PDA

View Full Version : The frustration with the game threads



WVRedsFan
05-19-2006, 03:18 AM
OK.

I'm going into my grumpy old man mode now.

In years past, the game threads were a joy. Seriously, i enjoyed them. Intelligent baseball fans gathered there to do pbp, joke and discuss the game in a (somewhat) rational manner. Of course, it might be my memory failing--like my Dad's walks to school "uphill both ways barefoot."

Still, I can't help it. Today's thread was a lot like most of them since they have gone exclusively to the "Reds Live" board. Everyone sucks on the team. Dunn, Griffey, and Kearns either need to switch positions or be traded. You get the idea. Long-time members like Creek, Stormy, Cougarquest, RILA, RFS62 etc. don't even come around. I spent my first whole game in the game thread today out of necessity--I had no TV or radio coverage at work. And it was non-uplifting. I threw my stapler at the monitor more than once. We won, but I felt like everyone sucked, so it didn't matter.

Was it a mistake having the game thread only on the RL side? It seemed to be a good idea at first, but now I don't know. I'd like my RedsZone back.

The Baumer
05-19-2006, 03:47 AM
It's hard to censor and clean up the internet. Anonymity allows for even the most civilized people to let out a "Dunn is worthless" or two.

BCubb2003
05-19-2006, 04:43 AM
The game threads have always seemed to me to be a manic swing between delirious and apocalyptic, with half the roster sent to Louisville after each inning. It's a real treat though when someone like Caveat Emperor is doing play-by-play.

Two things would probably help: More play-by-play, and more winning.

KronoRed
05-19-2006, 05:10 AM
Two game threads might keep some of the roar down.

Topcat
05-19-2006, 06:07 AM
OK.

I'm going into my grumpy old man mode now.

In years past, the game threads were a joy. Seriously, i enjoyed them. Intelligent baseball fans gathered there to do pbp, joke and discuss the game in a (somewhat) rational manner. Of course, it might be my memory failing--like my Dad's walks to school "uphill both ways barefoot."

Still, I can't help it. Today's thread was a lot like most of them since they have gone exclusively to the "Reds Live" board. Everyone sucks on the team. Dunn, Griffey, and Kearns either need to switch positions or be traded. You get the idea. Long-time members like Creek, Stormy, Cougarquest, RILA, RFS62 etc. don't even come around. I spent my first whole game in the game thread today out of necessity--I had no TV or radio coverage at work. And it was non-uplifting. I threw my stapler at the monitor more than once. We won, but I felt like everyone sucked, so it didn't matter.

Was it a mistake having the game thread only on the RL side? It seemed to be a good idea at first, but now I don't know. I'd like my RedsZone back.


Amen its a convention of the bi-polar wonders of the world. Its baseball some times you win some times you lose and well lol sometimes Dave Williams pitches and we all become closer to god with our prayers he is adequate:beerme:

oneupper
05-19-2006, 06:34 AM
I also was checking the game thread yesterday and yes it was particularly lame (my own 2 or 3 comments included).
Usually there is a "designated pbp guy", and the rest of the posters post "commentary". If they're watching the game, it might be "Dunn almost caught that" or "Narron looks angry" or "Marty just said..." (for those who care), but it gives additional info to those who have no TV and is a bit better than say...Gameday or Gamechannel.

Without an "official" pbp guy...it kind of goes off into...anything.

The other thing is that it was a day game. Many adults were working...

SirFelixCat
05-19-2006, 06:48 AM
I made this same complaint last year and we had a worse record when I did it then now. I wholeheartedly agree.


We used to have honest-to-God pbp or 1/2 inning recaps, but those are the exception nowadays. Natigirl and RBA, amoung others have tried, but it really gets lost with the drivel that is in there more often than not.

I'm not a big fan of the 2 game threads, but it may end up being the lesser of two evils.


Thoughts?

redsmetz
05-19-2006, 07:07 AM
Amen its a convention of the bi-polar wonders of the world. Its baseball some times you win some times you lose and well lol sometimes Dave Williams pitches and we all become closer to god with our prayers he is adequate:beerme:

LOL - I told someone last night that the only bad thing about the win was that Dave Williams got off the hook for the loss that he clearly deserved.

Red in Chicago
05-19-2006, 07:31 AM
until the team starts winning, i don't think much is going to change...

does anyone go into chat anymore?

remdog
05-19-2006, 08:02 AM
I haven't visited the game thread, for the most part, for the better part of the past year. It's comprised of mostly inane, vapid comments from posters that are just posting to see themselves in print---actual info is minimal.

The problem, IMO, is what Red in Chicago alluded to: people are using the game thread as a chat room instead of being in chat. Move most of the posters over to chat and they'll have a good time and the game thread will return to what it was originally. Seems simple enough to me but I doubt enough of the game thread posters have figured this out. (shrug)

Rem

MrCinatit
05-19-2006, 08:33 AM
Hate to break this to you VW, but you are wrong: you don't sound grumpy, you sound right.
The game threads can and have turned into total train wrecks, with virtual fight breaking out in the virtual stands. It does tend to suck the enjoyment out of it.
Thinking before one posts is not all that bad, even in the heat of the moment.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-19-2006, 09:29 AM
So move the game threads to the ORG.

OldXOhio
05-19-2006, 09:46 AM
until the team starts winning, i don't think much is going to change...



