
	10
#8 \| 34 days ago Raven73 (+)	FanIQ moderators reserve the right to police the community as they see fit. Just because it’s not in the rules doesn’t make it right, and moderators have the power to make judgment calls on such issues. However, moderators are human and can make mistakes, so if you have a complaint about the way something was handled, please send a private message to FanIQ by clicking here, or the “Contact Us” link at the bottom of the site. The situation will be reviewed and appropriately handled. In my opinion, the "as they see fit" has been the cause of a lot of the controversy since I joined FanQ. If this is how our CoC reads, every user should be able to accept it. Also, upon sign up, could there be a field that SHOWS the FanIQ Code of Conduct? If not that, is there a place that new members must agree to the Code of Conduct? I think that also could be included in the initial welcome message. I just don't think most members who sign up here are even aware of the CoC until the trouble arises. Then it's a free for all with numerous interpretations. I just won't discuss the issue of those who know but don't care. Other
	36
#9 \| 34 days ago Wordsmith (+)	(Edited by Wordsmith) I definitely think it needs to be clarified. And it should clearly outline the steps for discipline. Plus, users accused of violations should be be notified BEFORE decisions are made so that they have a chance to provide their side of the story, and perhaps even shed light or truth on the situation. Every user should be able to go some place and see the "violations" that have been reported about them and which mod has reported what violations. This would provide instant accountability to determine if a mod was targeting a user. There should also be an appeal process that the user/mod could invoke before any disciplinary action is taken. I have been contacted by many users who seem to feel that when they question violations that were reported against them, that no one gets back to them, and there is no clear understanding of whether something is a violation or not. In addition, I think that there should be a rotation of mods initiated. This would have many benefits, not the least bit of which would allow mods in a volunteer, stressful job, to have an upcoming, known break, and would give them a chance to go back to contributing to the site as users. Many mods used to contribute fantastic polls, quizzes and articles, but now feel tied to their duties and are unable to contribute new material. In addition, this would allow other, qualified people that are not mods now, to have a turn. A third benefit is that it breaks up any perception of a "small clique" of people who pronounce decisions on high and hold secret conversations where they are free to break the CoC, but maintain a separate and different persona to the public. This mod rotation would provide better accountability. There are other options for accountability. An independent ombudsman, who does not report to a mod or Jess, but has all of the rights to see what mods are saying and what they are doing. Most media type organizations have one, and the best ones have a very strong one, that keeps things in check. In addition, when a mod is accused of violating, or even found to have been in violation of the CoC, then they should be suspended from being a mod while a decision is made, and then if merit is found, they should have no other contact / power over the user they have wronged, or lose the power over the area of the CoC that they violated. I believe these steps would go along way towards clearing up confusion as well as help to diffuse the perspective that some users have of "us versus mods". It would also bring to light mod favoritism or misconduct that may or may not be going on. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	27
#10 \| 34 days ago alainpeartree (+)	my thing is we are supposed to be adults, professionals, parents and lst but not least human beings, do we really not know what appropriate or inappropriate in this stage of our lives we need to be reminded?
	26
#11 \| 34 days ago overall (+)	This one of the unique set-up. Here one has to use brain, intelligence cleverness and rapidity. Need memory and information to answer quizzes. Also best think is poll where you get maximum fun, lighten up stress. And that is the key area, sensitive part .Some time’s member is right about his point of view, But remember that ONE MANS FOOD IS OTHER MAN’S POISON. We need little thoughtfulness before giving any remark. We need to keep in mind that our comment should not hurt any one. We are all responsible citizens of our countries. We must appreciate each other, encourage each other. This is a global village kind of network.Code of condoct is clear and perfect .This thing is are to be taken care of by group of Respectable people of faniq.
	14
#12 \| 34 days ago cooperthomas12 (+)	Jess wrote: Yep, we haven't posted a new one yet (or expanded the old one; whichever is needed). We want your input before we do so :) cool jess haha
	6
#13 \| 34 days ago WV_Mountaineer (+)	(Edited by WV_Mountaineer) A new users guide would be useful, I feel bad for new users when they make a mistake like publishing a duplicate poll and the users who have been here for a while make snide remarks.
	24
#14 \| 34 days ago hskrdave (+)	WV_Mountaineer wrote: A new users guide would be useful, I feel bad for new users when they make a mistake like publishing a duplicate poll and the users who have been here for a while make snide remarks. Very good idea. I know some things I could add to that as well concerning picture tagging. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	18
#15 \| 34 days ago craign123 (+)	I don't think we need a new code of conduct, i think it just needs to be followed the same for everyone, and it seems pretty clear by recent polls that is not happening. Other
	19
#16 \| 34 days ago Raven73 (+)	Spamming is prohibited on FanIQ. Any member whose sole intent is to flood the site with advertisement through comments, news posts, blogs, and pictures, or harass our members with shout outs and personal messages will be automatically removed from the site. Unsolicited messages sharing of your email address and IM account information, as well as any messages asking for this information from our members, are also not allowed. This is another issue. In this instance, automatic means without warning or notification. I think there are other instances where that verbiage and action should apply. One that comes to mind is a recent attack of the polls by a user that posted numerous vulgar comments in a very short time. That should warrant an immediate ZAP! Somewhere it should state that sharing of emails, IM account info, or ANY personal information including phone numbers are not allowed to be posted in the comment sections, fan articles, polls, photos or any other area of FanIQ. Other
	21
#17 \| 34 days ago YankeeDudeL (+)	I guess if some people need clarification, that's ok. But if you can't figure out that nudity, profanity, spamity (hey, gotta keep w/ the scheme, right?), and other general stupidity is against the CoC, then you probably deserve to be suspended and/or banned. We get away w/ a lot here. There's eye candy for both guys and girls, and if it's not to your liking, you don't have to click on the link. There's banned words, but we're generally allowed to censor them ourselves. There's rivalries, but it's like covering a wide receiver. There's some pushing and shoving, but the ref is going to let em play as long as there's nothing flagrant. Oh, in terms of actually providing valuable input? I got nothing. Other
	30
#18 \| 34 days ago kramer (+)	When a member is found to be in violation of the COC, they are sent a message and told about it. I know the gray areas are the problem that everyone has, and that is the reason Jess made this poll to ask for YOUR input in revising the COC. I sincerely hope that will eliminate users being at odds with the moderators. I'm happy to work with anyone who is willing to work together. The drama that has occurred recently has made things worse on the Q, and I'd like to believe we're ALL better than that. Other
	24
#19 \| 34 days ago janet011685 (+)	Wordsmith wrote: I definitely think it needs to be clarified. And it should clearly outline the steps for discipline. Plus, users accused of violations should be be notified BEFORE decisions are made so that they have a chance to provide their side of the story, and perhaps even shed light or truth on the situation. Every user should be able to go some place and see the "violations" that have been reported about them and which mod has reported what violations. This would provide instant accountability to determine if a mod was targeting a user. There should also be an appeal process that the user/mod could invoke before any disciplinary action is taken. I have been contacted by many users who seem to feel that when they question violations that were reported against them, that no one gets back to them, and there is no clear understanding of whether something is a violation or not. In addition, I think that there should be a rotation of mods initiated. This would have many benefits, not the least bit of which would allow mods in a volunteer, stressful job, to have an upcoming, known break, and would give them a chance to go back to contributing to the site as users. Many mods used to contribute fantastic polls, quizzes and articles, but now feel tied to their duties and are unable to contribute new material. In addition, this would allow other, qualified people that are not mods now, to have a turn. A third benefit is that it breaks up any perception of a "small clique" of people who pronounce decisions on high and hold secret conversations where they are free to break the CoC, but maintain a separate and different persona to the public. This mod rotation would provide better accountability. There are other options for accountability. An independent ombudsman, who does not report to a mod or Jess, but has all of the rights to see what mods are saying and what they are doing. Most media type organizations have one, and the best ones have a very strong one, that keeps things in check. In addition, when a mod is accused of violating, or even found to have been in violation of the CoC, then they should be suspended from being a mod while a decision is made, and then if merit is found, they should have no other contact / power over the user they have wronged, or lose the power over the area of the CoC that they violated. I believe these steps would go along way towards clearing up confusion as well as help to diffuse the perspective that some users have of "us versus mods". It would also bring to light mod favoritism or misconduct that may or may not be going on. "Plus, users accused of violations should be be notified BEFORE decisions are made so that they have a chance to provide their side of the story, and perhaps even shed light or truth on the situation. Every user should be able to go some place and see the "violations" that have been reported about them and which mod has reported what violations. This would provide instant accountability to determine if a mod was targeting a user. There should also be an appeal process that the user/mod could invoke before any disciplinary action is taken. I have been contacted by many users who seem to feel that when they question violations that were reported against them, that no one gets back to them, and there is no clear understanding of whether something is a violation or not." I agree with this part of what Alan said. I think there should be some sort of process in place to dispute/appeal a decision about violations. As Raven said earlier, Mods ARE human and CAN make mistakes. And since there is a chance that something may not be 100% clear, and it comes down to a "judgment call" on the part of the Mod, I think it would only be fair to allow the user in question to appeal the decision, explain their side, and perhaps have one or more alternate Mods help make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
