.NET Community
Because of the amount of people we've been seeing coming through .NET lately claiming in some fashion to have "insider info" on various subjects, I felt it was necessary to create a new policy which defines when and how these types of claims will be allowed.

Regardless of where our community comes down on this topic, the fact is that we are viewed as a one-stop shop for seeing what's happening with our team, and we've seen too many times where random people claim to know something or someone and it helps to spread false information. We want to keep our main forum a place for legitimate Seahawks news and talk, not for rumor-mongering from anyone claiming to be in the know.

As always, if a rumor is reported by a legitimate media source, please feel free to create a topic and discuss away. This policy is only to discourage .NET users claiming they know something without any accountability to the validity. We hope to at least provide substance to these claims with this policy.

As such, the following has been added to the official FAQ/Rules section. Please let me know via PM if you have any questions or concerns about this. Thanks.

_________________

OK Mark, just shot the little birdie so it won't be talking to me anymore, But seriously, sounds like a good idea.

_________________
Why is it when I try to come off as a smart ass, the opposite happens? :-(

Perfectly reasonable.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

I have a source that likes this idea.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

YEAH, WE HAVE A DUDE NAMED CHRISTINE...DEAL WITH IT!

Great. Now posters are subject to accountability. This will significantly hamper my contributions.

_________________
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

What this means in practical terms:

1. For the person who has a source and gets checked out before posting: There's no need to publicly disclose any information about your source, although you can certainly do that if you like.

2. For members: If someone is citing a 'source' and the post does not disappear relatively quickly, then there's no rhyme or reason to questioning whether or not the poster has a legitimate source. The actual information and how solid/reliable/subject to change it might be, that's certainly a valid line of discussion, but the fact the person has a source should not be in question as the owner (Rockhawk) is allowing it. If you want staff to give you 'proof' or something, well that ain't happening.

3. For people who want to claim sources without getting checked out: **Highly inadvisable**

_________________
You have destroyed us. You found the flaw in the crystal. We are gone. You are alone.

I know a guy, who knows a guy, who said there is gonna be some new rule or something at .NET. Keep your eyes open and your arrows sharp.

_________________
President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013

IDK? I though it was always kinda fun not knowing what was truth or not. Now when it's posted from an inside source it will be "validated" and wouldn't that put the poster & insider at more risk?

So i'm curious back in 02 my co-worker had some dirt on Jeremey Stevens, said he beat some guy with a bat. If i posted something like that now would that get deleted?

I recently had another co-worker who went to high school with Crabtree and told me he was into some drugs and was kinda a bad seed/thug. How would you validate my source? Would i not be able to post that info?

Seems a little strict and takes some of the fun/mystery out of things

_________________

Beastquake with epic commentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd_Vd43Vxa0

My source found these jokes to be humorous.

_________________
He breaks the tackle of Shanle, runs through Sharper, runs through Ayodele! Runs through Jabari Greer! "Get off me," he says to Tracy Porter! Look all the way down the field; Hasslebeck, all the offensive linemen. Are you kidding me!?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Presenting hearsay rumor, ESPECIALLY stuff about a player's private life, will not be tolerated here. Period.

But when it comes to football-related rumors like "I have a source that guarantees we will be drafting player X in the first round", the validation can be done without ever actually telling me who the source is. Validation is easy if it's someone in the organization itself as I have a tried & true method for validation this without EVER even talking with them. If the source isn't from within the organization (as in your examples of a neighbor or co-worker), it's going to be a much harder validation. But if the source & info is legitimate, I can corroborate the info with some of my contacts who would KNOW these to be true or not, regardless of if the front office wanted the info to be publicly known. Once I confirm if what your neighbor is saying has roots within the organization, I'll give the green light.

I know some of you have mentioned that you enjoy having people bring these types of source info up because this is an internet message board and not the Associated Press. I get that, but in the end with what we've seen in the past year, the people claiming these sources ended up being nothing more than attention spotlight-seeking idiots that made something up and hoped it would pan out. This rule simply allows us to validate the sources claims (not the source themselves) without having to wait to find out if it's true or not.

_________________

Well, that pretty much shoots the hell out of that little voice that keeps talking to me in my head, OR DOESE IT??, it is after all, "AN INSIDE SOURCE"

Sources close to me tell me that this is a good idea!

I'd like to confirm these sources of yours.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

Rock, how about a stickied thread (or an addition to an existing stickied thread) of people that have one or more confirmed sources by you? Just a simple list for the rest of us to verify who's legit and who's full of it; something like:

List of posters with one or more confirmed sources by RockHawk:
BFS
English
etc.

Where there's smoke, there's fire - and if someone has a source and the news breaks here, I think it's worthwhile to verify the source. In reality, most newsworthy items will probably break somewhere else (like Twitter for example). I think it's just as necessary to name the referring public source when someone wants to be the first poster on Seahawks.NET.

_________________

I'm sure most here will believe this rule change is "for someone else".

For those of you that want a place to post pure rumors and trash talk you already have a place, 2 places actually. The Smack Shack and the PWR Forums. Trust me wild ass rumors abound in those places.

_________________

Still missing you everyday pal.

Very cool. I appreciate the effort to keep this place legit & organized while fun as well. Thanks, Rock & mods.

_________________

Is this a news outlet or a fan forum?

You're the big cheese and all. Just seems like more of a headache for you.

Then again, we can never have enough regulations in the world.

_________________
BigMikeWill17:
Its ok if you're a Hawks fan and didn't believe we would be division champs.. Just don't let it happen again. Hahahah

IMO, it's a bit of both. I tend to get most of my news here and I for the most part things posted here as news are pretty solid. I hear stuff here before it hits the ESPNs of the world sometimes. You can speculate all you want, just don't pretend you've got a source who "knows" something if you don't.

We have plenty of fan speculation going on and guys just spewing their opinions, but if people start throwing around mysterious sources it dilutes the "news" portion of the site.

_________________
President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013

While I understand where you are coming from. I am not going to reveal who has given me the info. No more inside scoop from this guy.

_________________

"Hit it and regret it later" -Ron Burnett (My Grandfather)