They are winning.

MattyHo4Life
05-19-2006, 09:48 AM
I'm not a big fan of the 2 game threads, but it may end up being the lesser of two evils.

I think 2 game threads is a good idea, at least here it is. Redszone has the longest game threads that I have ever seen on any board, so I don't think it would take much away from them if you split them up. There are usually two types of fans. IMO...you have homers and realists. The homers only have good things to say about their players no matter what, they look at the bright side. The realists call a player out if they aren't doing good. In a game thread, you have a mixture of both types of fans, and it gets annoying for both sets of fans. I'm more of a homer, and give my players the benefit of the doubt, when other Cardinals fans seem to always have a negative opinion, at least to me. I don't read the Cardinals game threads much anymore, because it's too much of an emotional rollercoaster. Of course, there are both types of fans on both boards, but two game threads would help.

REDJAKE
05-19-2006, 10:02 AM
I don't pay much attention to them anymore am all for going back to old guard if it helps>GO CINCY!!!!!

Danny Serafini
05-19-2006, 10:21 AM
I agree that the game threads have gotten out of control, but I'm not sure two seperate ones is the answer. We used to have two, and if I remember correctly the ORG one would only have about two dozen posts in it, so it became pointless. I think the only solution may be for people to police themselves better.

traderumor
05-19-2006, 10:29 AM
IIRC, the ORG game thread did not get much action when there were both. I think off the cuff remarks like "Dunn sucks" just need to be ignored by everyone instead of starting a long apologetic on why he doesn't or blasting the offender, unless of course that poster is persistent.

I think the current setup is good because it gives new posters a chance to get some rep and some vets could hang out to help improve the quality of the game threads with some good posting of their own. I've seen many a game thread when a discussion helped turn a "Dunn sucks" poster into someone that starts thinking about what is going on during a game as vets discuss some of the finer points of the game.

GAC
05-19-2006, 10:37 AM
I think 2 game threads is a good idea, at least here it is. Redszone has the longest game threads that I have ever seen on any board, so I don't think it would take much away from them if you split them up. There are usually two types of fans. IMO...you have homers and realists.

Us homers are in chat.... and that is just the way we like it. ;)

People watch baseball, and derive their enjoyment for different reasons. I'm mainly a chat person who peeks in on the game threads.

Chat is more "kicked back". We're all involved in either listening or watching the game, and IMO, you get better pbp, without some much repetition.

But we also don't so "involved" in the game, where we are hanging on every pitch, every swing, and every A/B, and basically over-analyzing every inch of what is going on, and why so-so and did this or didn't do that.

I don't say that to be offensive to anyone, or that they are wrong for doing it. Again - that may be the way those on the gamethread derive their pleasure and enjoyment from the game.

The game thread and chat are two different worlds, and personally, that is exactly the way we like it. ;)

And it's not that we don't get critical, or question things that are going on during the game. We just don't take it as seriously.

Maybe it's the beer? :lol:

GAC
05-19-2006, 10:43 AM
I agree that the game threads have gotten out of control, but I'm not sure two seperate ones is the answer. We used to have two, and if I remember correctly the ORG one would only have about two dozen posts in it, so it became pointless. I think the only solution may be for people to police themselves better.

And that is what the mods are for. I don't say that as a knock or criticism of the mods because they have lives too. They can't be expected to be watching this forum and also "policing" the gamethread (especially if there were two of them). But maybe a solution is like one we found for chat a few years ago when we were having problems (trolls).

Select someone who spends alot of time on the gamethread on a regular basis as a gamethread moderator? That person would be selected by the recommendations/approval of Boss, GIK, and the other moderators as to who would be best suited (even keeled and objective. And someone who every knows and feels comfortable with).

Even do it on a trial basis to see if it would work.

paintmered
05-19-2006, 10:47 AM
And that is what the mods are for. I don't say that as a knock or criticism of the mods because they have lives too. They can't be expected to be watching this forum and also "policing" the gamethread (especially if there were two of them). But maybe a solution is like one we found for chat a few years ago when we were having problems (trolls).

Select someone who spends alot of time on the gamethread on a regular basis as a gamethread moderator? That person would be selected by the recommendations/approval of Boss, GIK, and the other moderators as to who would be best suited (even keeled and objective. And someone who every knows and feels comfortable with).

Even do it on a trial basis to see if it would work.


I have been purposely heavy-handed in the game threads the last few days. It just gets ignored and nothing improves. So I don't think moderation is the key to restoring order - giving a reason for established posters to post again is the key to restoring order.

I do think things are better when we have a designated pbp guy.

Blimpie
05-19-2006, 11:02 AM
Sometimes, I cannot listen or watch the game. When this happens, I try to scan the game threads to see how the club is doing. Forget balls or strikes--it is not uncommon to go 3-4 pages of posts without a single mention of the SCORE....

I hate to admit it, but sometimes the live boxscore is all I am looking for and the Game Thread is simply too much to filter out.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-19-2006, 11:09 AM
When the game thread is going good, updates are faster and obviously more detailed than gamecasts from CBS Sportsline, Yahoo, ESPN, MLB, or any of the others.

GAC
05-19-2006, 11:10 AM
I have been purposely heavy-handed in the game threads the last few days. It just gets ignored and nothing improves. So I don't think moderation is the key to restoring order

Yeah, but if you're giving a person(s) fair warning first, who are arguing or calling each other out, and they ignore you, knowing you're a mod, then a 24 hr boot might get people to think twice next time.