	25
#20 \| 34 days ago jasonwrites (+)	Word! What he said. The expectations for behavior within the community should be very clear-cut. It really should be common sense. However, many people tend to view an online forum differently. Quite simply, they say things that they would not say to someone's face, owing to the perceived safety of relative anonymity and distance. Therein the problem lies, as I see it. People should make no distinction about the venue in regards to their interaction with other human beings. One should show the same respect and maintain the same sense of civility and decorum in an online forum as one would in the workplace, at home, on the street, in a bar, in a town hall meeting, you name it. Unfortunately, certain individuals seem to take the idea that "I'm never going to see this person" as license to be as vitriolic as possible. I do think that there has been too much latitude allowed in the interpretation of what constitutes a "personal attack." That needs to be clearly defined. As recently seen, some people want the Moderators to take action on issues of people simply disagreeing with one another or "bickering," neither of which are violations of the Code. I would also agree there needs to be clear definitions of what is and is not appropriate in terms of language, nudity and/or sexuality, and other "adult content." The MPAA itself often doesn't seem to have a clear consensus about what constitutes PG-13, but I do know that PG-13 movies contain quite a bit of "potentially objectionable" content that one definitely not see on network TV. Last, as has been said above, all users need to be assured that no one is above the law. People are not going to feel safe in an environment where they feel certain users of the site (i.e. Moderators) do not have to obey the same rules they do. I am glad you are taking the Code of Conduct under consideration in light of the recent issues with certain users and I appreciate the hard work all the site's staff puts in to making this one of the best communities on the Web. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	19
#21 \| 34 days ago Jess (+)	Actually I want to clarify something: Part of the reason for the code of conduct revision is to remove the gray area; to set clearer lines about stuff so mods don't HAVE to make judgment calls on things. And there will always be an investigation conducted no matter who reports whom; whether it be a moderator reporting another user, a user reporting a moderator, a user reporting a user, or a moderator reporting a moderator. We don't act on hearsay without an investigation. Carry on; Continue with the feedback! I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	22
#22 \| 34 days ago Raven73 (+)	Name Calling and Personal Attacks Attacks on other members will not be tolerated anywhere on FanIQ; publicly or in private. If you feel the need attack another member in any way, please think before doing so. If someone has personally attacked you, do not respond in turn. This will result in a violation by you, and your account will also be put under review. Please send a link to the offending post or forward the email to a moderator. They will review the situation and take appropriate action. Remember that comments that are contrary to your personal beliefs – be it about players, teams, religion, politics, or any of the other vast topics addressed on the site – are not by their face offensive and therefore do not constitute an attack. This is a site built on debate and field by opposing views from sports to world politics. First, please notice where I bolded and underlined above. Sometimes this issue isn't clear as to what is or isn't a personal attack. Does it mean if I take it personally it's an attack? We have such a vast array of personalities here. What I would laugh off, some would say was mean. I have seen people get upset over things that I accept as "people being stupid". Please note I would never say any one particular person was being stupid as I wouldn't want to violate the CoC. That said, I know that there are indeed cases where certain lines cannot be approached. Racial intolerance, weight, appearance, Ethnicity/Country of Origin or level of intelligence should be off limits. Websites are ripe for saying things we'd never say to someone face to face. Sometimes you just need to consider the source and laugh. Other
	14
#23 \| 34 days ago I_GARDNER (+)	alainpeartree wrote: my thing is we are supposed to be adults, professionals, parents and lst but not least human beings, do we really not know what appropriate or inappropriate in this stage of our lives we need to be reminded? Apparently Yes. Other
	12
#24 \| 34 days ago Raven73 (+)	Slander Slander is a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report against any user. DO NOT accuse anyone of doing anything that is against the law. This includes any action that would jeopardize their public appearance. Doing so is grounds for suspension from FanIQ.com. What does "jeopardize their public appearance" mean? There needs to be a correction in terms here though: slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. I think we should use defamation. I would also like to warn all users re: this serious issue. Have you read your Homeowners insurance policy lately? You could be sued for this. Other
	13
#25 \| 34 days ago I_GARDNER (+)	Look I'm relatively new to this site and have never read the COC. Should not have to. As an adult I can figure out what's acceptable and what's not. I guess I am a dinosaur for I was brought up to take responsibility for my actions and, that my actions have consequences. COC is designed to attempt to protect those whom visit the Q from those whom do possess these values nor the common sense to figure it out on their own. I have had no problems with the MODs nor anyone on the Q. I don't think anyone has had a problem with moi. Respect every ones opinions, enjoy a little good humored trash talking and keep it civilized or your out! It should be that simple. Other
	15
#26 \| 34 days ago derms33 (+)	How many ladies are looking for new C.O.C.? (is that ok?) Other
	17
#27 \| 34 days ago sherribaby88 (+)	Wordsmith wrote: I definitely think it needs to be clarified. And it should clearly outline the steps for discipline. Plus, users accused of violations should be be notified BEFORE decisions are made so that they have a chance to provide their side of the story, and perhaps even shed light or truth on the situation. Every user should be able to go some place and see the "violations" that have been reported about them and which mod has reported what violations. This would provide instant accountability to determine if a mod was targeting a user. There should also be an appeal process that the user/mod could invoke before any disciplinary action is taken. I have been contacted by many users who seem to feel that when they question violations that were reported against them, that no one gets back to them, and there is no clear understanding of whether something is a violation or not. In addition, I think that there should be a rotation of mods initiated. This would have many benefits, not the least bit of which would allow mods in a volunteer, stressful job, to have an upcoming, known break, and would give them a chance to go back to contributing to the site as users. Many mods used to contribute fantastic polls, quizzes and articles, but now feel tied to their duties and are unable to contribute new material. In addition, this would allow other, qualified people that are not mods now, to have a turn. A third benefit is that it breaks up any perception of a "small clique" of people who pronounce decisions on high and hold secret conversations where they are free to break the CoC, but maintain a separate and different persona to the public. This mod rotation would provide better accountability. There are other options for accountability. An independent ombudsman, who does not report to a mod or Jess, but has all of the rights to see what mods are saying and what they are doing. Most media type organizations have one, and the best ones have a very strong one, that keeps things in check. In addition, when a mod is accused of violating, or even found to have been in violation of the CoC, then they should be suspended from being a mod while a decision is made, and then if merit is found, they should have no other contact / power over the user they have wronged, or lose the power over the area of the CoC that they violated. I believe these steps would go along way towards clearing up confusion as well as help to diffuse the perspective that some users have of "us versus mods". It would also bring to light mod favoritism or misconduct that may or may not be going on. wordsmith, you have said it in a nutshell, and I agree 100% that when a mod is accused of violating thier own code of conduct they should absolutely be suspended.. after reading the watergate thread, I was actually horrified to see what a moderator said about a Q member. Moderators should be held at a higher standard. There is a lot of clarification that is needed.. and you have some great ideas... I think maybe they should be put in place to see if they actually work.. way to go, and I applaud your ideas...
	10
#28 \| 34 days ago jasonsmall1977 (+)	Ok..ok. Fine. You pulled enough teeth. Ill mod.
	21
#29 \| 34 days ago hskrdave (+)	Actually here is my opinion: Mods should NOT be held to a HIGHER standard than everyone else. They should be held to the SAME standard as everyone, but be able to avoid all the pettyness (or however you want to say it) that goes on the site. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	13
#30 \| 34 days ago JCFrench (+)	i feel everyone needs to grow up a little and honestly start acting their ages around here, every adult on here knows what is acceptable and what isnt acceptable. they should know if its something they would want their kids to see or not and so on and so forrth, ya'll know what im getting at.. i definely think it should be put out to all new people c(new users guide) in what is and what is not acceptable as dave said earlier.. lastly i just feel everyone should be allowed to plead their case before they are booted or suspended, so that way everything is more fair.. I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	19
#31 \| 34 days ago derms33 (+)	hskrdave wrote: Actually here is my opinion: Mods should NOT be held to a HIGHER standard than everyone else. They should be held to the SAME standard as everyone, but be able to avoid all the pettyness (or however you want to say it) that goes on the site. like meaningless pq's? Other
	16
#32 \| 34 days ago noti4 (+)	I_GARDNER wrote: Look I'm relatively new to this site and have never read the COC. Should not have to. As an adult I can figure out what's acceptable and what's not. I guess I am a dinosaur for I was brought up to take responsibility for my actions and, that my actions have consequences. COC is designed to attempt to protect those whom visit the Q from those whom do possess these values nor the common sense to figure it out on their own. I have had no problems with the MODs nor anyone on the Q. I don't think anyone has had a problem with moi. Respect every ones opinions, enjoy a little good humored trash talking and keep it civilized or your out! It should be that simple. I AGREE WHITH YOU, WHE ARE ALL ADULT AND WHE MUST KNOW WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD,COMMON SENSE AND POLITESSE.- I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	11
#33 \| 34 days ago hskrdave (+)	derms33 wrote: like meaningless pq's? aren't they all meaningless? Not sure i have pq'ed anyone since they first came out, and if I've done more than 10 total, i'd be amazed. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	14
#34 \| 34 days ago huskerfan_ia (+)	jasonsmall1977 wrote: Ok..ok. Fine. You pulled enough teeth. Ill mod. jasonsmall1977 How does that look? Other
	18
#35 \| 34 days ago NMboyzfan (+)	huskerfan_ia wrote: jasonsmall1977 How does that look? WOW jason...turn around so I can see what it looks like from behind! I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	17
#36 \| 34 days ago YankeeDudeL (+)	Raven73 wrote: Name Calling and Personal Attacks Attacks on other members will not be tolerated anywhere on FanIQ; publicly or in private. If you feel the need attack another member in any way, please think before doing so. If someone has personally attacked you, do not respond in turn. This will result in a violation by you, and your account will also be put under review. Please send a link to the offending post or forward the email to a moderator. They will review the situation and take appropriate action. Remember that comments that are contrary to your personal beliefs – be it about players, teams, religion, politics, or any of the other vast topics addressed on the site – are not by their face offensive and therefore do not constitute an attack. This is a site built on debate and field by opposing views from sports to world politics. First, please notice where I bolded and underlined above. Sometimes this issue isn't clear as to what is or isn't a personal attack. Does it mean if I take it personally it's an attack? We have such a vast array of personalities here. What I would laugh off, some would say was mean. I have seen people get upset over things that I accept as "people being stupid". Please note I would never say any one particular person was being stupid as I wouldn't want to violate the CoC. That said, I know that there are indeed cases where certain lines cannot be approached. Racial intolerance, weight, appearance, Ethnicity/Country of Origin or level of intelligence should be off limits. Websites are ripe for saying things we'd never say to someone face to face. Sometimes you just need to consider the source and laugh. You're killing me, Smalls! God, you know how many smart-aleck comments I could be making right now! If only this wasn't such a serious matter, someone would be getting called a "doodie-head". Other
	14
#37 \| 34 days ago huskerfan_ia (+)	(Edited by huskerfan_ia) NMboyzfan wrote: WOW jason...turn around so I can see what it looks like from behind! 7791llamsnosaj Other
	19
#38 \| 34 days ago jasonsmall1977 (+)	huskerfan_ia wrote: jasonsmall1977 How does that look? LOL...like a pain in the @ss.
	12
#39 \| 34 days ago jasonsmall1977 (+)	NMboyzfan wrote: WOW jason...turn around so I can see what it looks like from behind! Godd@mnit....Husker beat me to it.
	15
#40 \| 34 days ago huskerfan_ia (+)	(Edited by huskerfan_ia) Raven73 wrote: FanIQ moderators reserve the right to police the community as they see fit. Just because it’s not in the rules doesn’t make it right, and moderators have the power to make judgment calls on such issues. However, moderators are human and can make mistakes, so if you have a complaint about the way something was handled, please send a private message to FanIQ by clicking here, or the “Contact Us” link at the bottom of the site. The situation will be reviewed and appropriately handled. In my opinion, the "as they see fit" has been the cause of a lot of the controversy since I joined FanQ. If this is how our CoC reads, every user should be able to accept it. Also, upon sign up, could there be a field that SHOWS the FanIQ Code of Conduct? If not that, is there a place that new members must agree to the Code of Conduct? I think that also could be included in the initial welcome message. I just don't think most members who sign up here are even aware of the CoC until the trouble arises. Then it's a free for all with numerous interpretations. I just won't discuss the issue of those who know but don't care. Now that that's all settled, who wants a s'more? Seriously though, Raven is 100% right in this. I never read it until after a couple suspensions this spring. I think everyone should be required to read it, and check a little box that says I agree upon signing up. Other
	14
#41 \| 34 days ago NMboyzfan (+)	huskerfan_ia wrote: 7791llamsnosaj Dang, thats nice. I need some help though. I can't spell the wolf whistle sound without spitting all over my keyboard. I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	16
#42 \| 34 days ago DeeRigga (+)	Make it clear and concise...I'm still gonna Walk The Line, Baby!! I like living on the edge of the Q! Ohh...is there a Code of Conduct here? I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	13
#43 \| 34 days ago NMboyzfan (+)	DeeRigga wrote: Make it clear and concise...I'm still gonna Walk The Line, Baby!! I like living on the edge of the Q! Ohh...is there a Code of Conduct here? I agree with dee, but it really is pretty simple... Don't be a d!ck If you are caught being one, you will get one warning. After that...buh bye. One rule applies to users and mods alike. I feel like Moses now. I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	14
#44 \| 34 days ago Wordsmith (+)	kramer wrote: When a member is found to be in violation of the COC, they are sent a message and told about it. I know the gray areas are the problem that everyone has, and that is the reason Jess made this poll to ask for YOUR input in revising the COC. I sincerely hope that will eliminate users being at odds with the moderators. I'm happy to work with anyone who is willing to work together. The drama that has occurred recently has made things worse on the Q, and I'd like to believe we're ALL better than that. I am not trying to be contrary Kramer, but the assumption that your statement does not reflect the facts. There are some actions taken have been taken before any notifications were done. And somehow, that information was leaked by a moderator and ended up on a poll. And suspensions occur even when there is no response is given to appeals of improper actions by moderators that were sent to the general faniq email AND to Jess. It would be great if what you said is true. Its not true. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	9
#45 \| 34 days ago BikerBaby (+)	Basically - WE ALL HAVE TO BEHAVE !!!! I try to be on my best behavior .You know I'm all for the CoC - I've sent messages to people if I notice a certain poll or a sentence with cuss words spelt out in the open.I have 2 kids & my 14 yr old even asked if she could join.I tell her to wait til she is older - she gets very upset easily.And some of the comments that come back at me has made me cry.I mean this is suppost to be a fun place to be- it isn't if people's feelings are getting hurt.
	13
#46 \| 34 days ago blondie45044 (+)	I think that it is sad that people can not treat each other the way they would if they were sitting at the table with them. If 30 people were sitting around watching a race, football etc. Just because someone brought up a jab about your favorite driver, team or coach would you lay em out? Would you really want this much drama in your life? Would you leave your house or job if someone said something out of the way? I am thinking friendly jabs is kewl, down right meanness should be zero tolerance. I mean really nobody is above anyone else. Just because someone else is not as good as you THINK you are, does that mean you cut em up and have em for dinner. Just saying Have respect for one another if you do not like a poll or a new person makes a duplicate poll which if they are new and it is not new to them. Skip to Next Poll » Use common sense, talk it over with a moderator they are here for a reason. Moderators are human and they take the time to help, which I am sure is not easy. They should not be held to more of a standard they are human like us. But they should be held to the rules same as us. Other
	18
#47 \| 34 days ago Som6 (+)	As theres always be a difference in opinion there will be debate which certainly in another term is war of words, but that does not mean one has to put some coarse slang to win or make his/her statement strong. As this poll wants users view so from my point I can say that if any1 found using it(coarse slang)to show his/her anger or other violation then at - 1st time he/she gets warning, 2nd time a/c suspended for some days mentioning him/her the reason for it and 3rd the ultimate measure - "A/c deleted" also mentioning him/her the reason. For 2nd n 3rd as Jess said a thorough investigation n then using the action. This I think will be proper justice for all as every1 gets chances to change their attitude and moreover a sense of feelings will grow that theres a warning given or a/c temporarily suspended. It was just my view may not be a good one, hope whatever comes out be useful for all. Other
	10
#48 \| 34 days ago icfeet (+)	I, for one, would like to applaud the mods. I sent a message to someone a few months back who had a wrong answer in a quiz..just to let him know his mistake....and he responded with vulgarity. I reported it...and within a day that guy's account was GONE. Good WORK!! I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	16
#49 \| 34 days ago cajunbuckeye (+)	well, I think that all or at least a large section of the members of this faboulous site would not have a problem with having to read the C of C and then signing that they will adhere to the bylaws of the Code of Conduct! I would make the C of C ,either the first thing you read or the last thing a new member reads before he agrees to follow all rules of this fine group.......instead of the way the Code of Conduct is shown as a selective to read, it would be shown full and prominent in it entirety. That way there is no confusion of what is in the C of C . I truly beleive that would clear up any and all the greys areas in the Code of Conduct.......
	11
#50 \| 34 days ago streetballer123 (+)	Where can i read these new rules?