This forum, including the gamethread, has rules. So what good are rules if there is nothing behind them? We are not talking really harsh punishment here. Just a "cooling off" time to get that individual(s) to think about their behavior.

What gets me is that we are all fans of the same team, and are rooting for and wanting the same results.

So why are some beating up on each other?

REDREAD
05-19-2006, 11:21 AM
I read the gamethread yesterday to catch up on the game. IMO, the best answer is to do what I do.. when you see a post rehashing the same tired old themes that you don't want to read anymore, skip to the next post.

It's impossible to police, because where do you try the line? A point that one person makes every day on the game thread is probably appreciated by some, but annoys others. Some things that are funny to some people (especially sarcasism) are annoying to others.

When the game starts off like it did yesterday (with the Reds trailing 7-0.. I think that was it), it's going to impact the quality of the postings, because it's so darn frustrating.

Reds Fanatic
05-19-2006, 11:26 AM
I do agree there are problems in the game threads. I am not sure seperate threads is the answer. When we had seperate most of us that could post in ORG posted in that game thread and the Reds live game thread was pretty dead most of the time.

I do agree with what GAC said above if a person is consistently causing problems or posting the same "Dunn sucks" posts for example a short timeout might get a point across. The other posts that could really be cut down are the one word posts that really would not make any sense to anyone not watching the game.

Having a person doing PBP at least helps keep the game thread going on track. I know I like doing it when I can but on days like yesterday where most of us were at work it is hard to do regular PBP.

Generally I hope the game threads can improve because I do like posting there. I know I have had moments where we have posted something in the heat of a moment that maybe with some thought wish I had not or had posted something better. I also hope the long time posters that really built Redszone don't abandon the Game Threads. If the long time posters abandon the threads then the quality of the threads will suffer.

Unassisted
05-19-2006, 11:54 AM
Everyone here is missing the obvious tool. You all have the ability to neg posts. If you don't like what a poster is saying on the board, call them out with a neg.

IMO, the game thread is kind of a free-for-all, so I tend to mostly read it and not get emotionally invested in what's being said. If it's important to you, use the tool that the admins gave you to express your discontent.

Falls City Beer
05-19-2006, 11:58 AM
Here's my take (copied and pasted from yesterday's game thread):

As long as the posts are within the framework of the rules, I have no problem with invective. The game posts are about emotional responses, not measured treatises, IMO. As long as single word posts, like "Great", or emoticon posts without game updates are kept to a bare minimum, I like the heat of the moment comments for the most part. Let's face it, the Reds of the last 6 + seasons have sucked something fierce. Measured analysis is great, but we're not writing a book here--this is my escape, not my workplace.

Oh, and the good people at Redszone analyze circles around ANY sports journalist I've EVER read.

I agree with those who say keep up the play by play, but sarcasm and negativity, to me, are part and parcel of following a slumping and/or bad team.

lollipopcurve
05-19-2006, 12:09 PM
I agree with those who say keep up the play by play, but sarcasm and negativity, to me, are part and parcel of following a slumping and/or bad team.

Just as single word posts like "Great" and emoticon posts are part of the panoply, I'd say.

Falls City Beer
05-19-2006, 12:15 PM
Just as single word posts like "Great" and emoticon posts are part of the panoply, I'd say.

Not at all. One word posts are often the equivalent of internet tourette's. If you're expressing your discontent in clear sentences or remarking upon a play with at least a comprehensible clause, then yes, it's part of the vox populi.

I'd say comprehensibility is the acid test, from my perspective.

What yanks my chain a bunch more is people who say crap like "game over" in the ninth inning, when, in fact, the game is not over, and the final out hasn't been recorded. The "cry wolf" crap. If you're predicting an outcome, just say you're predicting an outcome.

lollipopcurve
05-19-2006, 12:25 PM
Not at all. One word posts are often the equivalent of internet tourette's. If you're expressing your discontent in clear sentences or remarking upon a play with at least a comprehensible clause, then yes, it's part of the vox populi.

Disagree. I don't think you can censor by subjective criteria such as clarity or comprehensibility. Let everybody have at it.

Falls City Beer
05-19-2006, 12:27 PM
Disagree. I don't think you can censor by subjective criteria such as clarity or comprehensibility. Let everybody have at it.

So you're saying don't do anything about the game threads? I don't have a problem with that, btw. I just thought you had an idea for curbing crap posting.

lollipopcurve
05-19-2006, 12:39 PM
So you're saying don't do anything about the game threads? I don't have a problem with that, btw. I just thought you had an idea for curbing crap posting.

Not really. I like the threads I like (pbp by CE or Doc especially) and don't like the threads I don't like, meaning I spend little time reading them and I almost never post on them. I don't think it's my place to tell anyone what they should be posting.

pedro
05-19-2006, 12:53 PM
The problem, IMO, is what Red in Chicago alluded to: people are using the game thread as a chat room instead of being in chat. Move most of the posters over to chat and they'll have a good time and the game thread will return to what it was originally. Seems simple enough to me but I doubt enough of the game thread posters have figured this out. (shrug)

Rem

If you are suggesting that the gamethread just be play by play I think that is pretty pointless. You can get that stuff on yahoo or any other site. While I am all for getting rid of the bi-polar inanity I do the think the game related talk in the game thread is what makes it interesting.