	5
#51 \| 34 days ago kramer (+)	Wordsmith wrote: I am not trying to be contrary Kramer, but the assumption that your statement does not reflect the facts. There are some actions taken have been taken before any notifications were done. And somehow, that information was leaked by a moderator and ended up on a poll. And suspensions occur even when there is no response is given to appeals of improper actions by moderators that were sent to the general faniq email AND to Jess. It would be great if what you said is true. Its not true. I don't see why there should be an appeals process. People are given a warning when the COC is violated. Repeated warnings lead to suspension. After a suspension, people are given one last chance, and any new violations lead to a permanent ban. Messages ARE always sent when a violation first occurs. I know exactly what information you are referring to, however, the information in question was not "leaked" by a mod. A situation was reported and was investigated. The situation was dealt with as per the COC, and the person who reported the situation was never informed of the result as far as I know, which leads me to believe the person who reported it drew the assumption it was dealt with and decided to say something publicly. Again, that was NOT the result of information being "leaked" by a mod, because the only response I am aware of was "thank you for bringing this to my attention, we will look into it." Other
	7
#52 \| 34 days ago myrna_ventura (+)	Raven73 wrote: FanIQ moderators reserve the right to police the community as they see fit. Just because it’s not in the rules doesn’t make it right, and moderators have the power to make judgment calls on such issues. However, moderators are human and can make mistakes, so if you have a complaint about the way something was handled, please send a private message to FanIQ by clicking here, or the “Contact Us” link at the bottom of the site. The situation will be reviewed and appropriately handled. In my opinion, the "as they see fit" has been the cause of a lot of the controversy since I joined FanQ. If this is how our CoC reads, every user should be able to accept it. Also, upon sign up, could there be a field that SHOWS the FanIQ Code of Conduct? If not that, is there a place that new members must agree to the Code of Conduct? I think that also could be included in the initial welcome message. I just don't think most members who sign up here are even aware of the CoC until the trouble arises. Then it's a free for all with numerous interpretations. I just won't discuss the issue of those who know but don't care. 1. The "as I see fit" should be clear and concise so that each and everyone would be clarified since this so wide in range. 2. Who will have the right to Police the FanIQ Moderators?
	8
#53 \| 34 days ago gobigblue1960 (+)	The FanIQ is a fun, fan friendly web site for sports fans all over the world. Why do some of the fans think it's here for there own personal reward.? The code of conduct is well written. Enjoy the Q, and respect one another, and yourself. I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	17
#54 \| 34 days ago jasonsmall1977 (+)	myrna_ventura wrote: 1. The "as I see fit" should be clear and concise so that each and everyone would be clarified since this so wide in range. 2. Who will have the right to Police the FanIQ Moderators? So like an internal affairs department? Interesting.
	10
#55 \| 34 days ago NMboyzfan (+)	Jason...you and I could be the CIA of the CoC I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	9
#56 \| 34 days ago NMboyzfan (+)	Or, undercover Mods...the new Mod squad! I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	12
#57 \| 34 days ago NMboyzfan (+)	Nope, gotta have cool black suits like MIB...complete with kick a** shades! I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	10
#58 \| 34 days ago jasonsmall1977 (+)	NMboyzfan wrote: Jason...you and I could be the CIA of the CoC Lets do it. Can we have tazers or cattle prods?
	9
#59 \| 34 days ago jasonsmall1977 (+)	What are goose-steps? Sounds kinky.
	7
#60 \| 34 days ago hskrdave (+)	I understand peoples concerns on who would police the Mods. But who would police the police and so forth. The mods are volunteers, there is no training, just a hey here is how normal operations go. The mods have their own code of conduct in addition to the FanIQ one, for those that believe we should be held to a higher standard. I believe there is someone monitoring the mods, because I have seen more names thrown around because of this than I knew worked at FanIQ. I don't know who they are, I just figure they are the ones getting paid to deal with us when something like this happened, and since it was the first time it happened that I'm aware of, they handled it. While i wouldn't necessarily disagree to a third party watchdog, it couldn't be people from this site because there are too many people with vendetta's now. now let's go back to improving the code for now. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	11
#61 \| 34 days ago NMboyzfan (+)	Only if the chicks dig 'em! I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	8
#62 \| 34 days ago huskerfan_ia (+)	NMboyzfan wrote: Or, undercover Mods...the new Mod squad! NMboyzfan jasonsmall1977 Other
	11
#63 \| 34 days ago janet011685 (+)	kramer wrote: I don't see why there should be an appeals process. People are given a warning when the COC is violated. Repeated warnings lead to suspension. After a suspension, people are given one last chance, and any new violations lead to a permanent ban. Messages ARE always sent when a violation first occurs. I know exactly what information you are referring to, however, the information in question was not "leaked" by a mod. A situation was reported and was investigated. The situation was dealt with as per the COC, and the person who reported the situation was never informed of the result as far as I know, which leads me to believe the person who reported it drew the assumption it was dealt with and decided to say something publicly. Again, that was NOT the result of information being "leaked" by a mod, because the only response I am aware of was "thank you for bringing this to my attention, we will look into it." Kramer ... I don't agree with the lack of appeals for violations since, as we all know, there ARE gray areas and sometimes things ARE left up to a Mod's judgment. However, if, as Jess said earlier, the new CoC leaves no gray areas, there will no longer be the room for Mods to use their own discretion. But while there are still gray areas and room for interpretation, there should be some process by which members can refute the judgment call and "defend themselves", so to speak.
	12
#64 \| 34 days ago kramer (+)	janet011685 wrote: Kramer ... I don't agree with the lack of appeals for violations since, as we all know, there ARE gray areas and sometimes things ARE left up to a Mod's judgment. However, if, as Jess said earlier, the new CoC leaves no gray areas, there will no longer be the room for Mods to use their own discretion. But while there are still gray areas and room for interpretation, there should be some process by which members can refute the judgment call and "defend themselves", so to speak. You answered your own question, Janet. The reason Jess made this poll is to ask for everyone's input in an attempt to rid the COC of the gray areas. With the COC not having anymore gray areas, we shouldn't need an appeal process because there will no longer be a need for judgment calls. Other
	7
#65 \| 34 days ago janet011685 (+)	kramer wrote: You answered your own question, Janet. The reason Jess made this poll is to ask for everyone's input in an attempt to rid the COC of the gray areas. With the COC not having anymore gray areas, we shouldn't need an appeal process because there will no longer be a need for judgment calls. Yes, I understand that, but I don't think ANY set of rules can ever have absolutely no gray areas ... even our US Constitution has the ability to change, or amend, if the need should arise. Obviously the CoC can change as necessary, but we can't go revising it every few days/weeks/months because ONE issue comes up. That's why I think there needs to be some sort of review/appeal process for situations that aren't explicitly covered by the CoC.
	15
#66 \| 34 days ago sherribaby88 (+)	Raven73 wrote: Name Calling and Personal Attacks Attacks on other members will not be tolerated anywhere on FanIQ; publicly or in private. If you feel the need attack another member in any way, please think before doing so. If someone has personally attacked you, do not respond in turn. This will result in a violation by you, and your account will also be put under review. Please send a link to the offending post or forward the email to a moderator. They will review the situation and take appropriate action. Remember that comments that are contrary to your personal beliefs – be it about players, teams, religion, politics, or any of the other vast topics addressed on the site – are not by their face offensive and therefore do not constitute an attack. This is a site built on debate and field by opposing views from sports to world politics. First, please notice where I bolded and underlined above. Sometimes this issue isn't clear as to what is or isn't a personal attack. Does it mean if I take it personally it's an attack? We have such a vast array of personalities here. What I would laugh off, some would say was mean. I have seen people get upset over things that I accept as "people being stupid". Please note I would never say any one particular person was being stupid as I wouldn't want to violate the CoC. That said, I know that there are indeed cases where certain lines cannot be approached. Racial intolerance, weight, appearance, Ethnicity/Country of Origin or level of intelligence should be off limits. Websites are ripe for saying things we'd never say to someone face to face. Sometimes you just need to consider the source and laugh. Hi Raven, just wanted to answer to some of what you have written here... I am a very passionate member here of my teams, etc... so I am guilty of having name calling.. I don't believe I have attacked anyone, never spammed anyone, but the 3 people here on the q that I have had major problems with, , I sent them all a private message and made my apologies if I offended them.. I admit when I am wrong, but sometimes when the issue is at hand, I can say things that are not very nice...All of those people now, are friends. (I think)I I also think that coc goes out the window when people are going at it back and forth, and I also think that there are those that do not apologize, thinking they are better than anyone else, and keep making problems on the site.. I am not here to attack anyone, I am here because I love sports, well, certain sports anyway, and sometimes when i open my mouth, i insert foot.... We all do that from time to time.....after thinking about it, and reading and re reading what I have written, if I feel bad about it, I make sure that I let that person know that I am wrong,make my apologizes, and take it from there.. if everyone did that, maybe there wouldn't be a problem....it is very easy to sit behind a computer and act like a big shot, I have seen it manhy times, but I don't brag about being the smartest, nor do I claim to know everything either.. I just post what I feel regarding the subject at hand...I have only had one moderator, Jcannuck, I think her name is, who sent me an email because she did not like my language. it was several months ago, and I can not remember even what the incident was about.. after reading the thread about the watergate isssue last night, I was really horrified to see that it was a moderator who attacked a member, and put it on her wall for all to see.. She, Riley, was upset because her threads were being deleted.. I know that can happen accidentally, but I think maybe she (the moderator) put nasty things on Riley's wall by accident.... accident or not thid moderator should be held to a higher standard..., I really feel things should change.. WORDSMITH,had the best ideas about what should be done on this site,and I think they should be implemented. I agree 100%. with him.. We have had our issues, I guess, he made comments, that I responded to because I didnt like what he said, but that doesnt mean I am mean or mad about it....I think he is very smart and don't know him, but if there was a vote, I would vote him a moderator if he would like to be... Same with Pat... anyway, just wanted to add my 2 cents to your post, I think it was great.... Thanks for listening sherril
	9
#67 \| 34 days ago zzj000 (+)	Grey areas (or NO grey areas) are fine with me... so long as the decisions and/or punishments are issued fairly and WITHOUT thought given to who the person is or which clique they belong to. Treat everyone as an equal. Blind justice.