Yachtzee
05-19-2006, 12:57 PM
Us homers are in chat.... and that is just the way we like it. ;)

People watch baseball, and derive their enjoyment for different reasons. I'm mainly a chat person who peeks in on the game threads.

Chat is more "kicked back". We're all involved in either listening or watching the game, and IMO, you get better pbp, without some much repetition.

But we also don't so "involved" in the game, where we are hanging on every pitch, every swing, and every A/B, and basically over-analyzing every inch of what is going on, and why so-so and did this or didn't do that.

I don't say that to be offensive to anyone, or that they are wrong for doing it. Again - that may be the way those on the gamethread derive their pleasure and enjoyment from the game.

The game thread and chat are two different worlds, and personally, that is exactly the way we like it. ;)

And it's not that we don't get critical, or question things that are going on during the game. We just don't take it as seriously.

Maybe it's the beer? :lol:

I actually prefer Chat to the game threads myself. :beerme:

Of course I just finished final exams last week, so this week I'm spending more time with the family. Hopefully I might get to sign on for a few games in the coming weeks.

TeamCasey
05-19-2006, 01:49 PM
Just thinking out loud here from work.

I don't think being heavy handed is the answer ...... unless people are actually swearing or attacking one another. Besides, the game threads move at a mile per minute and you really can't expect a moderator to be present in each one.

A ORG and Reds Live thread may be a good idea. It just breaks up the numbers. This situation is similar to when there was just one board. It was so big that posts fell to page 2 quickly. I think game threads are overwhelmed by the numbers. (Which stinks if you're occasionally dropping in for an update from work or missed the game and want to read about it later.)

Here's another thought:

What about the regular game thread and a thread strictly for PBP? (Both could reside at Reds Live if all agreed to keep commentary out of PBP). At the beginning of each game someone can volunteer for it, or tag team with someone else if they aren't going to be available the whole time. Folks can take turns. If no one volunteers, then no big deal - you still have the game thread. A PBP thread would be good for folks who can't follow the game live. A lot less noise to sift through. It would also alleviate multiple people doing PBP. If someone had to stop, they can put a shout into the game thread for someone else to take over.

(Darts or further brainstorming are welcome.)

Cyclone792
05-19-2006, 01:55 PM
Everyone here is missing the obvious tool. You all have the ability to neg posts. If you don't like what a poster is saying on the board, call them out with a neg.

IMO, the game thread is kind of a free-for-all, so I tend to mostly read it and not get emotionally invested in what's being said. If it's important to you, use the tool that the admins gave you to express your discontent.

While you bring up a good point, Unassisted, there is one key ingredient missing here.

During the last few weeks and months, the Old Red Guard forum has sort of turned into a complete graveyard. Hardly anybody posts in it anymore, and the bulk of new threads are started in Reds Live, even by members with ORG status. What happens here is the incentive to actually get 200 reputation points and gain ORG posting status dwindles. On Wednesday, there were over 40 active threads on Reds Live compared to seven active threads in the ORG. Today, currently it's 22 actives in Reds Live compared to seven in ORG (one of which is this thread).

The question members have to ask themselves is ... what's the incentive for gaining posting access to the ORG if the discussion within that forum is dead?

ORG members can greatly assist in cleaning up the mess if they make a collective effort to create threads and focus on discussion in the ORG rather than Reds Live. If that happens, then suddenly the great, lively discussion occurs in the ORG, and the incentive to reach 200 reputation points and gain access to the forum spikes up heavily. The result? People below 200 points are more concerned about trying to gain reputation and avoid negative reputation since the ORG once again suddenly becomes the place for Reds discussion. If they want to gain more points, they make better posts.

Now I'm not saying ignore Reds Live, not at all, but if ORG members make a collective effort to start most of their topics in ORG, then the overall discussion in the ORG flourishes. We have to find the breakeven point for having 1) the best discussion in ORG and 2) not ignoring Reds Live completely ... whatever that breakeven point is.

It's a spiral effect that will reach all the way down to members not yet at 200 points. It forces the new members to reach that 200 point level to gain access to the good discussion instead of just signing up and already having the access to the good discussion. If the members want access to the good discussion, then they will make a concentrated effort to post more informative/thought-provoking posts on Reds Live and it will also cut down on the "so and so sucks" type of posts.

Just my two cents ...

TRF
05-19-2006, 01:57 PM
if you want pbp for the score, open another tab in firefox and go to one of the MANY sites that offer it. espn, sportsline, mlb, all offer realtime pbp.

if you want to sit with a bunch of fans during the game, but live 1,000 miles away from said game, then come here.

Why does this have to be hard? When I make it to cincinnati, and actually get to see a game in person, i lose track of the score talking with my wife or kids or getting snacks. I look at the scoreboard or ask someone.

this really isn't a problem.

REDREAD
05-19-2006, 02:48 PM
the bulk of new threads are started in Reds Live, even by members with ORG status. What happens here is the incentive to actually get 200 reputation points and gain ORG posting status dwindles.

ORG members can greatly assist in cleaning up the mess if they make a collective effort to create threads and focus on discussion in the ORG rather than Reds Live. If that happens, then suddenly the great, lively discussion occurs in the ORG, and the incentive to reach 200 reputation points and gain access to the forum spikes up heavily. The result? People below 200 points are more concerned about trying to gain reputation and avoid negative reputation since the ORG once again suddenly becomes the place for Reds discussion. If they want to gain more points, they make better posts.
...

Well, I'll only speak for myself. I don't start many threads, but when I do, I put them all in Reds Live because I want anyone to be able to respond to them. Also, if my time is limited, I will only read Reds Live and skip ORG.

I think it's kind of silly to make a concerted effort to put all the "premium" threads in ORG to make newbies "earn" their way into better discussions. If the bulk of people hang out on Reds Live, then I think that's great. It means that the majority of people think that Reds Live is just as high quality as ORG. The whole point of splitting the forums was to improve the quality of posting, and it has worked, IMO. Now I can understand if some prefer to spend most of their time on ORG, that's fine. Why try to pressure people to move out of Reds Live?

Cyclone792
05-19-2006, 03:14 PM
Well, I'll only speak for myself. I don't start many threads, but when I do, I put them all in Reds Live because I want anyone to be able to respond to them. Also, if my time is limited, I will only read Reds Live and skip ORG.

I think it's kind of silly to make a concerted effort to put all the "premium" threads in ORG to make newbies "earn" their way into better discussions. If the bulk of people hang out on Reds Live, then I think that's great. It means that the majority of people think that Reds Live is just as high quality as ORG. The whole point of splitting the forums was to improve the quality of posting, and it has worked, IMO. Now I can understand if some prefer to spend most of their time on ORG, that's fine. Why try to pressure people to move out of Reds Live?

It's not about pressuring people to go over there - it doesn't bother me like it may bother others - but it's the simple fact that the ORG posters as a collective unit have the power to ensure the board always remains at a high quality.

If you don't mind wading through a lot of stuff that's on there, then that's fine. I don't have a problem ignoring some of the posts, but what happens is instead of electing to participate in the discussion, I just don't even bother to post at all. Some other posters can easily skip over the unnecessary posts like those that we see in the game threads, however, some regular posters just get driven away. I can tell by reading the responses of some very well respected posters that they seem frustrated, and some post less because of it. When that happens, the board's quality suffers.

What gets posted in the game threads may very well be an indicator of what's getting posted period, and if the quality of the game threads starts going south then the quality of everything else may start going south.

Again, just what I've observed and just my two cents ...

dsmith421
05-19-2006, 04:04 PM
My frustration is this: When I first signed on to RZ, I enjoyed it because it was like watching a baseball game with extremely intelligent people--statheads and "traditional" types alike. Posters like Steel, WOY and many others presented arguments cogently, with solid objective backing, and I often felt like I was learning something. The majority of the frequent posters were good writers and brought something to the table.

There are a lot of posts now that just add nothing to the discussion. The game thread is basically a chatroom, half the posters are just grinding their particular axe with no factual backing, the few "new" posters that I enjoy (vaticanplum, Caveat) are drowned out by a lot of garbage.

Suggestions for improving the game threads:

* Designated PBP personnel drawn from long-contributing posters. ORG eligibility should be required, I would even crank up the rep point requirement to 400. That puts someone who has been here a while and has been a solid contributor in charge of the discussion. The perfect example is Caveat, who gives you timely information, describes the play, and makes you laugh at the same time. I can get balls, strikes and results from anywhere. I come to the game thread to hear that Griffey should have caught so-and-so's double or that Rick White is fatter today than yesterday.

* Bifurcating the game threads, at least on a trial basis. I know last year the threads on ORG died on the vine, but I sense so much frustration from longtime posters right now that it might make more sense.

I'm just somewhat worried about the way things are going--I would hate to see RZ turn into an idiotic festival of smack talking like MLB.com, cincinnati.com, and every NFL board on the Internet.

Ga_Red
05-19-2006, 04:09 PM
2/09/07

dsmith421
05-19-2006, 04:15 PM
I don't think the idea TC and GaRed have endorsed is necessarily tenable. The point of the game thread, to me, is to provide both PBP and instant discussion about the game. It's like being at the ballpark or watching with a good friend--you see the action and, at the same time, crack on the players, talk about strategy, etc.

The problem right now is the signal-to-noise ratio, and I think we can alleviate that somewhat by having separate ORG and RL game threads.

pedro
05-19-2006, 04:16 PM
I don't think the idea TC and GaRed have endorsed is necessarily tenable. The point of the game thread, to me, is to provide both PBP and instant discussion about the game. It's like being at the ballpark or watching with a good friend--you see the action and, at the same time, crack on the players, talk about strategy, etc.

The problem right now is the signal-to-noise ratio, and I think we can alleviate that somewhat by having separate ORG and RL game threads.

I tend to agree.

BoydsOfSummer
05-19-2006, 04:31 PM
Why don't we just choose 10-20 posters and let only them post. The rest of us can can just be thankful to be allowed on the site.

Caveat Emperor
05-19-2006, 04:32 PM
I suppose I'll throw a few comments into the ring as well...

Re: Game Threads

I love the game thread concept -- if I'm not at the game (which is quite frequent, given that I'm stuck in Toledo studying for the state bar exam), then it's a great way to get a lot of different takes and looks on the game while it's ongoing. It's a chance to goof off (which I do quite a bit of) a bit and also possibly engage in some serious discussion during the games.