	9
#68 \| 34 days ago 18packabs (+)	(Edited by 18packabs) NO GRAY AREA, just suspend me NOW!!!! Save yourselves the Grief. and a New Rule, Pat should be suspended for calling Steelers Fans DoucheBags.....even though it is not directed at one individual it is an attack. Just my Humble Opinion. Thank You. Other
	27
#69 \| 34 days ago REMMIN (+)	Raven73 wrote: FanIQ moderators reserve the right to police the community as they see fit. Just because it’s not in the rules doesn’t make it right, and moderators have the power to make judgment calls on such issues. However, moderators are human and can make mistakes, so if you have a complaint about the way something was handled, please send a private message to FanIQ by clicking here, or the “Contact Us” link at the bottom of the site. The situation will be reviewed and appropriately handled. In my opinion, the "as they see fit" has been the cause of a lot of the controversy since I joined FanQ. If this is how our CoC reads, every user should be able to accept it. Also, upon sign up, could there be a field that SHOWS the FanIQ Code of Conduct? If not that, is there a place that new members must agree to the Code of Conduct? I think that also could be included in the initial welcome message. I just don't think most members who sign up here are even aware of the CoC until the trouble arises. Then it's a free for all with numerous interpretations. I just won't discuss the issue of those who know but don't care. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS .... ! REMMIN OUT!
	5
#70 \| 34 days ago huskerfan_ia (+)	(Edited by huskerfan_ia) janet011685 wrote: Yes, I understand that, but I don't think ANY set of rules can ever have absolutely no gray areas ... even our US Constitution has the ability to change, or amend, if the need should arise. Obviously the CoC can change as necessary, but we can't go revising it every few days/weeks/months because ONE issue comes up. That's why I think there needs to be some sort of review/appeal process for situations that aren't explicitly covered by the CoC. Are you suggesting a court system? Maybe a Q-preme court of sorts? Other
	11
#71 \| 34 days ago JRSFLAME88 (+)	Wow. There has been a lot covered that has answered most of my questions. One thing is the communication with a moderator. It can get confusing with emails or messaging back and forth. I think it would be a good idea to set up an actual chat with a person who has a complaint and talk back and forth together. It would feel more official and then the person would not feel as if their complaint/comment was not received or is not being investigated. That's all I have. Thanks Jess and all the mods for doing such a good job. Other
	11
#72 \| 34 days ago kantwistaye (+)	JRSFLAME88 wrote: Wow. There has been a lot covered that has answered most of my questions. One thing is the communication with a moderator. It can get confusing with emails or messaging back and forth. I think it would be a good idea to set up an actual chat with a person who has a complaint and talk back and forth together. It would feel more official and then the person would not feel as if their complaint/comment was not received or is not being investigated. That's all I have. Thanks Jess and all the mods for doing such a good job. That's an interesting idea, but I think it would be nearly impossible to set up. Also, sometimes its beneficial for the system to be the way it is. It can be a bit slower, but it allows all the parties involved to think things through and not make a sudden rash decision. Expediency is always nice, but sometimes taking the time to make sure the correct decisions are made is more important.
	12
#73 \| 34 days ago blondie45044 (+)	It is a serious subject that they are graciously giving us the privilege to help them with. There should be more input on this so later when it is changed. People can not say we did not know it changed who asked us what we thought. So everyone should send this out to friends to share and get this going so all are satisfied. Other
	4
#74 \| 34 days ago Jess (+)	janet011685 wrote: Yes, I understand that, but I don't think ANY set of rules can ever have absolutely no gray areas ... even our US Constitution has the ability to change, or amend, if the need should arise. Obviously the CoC can change as necessary, but we can't go revising it every few days/weeks/months because ONE issue comes up. That's why I think there needs to be some sort of review/appeal process for situations that aren't explicitly covered by the CoC. If anybody is removed for violating the rules and feels their account was deactivated in error, they will of course be able to use the "Contact Us" button at the bottom of the site and send a message to Admin. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	9
#75 \| 34 days ago jayahnizam (+)	Jess wrote: Actually I want to clarify something: Part of the reason for the code of conduct revision is to remove the gray area; to set clearer lines about stuff so mods don't HAVE to make judgment calls on things. And there will always be an investigation conducted no matter who reports whom; whether it be a moderator reporting another user, a user reporting a moderator, a user reporting a user, or a moderator reporting a moderator. We don't act on hearsay without an investigation. Carry on; Continue with the feedback! I didn't come across the 'code of conduct'. However it is a must to run a clean and safe program on faniq. Jess, you or any moderator should take the responsibility to remove anything not connected to sports. This program should restricted strictly to sports only. Don't discuss sex, violence, abuse etc.etc. which can be disucussed through other programs.............eh!
	2
#76 \| 34 days ago janet011685 (+)	Jess wrote: If anybody is removed for violating the rules and feels their account was deactivated in error, they will of course be able to use the "Contact Us" button at the bottom of the site and send a message to Admin. I know that there are avenues to take (such as the "Contact Us" link) in situations like those, but my point is that I think there should be some more open discussion BEFORE actions are taken against a member. That's what I'm trying to get at ... I think. I'm confusing myself at this point. See, Scott ... we DO need a Q-Preme Court. I can be Judge Janet. I've nominated myself, now I just need to be confirmed by the member of the Q. And so you all know, I make outstanding chocolate chip cookies ... just saying. Vote early, vote often.
	8
#77 \| 34 days ago Toejam (+)	think before you click.....if that little voice in your head says it is wrong, it probably is......
	11
#78 \| 34 days ago MIKELIN8 (+)	This is my personal COC: No cussin'. No nudity. No personal attacks. (At least no unprovoked personal attacks...but I'm dangerous when cornered) Double entendre` should be OK. (We're all here to have fun, after all) I personally have never viewed the current COC, and I'll probably never view the new, revised COC. Hopefully, I'll never need to, since I will always follow my own.
	11
#79 \| 34 days ago janet011685 (+)	jayahnizam wrote: I didn't come across the 'code of conduct'. However it is a must to run a clean and safe program on faniq. Jess, you or any moderator should take the responsibility to remove anything not connected to sports. This program should restricted strictly to sports only. Don't discuss sex, violence, abuse etc.etc. which can be disucussed through other programs.............eh! Dude, your "Thought of the Day" is about President Obama and the Nobel Prize. The Locker Room is specifically designed for non-sports stuff. That and snapping others' rear ends with towels.