The games threads, by design, are a reflection of the games that are being played. Just as the board, in general, turns more negative when the Reds are losing, the game thread turns negative quickly as the Reds make bad plays. Things become "much bigger" in the heat of the moment -- Adam Dunn may misplay 2 dozen fly balls this season, but the world collapses at each individual occurence because it's the one happening "right now." When you take that, and add to it the fact that over 100 people can be in the thread at once, then you're going to get a LOT of "he sucks" / "this team sucks" posts that occur -- even if only a small fraction of those 100 people are posting.

Splitting the game thread in half might work -- but in the end, I expect a drift will occur to one thread or another. Most posters will move to wherever the "action" is, and once enough posters move away to one spot the other game thread will die and we'll be back to square one again.

I think having someone with the PBP call makes following the game easier. I've kicked in PBP a couple of times, and I have a good time doing it. On the few times I did have the call, I tried do things like boldface player names or even post in team colors (Red for the Reds, etc.) to try and make the game thread PBP stand out. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't. As far as the "negativity" in the game thrad goes -- if you don't like it, call it out. If you see a poster that's ruining your enjoyment of the thread, call that person out on it. Send them a PM and tell them that at RedsZone, we expect a higher standard of everyone. If they continue doing it, issue them negative reputation...which brings me to point #2.

Re: ORG v. Reds Live

I think Jason is onto something with the ORG v. Reds Live "activity" watch. Over the last year, since the split between the two boards occurred, the activity has slowly shifted to the point it's at now -- where almost every discussion of substance occurs on Reds Live. I've noticed it for the past few weeks, but I've been too lazy to actually do a count on post differential. However, just a cursory glance shows you that the Top 40 threads on Reds Live all have activity w/in the last 24 hours whereas the Top 40 threads on the ORG have some threads which've been inactive for 9 days.

The fact of the matter is that this kind of negativity, player bashing, and poor posting seems to me to be the exact sitaution that initially led to the split between ORG and Reds Live and necessitated the creation of the reputation system. Now, a year later, the carrot on the stick is gone. What's the incentive to gain ORG access when all of the disucssion is already available on Reds Live? Similarly, what's the penalty of being given negative reputation -- or, in the alternative, never receiving positive reputation for good contributions -- if the regular avenues of discussion on RL remain available? Is there really a point to the reputation system at all anymore? No reward for contributing, no penalty for creating noise.

Having said all that -- it's May, and things will die down as the season chugs forward. Still, a year later -- it might be time to look at this stuff again.

KronoRed
05-19-2006, 04:35 PM
Why don't we just choose 10-20 posters and let only them post. The rest of us can can just be thankful to be allowed on the site.
The Gang of 10? :devil:

Spring~Fields
05-19-2006, 04:38 PM
Why not simply ask all posters to refrain from complaining about any Reds player or coaching staff? That should appease the Dunn, Griffey, Encarcion, Lopez, Jimmy Haynes fans ect.

dsmith421
05-19-2006, 04:46 PM
Why not simply ask all posters to refrain from complaining about any Reds player or coaching staff? That should appease the Dunn, Griffey, Encarcion, Lopez, Jimmy Haynes fans ect.

That would eliminate 95% of the board, good and bad posts included.

Criticism is fine. Criticism without any rationale is not.

KronoRed
05-19-2006, 04:51 PM
Jimmy Haynes has fans?

RANDY IN INDY
05-19-2006, 04:54 PM
Why don't we just choose 10-20 posters and let only them post. The rest of us can can just be thankful to be allowed on the site. :lol:

Caveat Emperor
05-19-2006, 04:58 PM
Jimmy Haynes has fans?

Roughly 725 of them. :evil:

Spring~Fields
05-19-2006, 05:01 PM
That would eliminate 95% of the board, good and bad posts included.

Criticism is fine. Criticism without any rationale is not.

But see, that has been a select number of peoples attempt, to eliminate criticisms that they are not comfortable with rational or otherwise. So why not cut to the chase and eliminate coaches and player complaints.

Why? Because that takes a big part of the "game" away from the fan. Kidding, teasing, ribbing, get on the umpire or ref, cutting on your buddy who is a fan of such and such is all apart of the fans game. Analyzing data points is WORK, sports is fun and games. If you take away emotional responses then where's the fun, do we all become Stepford historical data point chasers?

TeamCasey
05-19-2006, 05:06 PM
I don't think the idea TC and GaRed have endorsed is necessarily tenable. The point of the game thread, to me, is to provide both PBP and instant discussion about the game. It's like being at the ballpark or watching with a good friend--you see the action and, at the same time, crack on the players, talk about strategy, etc.

The problem right now is the signal-to-noise ratio, and I think we can alleviate that somewhat by having separate ORG and RL game threads.

That's cool. I'm really just tossing it out there for the At Work/ Read Later crowd. Sure, folks can go to yahoo or some other site for game updates, but I really enjoy the PBP (and often creative PBP :thumbup: ) from RZ posters.

It appears the problem is a size thing for me and a content issue for others. The critique and other ideas are welcome. :)

RANDY IN INDY
05-19-2006, 05:11 PM
That's cool. I'm really just tossing it out there for the At Work/ Read Later crowd. Sure, folks can go to yahoo or some other site for game updates, but I really enjoy the PBP (and often creative PBP :thumbup: ) from RZ posters.