	13
#80 \| 34 days ago hskrdave (+)	janet011685 wrote: I know that there are avenues to take (such as the "Contact Us" link) in situations like those, but my point is that I think there should be some more open discussion BEFORE actions are taken against a member. That's what I'm trying to get at ... I think. I'm confusing myself at this point. See, Scott ... we DO need a Q-Preme Court. I can be Judge Janet. I've nominated myself, now I just need to be confirmed by the member of the Q. And so you all know, I make outstanding chocolate chip cookies ... just saying. Vote early, vote often. Not sure what you mean by "Open" discussion, but obviously anything involving the code we like to keep private and out the public to prevent humiliation and lynch mobs. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	3
#81 \| 34 days ago Daniel_and_Becca (+)	Everything is clear to us. may i ask one thing, why is this site still in beta? I always thought beta meant new its been 3 years. Other
	5
#82 \| 34 days ago daddybair33 (+)	i guess we should all respect eachother and do our best to watch the obcene words. but we are all die hard fans sticking for what we believe in. i thank fan i.q. for giving me a forum were i can do that and so many other things , please remember though we are just human so try and let us keep our "freedom of speech" Other
	3
#83 \| 34 days ago Shiloh884 (+)	I've just read the Code of Conduct for the first time. To me, it seems pretty clear and concise. Of course any infraction would be investigated and findings relayed before action. That is usually SOP. There are times tho, as stated, where it is a blatent violation of the CoC and should be deleted immediately! The funny thing, not really funny ha ha, is that PG-13 language on TV is actually a lot more "colorful" than what many of us use here on the "Q". We do things like st, ~~a$$~~, or bh. I actually watched TV today, something I don't normally do, and most of those words were used in many of the shows that were on the networks; ABC, NBC, CBS, USA, TNT; not a "cable" show. I hadn't really paid much attention, but I did today just for this cause. Amazing how much we tolerate. I use worse, don't get me wrong, but not around people who do not like it (in person) or children. Many things have been stated that I think are in the "grey" area and they do need to be addressed. I think that when you become a member there should be a mandatory link to the CoC and you must* agree to adhere to it before you are allowed to become a member. Many sites do this so avoid anyone from saying, "I didn't know!". Just my thoughts. Fun part, I didn't spell check this and I cut my finger nails today so I wouldn't make as many mistakes. Hopefully...... I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	10
#84 \| 34 days ago Shiloh884 (+)	kantwistaye wrote: That's an interesting idea, but I think it would be nearly impossible to set up. Also, sometimes its beneficial for the system to be the way it is. It can be a bit slower, but it allows all the parties involved to think things through and not make a sudden rash decision. Expediency is always nice, but sometimes taking the time to make sure the correct decisions are made is more important. I was recently involved in an incident that required a MOD. It was handled through the current message system and was done promptly and smoothly. I was very impressed. The MOD was very helpful and explained what I needed to do and took care of it once I was able to send the required information. I've been on a few sites and I have to say that this one is the most prompt and courteous site I've seen. The MOD got the information and told me it would be taken care of I and know it was. I don't need a "I took care of it" message to let me know they did their job. I agree that in some instances (depending on the circumstance) that both sides of the matter need to be addressed and then a decision made after response from both sides. But we have had a few lately that just needed to be deleted and they were. I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	6
#85 \| 34 days ago DeeRigga (+)	I like gray areas, talking trash and being a BAD BOY!! Sometimes you really need to look over every statement to see the seriousness of the conversation, and reflect on what the next thing you type in may cause, induce or inflict. I see a general concern from every person who answered this poll, which proves to me that the adult content and RESPONSIBILITIES that come with utilizing this site is being not only followed, but patrolled with little effort because WE REALLY CARE how things are done here. I tend to joke a lot because, well, that is me. But I am serious when I say look at the responses - that shows you that the responders of this site CARE what the CoC has in it, and we know how to handle those who don't. With that, I wll sign off saying WELL DONE to all... And you Know this...MAN!! I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	8
#86 \| 33 days ago The_Real_Stoney (+)	janet011685 wrote: I know that there are avenues to take (such as the "Contact Us" link) in situations like those, but my point is that I think there should be some more open discussion BEFORE actions are taken against a member. That's what I'm trying to get at ... I think. I'm confusing myself at this point. See, Scott ... we DO need a Q-Preme Court. I can be Judge Janet. I've nominated myself, now I just need to be confirmed by the member of the Q. And so you all know, I make outstanding chocolate chip cookies ... just saying. Vote early, vote often. Judge Janet.. The sassy, take no attitude Q judge of daytime television.. Complete with her flattering robe and new soon to be imitated hairstyle.. She takes on all cases with a sense of toughness but fairness See her interact with bailiff Stoney.. Someone to lead the offenders into the courtroom, laugh at the judge's jokes, and throw out his own witty one liners I like it Other
	7
#87 \| 33 days ago Jess (+)	janet011685 wrote: I know that there are avenues to take (such as the "Contact Us" link) in situations like those, but my point is that I think there should be some more open discussion BEFORE actions are taken against a member. That's what I'm trying to get at ... I think. I'm confusing myself at this point. See, Scott ... we DO need a Q-Preme Court. I can be Judge Janet. I've nominated myself, now I just need to be confirmed by the member of the Q. And so you all know, I make outstanding chocolate chip cookies ... just saying. Vote early, vote often. Oh of course there will be investigations as to what's going on when it comes to personal attacks and that kind of stuff. However, if someone has so blatantly broken the rules that are cut and dry, and the evidence is clear, discussing things with them will be unnecessary. But, the evidence will need to be clear before something like that happens - it's not like we'll be taking action free nilly on hearsay. As it stands now, there have been warning after warning after warning issued to users about things and we need to eliminate that to make things consistent and fair. In some cases, discussion with a user who is blatantly violating rules is only going to result in back-and-forth between the offender and the person talking to them about it, which is what we're trying to avoid. We're trying to eliminate this type of issue by making sure the rules are black and white, and fair. If someone is deliberately breaking obvious, well laid out rules on the site and causing problems, I think we can all agree that they shouldn't be here. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	14
#88 \| 33 days ago cuddles127017 (+)	I wanted to be a bad diva and now you won't let me. Other
	13
#89 \| 33 days ago Pat (+)	FYI... if people just spent more time perusing the site and trying to have a good time, instead of trying to push the limits and cause drama at every turn and then wondering who's out to get them or something ridiculous like that, many of these issues would disappear pretty much immediately. It's funny how a lot of the people who are the most self-righteous about the Code of Conduct are people who have violated it several times in the past. Other
	13
#90 \| 33 days ago mikeyintheoc (+)	You mean there was, er, is a code of conduct? I learn something eveyday on what we call the "Q" ................".hey where does this pull down tab take me?" Please never take me serious. Anyway once you Movers and Shakers fiqure out this CofC - I'll fall in line. Got go, Aquateen Hunger Force just started. Other
	5
#91 \| 33 days ago Mr_Rogers (+)	I say there should be an "Adults Only" section so that the grown ups can say what they want without having to worry about the tender ears and eyes of others ( I dont know how you keep minors from entering, but im sure you can make a disclaimer about people under 18 not being allowed to enter) ...you know what, that just gave me an idea. I think i'll start my own sports site and let people say whatever they want, it will be moderator free!!!! Who's comin with me!!??
	6
#92 \| 33 days ago stevieb39la (+)	Can't we all just get along?!?!
	4
#93 \| 33 days ago HouTxFan (+)	cuddles127017 wrote: I wanted to be a bad diva and now you won't let me. Cuddles...I think you deserve to get to be bad whenever you wanna be because...you are the Mom-erator...making us all behave as best as you can. If anybody gives you any lip, just send 'em to their room!
	12
#94 \| 33 days ago JemJenn (+)	I think a system should be put in where ALL MEMBERS should be required to read the Code of Conduct...and AGREE to it completely. By ALL MEMBERS, I think it should be part of the Sign Up Process....but also ALL CURRENT members should be required as well. That way, there is no question and no room for the "I didn't know" statements. That would take care of the need for repeated warnings and such. Having to agree to the TERMS OF USE (Which includes the Code of Conduct) when joining as it is now, you would think more people actually read them instead of just clicking they agree without having a clue of what they agree to. Other
	8
#95 \| 33 days ago raja_starkglass (+)	Jess wrote: Yep, we haven't posted a new one yet (or expanded the old one; whichever is needed). We want your input before we do so :) DEVILS DWELL ( in ) DETAILS., the constitution to govern is smallest to humanity, when humanity has life to live, ethical and moral world life, the ten commandments, in Abrahamic faiths, earlier than that in other ways of life, Manusmrithi, was just a paragraph of verses, as the details and explanations crept in, devils came with them. French governance has brief words to govern, American constitution is also one of the briefest, Indian constitution is perhaps one of the largest conglomerate of words. Other
	2
#96 \| 33 days ago raja_starkglass (+)	Wordsmith wrote: I definitely think it needs to be clarified. And it should clearly outline the steps for discipline. Plus, users accused of violations should be be notified BEFORE decisions are made so that they have a chance to provide their side of the story, and perhaps even shed light or truth on the situation. Every user should be able to go some place and see the "violations" that have been reported about them and which mod has reported what violations. This would provide instant accountability to determine if a mod was targeting a user. There should also be an appeal process that the user/mod could invoke before any disciplinary action is taken. I have been contacted by many users who seem to feel that when they question violations that were reported against them, that no one gets back to them, and there is no clear understanding of whether something is a violation or not. In addition, I think that there should be a rotation of mods initiated. This would have many benefits, not the least bit of which would allow mods in a volunteer, stressful job, to have an upcoming, known break, and would give them a chance to go back to contributing to the site as users. Many mods used to contribute fantastic polls, quizzes and articles, but now feel tied to their duties and are unable to contribute new material. In addition, this would allow other, qualified people that are not mods now, to have a turn. A third benefit is that it breaks up any perception of a "small clique" of people who pronounce decisions on high and hold secret conversations where they are free to break the CoC, but maintain a separate and different persona to the public. This mod rotation would provide better accountability. There are other options for accountability. An independent ombudsman, who does not report to a mod or Jess, but has all of the rights to see what mods are saying and what they are doing. Most media type organizations have one, and the best ones have a very strong one, that keeps things in check. In addition, when a mod is accused of violating, or even found to have been in violation of the CoC, then they should be suspended from being a mod while a decision is made, and then if merit is found, they should have no other contact / power over the user they have wronged, or lose the power over the area of the CoC that they violated. I believe these steps would go along way towards clearing up confusion as well as help to diffuse the perspective that some users have of "us versus mods". It would also bring to light mod favoritism or misconduct that may or may not be going on. Transparency international, in practice, and we have right to information, as information is power.! Other
	3
#97 \| 33 days ago raja_starkglass (+)	alainpeartree wrote: my thing is we are supposed to be adults, professionals, parents and lst but not least human beings, do we really not know what appropriate or inappropriate in this stage of our lives we need to be reminded? But having seen life so closely, I would say, I have seen adult behaving like children, as " I " do, child responding like an adult to the challenges in living life. Other
	1
#98 \| 33 days ago raja_starkglass (+)	Raven73 wrote: Spamming is prohibited on FanIQ. Any member whose sole intent is to flood the site with advertisement through comments, news posts, blogs, and pictures, or harass our members with shout outs and personal messages will be automatically removed from the site. Unsolicited messages sharing of your email address and IM account information, as well as any messages asking for this information from our members, are also not allowed. This is another issue. In this instance, automatic means without warning or notification. I think there are other instances where that verbiage and action should apply. One that comes to mind is a recent attack of the polls by a user that posted numerous vulgar comments in a very short time. That should warrant an immediate ZAP! Somewhere it should state that sharing of emails, IM account info, or ANY personal information including phone numbers are not allowed to be posted in the comment sections, fan articles, polls, photos or any other area of FanIQ. Personal private messages to be "automatically" removed...........! Woh, have you , wont you, please, please, apply your intellect to this issue little more, of course none of us like the spam, so also the harassment and insults, but the issue is none can insult or harass us unless we are party to it.! Love and regards, rajen. Other
	1
#99 \| 33 days ago Irish22 (+)	jasonsmall1977 wrote: Ok..ok. Fine. You pulled enough teeth. Ill mod. This is an experiment that can't go wrong!