It appears the problem is a size thing for me and a content issue for others. The critique and other ideas are welcome. :)

Scarlet,

Do a lot of women have a problem with that size thing, or does content override?;)

Raisor
05-19-2006, 05:13 PM
Why don't we just choose 10-20 posters and let only them post. The rest of us can can just be thankful to be allowed on the site.


As one of the ten, that works for me.

I'm voting Puffy off the island though.:mooner:

KronoRed
05-19-2006, 05:15 PM
I'm voting Puffy off the island though.:mooner:
The girls go with him though

GAC
05-19-2006, 05:17 PM
I do agree there are problems in the game threads. I am not sure seperate threads is the answer. When we had seperate most of us that could post in ORG posted in that game thread and the Reds live game thread was pretty dead most of the time.

I do agree with what GAC said above if a person is consistently causing problems or posting the same "Dunn sucks" posts for example a short timeout might get a point across. The other posts that could really be cut down are the one word posts that really would not make any sense to anyone not watching the game.

Having a person doing PBP at least helps keep the game thread going on track. I know I like doing it when I can but on days like yesterday where most of us were at work it is hard to do regular PBP.

Generally I hope the game threads can improve because I do like posting there. I know I have had moments where we have posted something in the heat of a moment that maybe with some thought wish I had not or had posted something better. I also hope the long time posters that really built Redszone don't abandon the Game Threads. If the long time posters abandon the threads then the quality of the threads will suffer.

When one thinks about it... the gamethread is nothing more then chat in script.

If you are one of those who stays on there while watching the game, and where you can consistently follow the conversation and what is going on, then it's fine for you.

But if you are someone who just wants to pop in and see a score/update, then you are probably gonna have better success in that area with CBS Sportsline, ESPN, or similar sources.

The gamethread is really not a GAME thread per say. It's an effort to be like a chat room with wanting to go into chat.

And I never understood that. If you want to talk while watching/listening to the game - THEN COME INTO CHAT! :beerme:

What do those who never come into chat, but consistently hang out on the gamethread, have against chat? A chat room is better suited for the conversations that go on the gamethread.

And if someone gets out of hand in there, then you would need a mod to control people.

That is the way it use to be in chat prior to having game threads. If you came in and made trouble, you got a 24 hr time out.

Express your views here.

Finally - for those who just want to know a score/update, then the person starting the gamethread should be someone who is gonna be in the gamethread for the duration and who could TITLE the thread to carry an updated score. ;)

Blimpie
05-19-2006, 05:24 PM
ORG members can greatly assist in cleaning up the mess if they make a collective effort to create threads and focus on discussion in the ORG rather than Reds Live. If that happens, then suddenly the great, lively discussion occurs in the ORG, and the incentive to reach 200 reputation points and gain access to the forum spikes up heavily. The result? People below 200 points are more concerned about trying to gain reputation and avoid negative reputation since the ORG once again suddenly becomes the place for Reds discussion. If they want to gain more points, they make better posts..Excellent post and I couldn't agree more. That's the reason that I rarely post threads in Reds Live.

Spring~Fields
05-19-2006, 05:24 PM
There is too much chaff of one to four word comments, redundant and superfulous comments in the game thread that forces one to take an inordinate amount of time to search for meaningful reading.

Raisor
05-19-2006, 05:28 PM
There is too much chaff of one to four word comments, redundant and superfulous comments in the game thread that forces one to take an inordinate amount of time to search for meaningful reading.


I just want crosseyed reading this. Too many big words!

:devil:

Spring~Fields
05-19-2006, 05:32 PM
I just want crosseyed reading this. Too many big words!

:devil:
;) Yeah, too bad I could not speeellll them correctly. :)

GAC
05-19-2006, 05:35 PM
Just thinking out loud here from work.

I don't think being heavy handed is the answer ...... unless people are actually swearing or attacking one another. Besides, the game threads move at a mile per minute and you really can't expect a moderator to be present in each one.

And I agree TC. My recommendation was suggested if so many see a problem. That is about the only resolution IMO - better moderated.

Layering on more rules will do nothing.

As far as I'm concerned - let the people have at it, as long as they stay within the forum guidlines.

Think about what it is like when we all get together for games? The same conversations, analysis, and disagreements that we have then are what is going on on the gamethread.

We agree, disagree, get animated and passionate in our discussions/thoughts; but the one think we always do is that we show respect and never let it get out of hand.

And it's probably because we are there in person, face to face, and have gotten to know each other on a more personal level, developed friendships, and where one could get punched in the nose if they said some of the same things then as what is said in the gamethreads at times. :lol:

People can be bold, and also cowardly on the gamethread because they know no one can really do anything about it. Especially if you're on the west coast, and the individual you're sparring with is 2,000 miles away.

If everyone agreed all the time on the gamethread (and even in chat) it would be one boring place.

And it would also scare the hell out of me. ;)

The problem, as I see it, is a clash of diverse personalities/egos (being human). And there isn't a person on this forum who would deny what I am about to say....

There are some who think they know-it-all.... and you better listen to them. That is where alot of the "friction" comes AT TIMES.

Some have to be right, and you're an idiot if you disagree. They feel they must "educate" all the time.

And this comes also from the fact that there are different types/degrees of fans.

But we are still all fans!

Edskin
05-19-2006, 05:36 PM
The only thing I'll add here is that I do think there should be some sort of way to designate PBP duties for each game thread to a specific poster (2 at the most). A lot of times you'll get six posts relaying the same info, but at slightly different times, which confuses things and makes the pages fly by too quickly to process.