	9
#100 \| 33 days ago raja_starkglass (+)	janet011685 wrote: "Plus, users accused of violations should be be notified BEFORE decisions are made so that they have a chance to provide their side of the story, and perhaps even shed light or truth on the situation. Every user should be able to go some place and see the "violations" that have been reported about them and which mod has reported what violations. This would provide instant accountability to determine if a mod was targeting a user. There should also be an appeal process that the user/mod could invoke before any disciplinary action is taken. I have been contacted by many users who seem to feel that when they question violations that were reported against them, that no one gets back to them, and there is no clear understanding of whether something is a violation or not." I agree with this part of what Alan said. I think there should be some sort of process in place to dispute/appeal a decision about violations. As Raven said earlier, Mods ARE human and CAN make mistakes. And since there is a chance that something may not be 100% clear, and it comes down to a "judgment call" on the part of the Mod, I think it would only be fair to allow the user in question to appeal the decision, explain their side, and perhaps have one or more alternate Mods help make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Humans made rules and they are known with different nomenclatures like the civil procedure code, criminal procedure code and a host of other legislation's, to enable good governance, of all, but divine rules are embedded in our minds, with a sense of right and wrong, none need to explain it, the more the explanation, the more the confusion. Best legislated piece of governance, constitution of any nation is almost near perfect, but never perfect with life style changes, when it needs amendments, humans are also perfect with their imperfect emotions in body, and mind resulting in imperfect behavior in society. Such deviants need reformations to the life of theirs, not "punishment" so deleting an id automatically, is like death punishment, not acceptable, as devils advocate the premature death, not life and re-Resurrection. Other
	1
#101 \| 33 days ago raja_starkglass (+)	sherribaby88 wrote: wordsmith, you have said it in a nutshell, and I agree 100% that when a mod is accused of violating thier own code of conduct they should absolutely be suspended.. after reading the watergate thread, I was actually horrified to see what a moderator said about a Q member. Moderators should be held at a higher standard. There is a lot of clarification that is needed.. and you have some great ideas... I think maybe they should be put in place to see if they actually work.. way to go, and I applaud your ideas... Leaders must know the ways to lead, have the means to communicate effectively to the deviant, who go off the way, but one who can not lead is the one who does not know how to lead. ! Other
	2
#102 \| 33 days ago raja_starkglass (+)	BikerBaby wrote: Basically - WE ALL HAVE TO BEHAVE !!!! I try to be on my best behavior .You know I'm all for the CoC - I've sent messages to people if I notice a certain poll or a sentence with cuss words spelt out in the open.I have 2 kids & my 14 yr old even asked if she could join.I tell her to wait til she is older - she gets very upset easily.And some of the comments that come back at me has made me cry.I mean this is suppost to be a fun place to be- it isn't if people's feelings are getting hurt. Love and regards, you said it, rajen. And said it with a smile, that is great. Other
	2
#103 \| 33 days ago raja_starkglass (+)	myrna_ventura wrote: 1. The "as I see fit" should be clear and concise so that each and everyone would be clarified since this so wide in range. 2. Who will have the right to Police the FanIQ Moderators? Judging the judges is by the Q is tough task. ! Other
	2
#104 \| 33 days ago Fatal (+)	raja_starkglass wrote: Leaders must know the ways to lead, have the means to communicate effectively to the deviant, who go off the way, but one who can not lead is the one who does not know how to lead. ! Plainly said Other
	3
#105 \| 33 days ago anduaugust (+)	my god it all sound like political science class the question is oligacrhy or democracy I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	3
#106 \| 33 days ago Louisiana_Woman (+)	If all would just practice good sportsmanship and remember to treat others as they would like to be treated there would not be any reason for this debate. I have seen some really rude comments and have had one or two directed at me, I just ignore it. If you reply then they come back and it will just get nasty. Other
	5
#107 \| 33 days ago Wordsmith (+)	kramer wrote: I don't see why there should be an appeals process. People are given a warning when the COC is violated. Repeated warnings lead to suspension. After a suspension, people are given one last chance, and any new violations lead to a permanent ban. Messages ARE always sent when a violation first occurs. I know exactly what information you are referring to, however, the information in question was not "leaked" by a mod. A situation was reported and was investigated. The situation was dealt with as per the COC, and the person who reported the situation was never informed of the result as far as I know, which leads me to believe the person who reported it drew the assumption it was dealt with and decided to say something publicly. Again, that was NOT the result of information being "leaked" by a mod, because the only response I am aware of was "thank you for bringing this to my attention, we will look into it." Kramer, with all due respect, the fact that you see no NEED for an appeals process is EXACTLY why there should be one. Tyranny and Corruption begins when a person in power things their point of view could never be wrong. And therein lies the reason why moderators don't understand why there is a mods vs others schism. Mods who think there should be no appeal of their decisions. And I'll bet many of these mods think the death penalty is wrong because the American Justice system makes mistakes. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
	7
#108 \| 33 days ago Pat (+)	Wordsmith wrote: Kramer, with all due respect, the fact that you see no NEED for an appeals process is EXACTLY why there should be one. Tyranny and Corruption begins when a person in power things their point of view could never be wrong. And therein lies the reason why moderators don't understand why there is a mods vs others schism. Mods who think there should be no appeal of their decisions. And I'll bet many of these mods think the death penalty is wrong because the American Justice system makes mistakes. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. There IS an "appeals" process of sorts, for all issues. Some things, like identical IP addresses, are spelled out clearly enough in the CoC and are VERY easily confirmed, so there's really no appeals process for that. There's nothing to appeal, really. Other things, like questionable pictures and personal attacks are discussed before any action is taken. But the bottom line is that at the end of the day, Jess is responsible for deciding what is or is not against the rules. That's her job, and her job alone. I think everyone would agree that she is more than fair and reasonable with people. She is extremely capable, and knows the CoC inside and out, because she wrote it, based on what Ty wanted for the site. I realize that not everyone sees what goes on behind the scenes, and to some, that makes it seem shady. But as I said before... if people didn't constantly try to walk the line and push the limits of what is allowed, things would be fine. The reason there is a "mods vs others schism" is because people fail to understand a very simple set of rules, and then get upset when they are called on it. Seriously... the rules are simple. And with the new CoC, they will be even more clear, and even simpler to understand. The moderators' opinions really have nothing to do with it. Follow the rules, and I promise no one will ever message you about anything. It's that easy. Other
	7
#109 \| 33 days ago CRAZY_LADY (+)	what i been reading it seems that the mobs and members need to take their own advices and stop and sweep around their own back doors ! before they start being judge and jury , thats how i see and have read it . i'm just saying Other
	2
#110 \| 33 days ago Raven73 (+)	raja_starkglass wrote: Personal private messages to be "automatically" removed...........! Woh, have you , wont you, please, please, apply your intellect to this issue little more, of course none of us like the spam, so also the harassment and insults, but the issue is none can insult or harass us unless we are party to it.! Love and regards, rajen. No. First, I did not write the part your a referring to. That was copied and pasted from the current Code of Conduct. If you read the entire sentence, it states: Any member whose sole intent is to flood the site with advertisement through comments, news posts, blogs, and pictures, or harass our members with shout outs and personal messages will be automatically removed from the site. Other
	8
#111 \| 33 days ago tffny_kendall (+)	jayahnizam wrote: I didn't come across the 'code of conduct'. However it is a must to run a clean and safe program on faniq. Jess, you or any moderator should take the responsibility to remove anything not connected to sports. This program should restricted strictly to sports only. Don't discuss sex, violence, abuse etc.etc. which can be disucussed through other programs.............eh! well you know like uk

#112 \| 33 days ago tffny_kendall (+)	raja_starkglass wrote: DEVILS DWELL ( in ) DETAILS., the constitution to govern is smallest to humanity, when humanity has life to live, ethical and moral world life, the ten commandments, in Abrahamic faiths, earlier than that in other ways of life, Manusmrithi, was just a paragraph of verses, as the details and explanations crept in, devils came with them. French governance has brief words to govern, American constitution is also one of the briefest, Indian constitution is perhaps one of the largest conglomerate of words. cool
	1
#113 \| 33 days ago kramer (+)	Wordsmith wrote: Kramer, with all due respect, the fact that you see no NEED for an appeals process is EXACTLY why there should be one. Tyranny and Corruption begins when a person in power things their point of view could never be wrong. And therein lies the reason why moderators don't understand why there is a mods vs others schism. Mods who think there should be no appeal of their decisions. And I'll bet many of these mods think the death penalty is wrong because the American Justice system makes mistakes. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. If you want to go the route of our judicial system, it is very easy to find out when someone breaks the rules on FanIQ because it's right there in plain view. We have proof that an infraction has occurred, beyond all reasonable doubt if you will. As I said, this poll was made to ask for everyone's input on the COC and since everyone will KNOW the new COC, there should be no reason for an appeals process because the only thing someone can say in a process like that on this site is "I didn't know," which from now on will be a lie. Other

#114 \| 33 days ago edithchris25 (+)	Raven73 wrote: No. First, I did not write the part your a referring to. That was copied and pasted from the current Code of Conduct. If you read the entire sentence, it states: Any member whose sole intent is to flood the site with advertisement through comments, news posts, blogs, and pictures, or harass our members with shout outs and personal messages will be automatically removed from the site. How do u remove someone from the site?cos someone has bin sending me dis crazy messages which i don't like......
	1
#115 \| 33 days ago kramer (+)	edithchris25 wrote: How do u remove someone from the site?cos someone has bin sending me dis crazy messages which i don't like...... Forward the messages to any mod and it will be dealt with. Other
	1
#116 \| 33 days ago Shiloh884 (+)	When you forward to a MOD go to your inbox and copy the from line so that they can identify the account. That is what I had to do. I copied and pasted that into a note page on my puter then copied and pasted the message under that and sent it to a MOD. They are wonderful and will help you with it. I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	1
#117 \| 33 days ago Raven73 (+)	If the message was sent privately...go into your "inbox" by clicking the "mail" then click on the message in question. That will take you to the actual message that includes the time stamp. As Shiloh said, always include the userID of the offender. If it is a public shout out that shows on your page, leave it there then copy and paste to a mod. After the moderator acknowledges they got it, you could delete them off your profile. When I get alerts from members that are having issues like you described, I will respond "Got it" to their message that contains the offensive / abusive / harrassing message the received. Edith: I looked at your profile and assume those messages were sent via PM as I didn't see anything sent as a public shout out. Other
	2
#118 \| 33 days ago Shiloh884 (+)	Thanks Raven, I forget the little things! You guys rock and have helped me so I know how she feels! I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
	3
#119 \| 32 days ago janet011685 (+)	hskrdave wrote: Not sure what you mean by "Open" discussion, but obviously anything involving the code we like to keep private and out the public to prevent humiliation and lynch mobs. I meant open as in it should include the Mod(s), decision-maker(s), AND the member in question so he/she has a chance to explain the circumstances, defend him/herself, etc.
	1

Post a Comment Already a user? Sign in here

Join FanIQ - It's Free

FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.

•Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments

•Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions

•Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions

•Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends

Start here >> Select your favorite teams. It's free.

Polls You Might Like
	DO YOU HAVE WEAK OR STRONG YOUR NO Asked by noti4 \| Locker Room, Personal \| 2 questions asked Today 4 opinions \| 2 comments \| Last by fasterhurry
	What language would you like to learn? Why? Asked by Gunsnroses \| Locker Room \| 1 questions asked Today 13 opinions \| 9 comments \| Last by blondie45044
	when did you first fall in love? please dont neglect to comment about about him/her. Asked by Gunsnroses \| Locker Room \| 1 questions asked Yesterday 12 opinions \| 9 comments \| Last by kammi42
	What's your favotite thing to be outside doing on the ice in the winter? Asked by santa101xmas \| Locker Room \| 1 questions asked Today 14 opinions \| 15 comments \| Last by blondie45044
	Doritos, beer, and sex. Asked by cubsgirl \| Locker Room, Miscellaneous \| 1 questions asked Today 6 opinions \| 10 comments \| Last by blondie45044

Answer Breakdown

Answers are sorted in reverse chronological order

#	Name	FanIQ	Answer (Red= You Disagreed)
52	Jahiegel 10/20/2009 01:20PM		Other
51	CRAZY_LADY 10/20/2009 11:28AM		Other
50	MISterISU 10/20/2009 10:34AM		Other
49	Louisiana_Woman 10/20/2009 09:27AM		Other
48	av5238 10/20/2009 07:18AM		Other
47	anduaugust 10/20/2009 06:20AM		I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
46	Fatal 10/20/2009 05:32AM		Other
45	ganeshnair18 10/20/2009 04:29AM		I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
44	raja_starkglass 10/20/2009 03:26AM		Other
43	JemJenn 10/20/2009 03:25AM		Other
42	mikeyintheoc 10/20/2009 01:22AM		Other
41	blondie45044 10/20/2009 12:53AM		Other
40	The_Real_Stoney 10/20/2009 12:48AM		Other
39	Drewcifer 10/20/2009 12:21AM		Other
38	cuddles127017 10/20/2009 12:15AM		Other
37	kteacher 10/20/2009 12:03AM		Other
36	Cali_Kat 10/19/2009 11:58PM		Other
35	daddybair33 10/19/2009 11:24PM		Other
34	Shiloh884 10/19/2009 11:13PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
33	Daniel_and_Becca 10/19/2009 10:39PM		Other
32	DeezTeams 10/19/2009 09:36PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
31	TerikaHarifa 10/19/2009 08:42PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
30	18packabs 10/19/2009 08:02PM		Other
29	Dream_Machine 10/19/2009 07:31PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
28	towsongirl12 10/19/2009 07:07PM		Other
27	JRSFLAME88 10/19/2009 07:00PM		Other
26	gobigblue1960 10/19/2009 06:28PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
25	icfeet 10/19/2009 05:53PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
24	G Money 10/19/2009 05:50PM		Other
23	NMboyzfan 10/19/2009 05:40PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
22	DeeRigga 10/19/2009 05:33PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
21	Som6 10/19/2009 05:29PM		Other
20	huskerfan_ia 10/19/2009 05:23PM		Other
19	Pat 10/19/2009 05:20PM		Other
18	noti4 10/19/2009 05:13PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
17	derms33 10/19/2009 04:58PM		Other
16	danday1962 10/19/2009 04:55PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
15	I_GARDNER 10/19/2009 04:38PM		Other
14	Michael G 10/19/2009 04:35PM		Other
13	qtowndogg 10/19/2009 04:26PM		Other
12	craign123 10/19/2009 04:21PM		Other
11	kramer 10/19/2009 04:19PM		Other
10	YankeeDudeL 10/19/2009 04:18PM		Other
9	jasonwrites 10/19/2009 04:14PM		I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
8	danny_n94 10/19/2009 04:01PM		Other
7	JCFrench 10/19/2009 04:01PM		I think the Code of Conduct is complete, clear, and concise.
6	Jess 10/19/2009 03:52PM		I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
5	Raven73 10/19/2009 03:48PM		Other
4	Wordsmith 10/19/2009 03:47PM		I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
3	KitNKaboodle 10/19/2009 03:43PM		Other
2	hskrdave 10/19/2009 03:43PM		I know a rule that needs clarified (specify in comments)
1	yruwet2 10/19/2009 03:42PM		Other