But who listens to me anyway :)

KronoRed
05-19-2006, 05:37 PM
If RZ is hiring a PBP guy, may I suggest Caveat Emperor as color analyst? :D

GAC
05-19-2006, 05:41 PM
Why don't we just choose 10-20 posters and let only them post. The rest of us can can just be thankful to be allowed on the site.

People want to be involved and part of the action, not sitting outside observing.

Spring~Fields
05-19-2006, 05:44 PM
If RZ is hiring a PBP guy, may I suggest Caveat Emperor as color analyst? :D

You finally said something after 40 thousand Dunn posts that I can agree with :devil: He is interesting and informative.

GAC
05-19-2006, 05:45 PM
As one of the ten, that works for me.

How did you get in? I never see you at any of the meetings.

And if so.... you are waaaaay behind on your monthly dues. ;)


I'm voting Puffy off the island though.:mooner:

Puffy is an island... or a rock. How'd that song go again? :lol:

Spring~Fields
05-19-2006, 05:48 PM
People want to be involved and part of the action, not sitting outside observing.

We the "people" love the Reds, we want to see each and every player excel and have great outcomes, we want the GM to walk on water, and the manager to be the slyest fox in the henhouse, how can we not grasp for the passion of the moment when things go good or bad for our team?

KronoRed
05-19-2006, 05:49 PM
You finally said something after 40 thousand Dunn posts that I can agree with :devil: He is interesting and informative.
I think I said something nice about Reggie Taylor once :devil:

Raisor
05-19-2006, 05:58 PM
How did you get in? I never see you at any of the meetings.



Dude, I am the ten.

All of them.

savafan
05-19-2006, 06:25 PM
I never see anyone in chat. Is there a different chat room being used than the one linked here on Redszone?

I think GAC (at least I think it was him, I'm too lazy to go back and look) made an excellent point about using your reputation giving powers to neg posts that you disagree with. The purpose of the rep system was to create better discussion here on Redszone, and simply saying anybody "sucks" without any other substance, that's not a quality post IMO. If I had more rep to hand out, I'd neg them all...problem is, by game time, I've usually given out my two positive (usually) reps for the day.

Mario-Rijo
05-19-2006, 07:35 PM
Well I think it's a step in the right direction that so many think that it's a problem. I have been posting in the game threads only just recently and have not really seen "the old way". My opinion and I'm sure some will really not like this idea, is to put the game thread exclusively on the ORG. Of course I don't really mind what we do as I enjoy paying attention to the game and throw in a point here and there with an occasional cheer or boo of some sort.

The reason I suggest this is that you are not flooded with constant negativity based purely on the numbers. Most can deal with a jab here or there, but when it's post after post etc. it gets aggravating real quick. Most on the ORG I would say have been around long enough that it actually means something to be right or at least are not completely horrified when someone challenges what they have said. Why? Because it's all about the betterment of the team and not about skipping around message boards trying to tick people off.

Granted, this idea stinks for some who don't have the 200 pts. yet who are true RZ's. But no one is saying they cannot have a game thread on Live it's just that it may not have many of the usual posters on it. And they won't have the advantage of it being a sticky, but with less traffic it will be in the top 5 threads during the game. They will also still be able to follow the game on ORG if they choose as it could be Solo-Moderation. Those posters who don't yet have those 200 rep pts. and who are true will eventually be right there, those who are not true will start to diminish in numbers as the fun goes out of for them.

But I will say this in closing. Bye no means am I insinuating that those with 199 and below rep points are neccesarily the problem and vice-versa. Because I have definitely seen it go both ways, some with 200+ rep points seem to be very critical an awful lot and some under the 200 are just the opposite. But if you thin it out it's more bearable for all.

TeamCasey
05-19-2006, 08:05 PM
Scarlet,

Do a lot of women have a problem with that size thing, or does content override?;)

:laugh: It's all how you "post" it, Honey!

TeamCasey
05-19-2006, 08:09 PM
But who listens to me anyway :)

Shut up, Ed! ;) :beerme:

RANDY IN INDY
05-19-2006, 08:46 PM
:laugh: It's all how you "post" it, Honey!

:evil:

cReds1
05-19-2006, 10:19 PM
Do they have an ignore feature on this site? I know it has worked well on other sites. I don't know if the MODs want to go this route, but you can get rid of certain posters with this feature. Too extreme?

reds44
05-19-2006, 11:44 PM
My 2 cents:

I know I haven't been a board fan favorite the past couple weeks, and I am trying to change that.

Game threads are going to be game threads. When something bad happens people are going to have knee-jerk reactions. It is part of the game. Honestly their are only 3 problem I see in the game threads.

1. Beating the Adam Dunn issue over and over and over again. I myself have done this, but it is clear by now that you have your Dunn supporters, and you have your Dunn haters. There are a few main guys that are always the ones doing the arguments. I am one of them, and I will try to do a better job of not starting/contributin to them.

2. Any ball that comes close to Griffey that he doesn't catch is automatically because he is a terrible fielder. Some people are educated at what they say, and others have no idea what they are talking about. It is always Freel or Deno would have easily caught it.

3. (Kind of goes along with number 2) Changing positions. Griffey to LF/1B, Adam Dunn to 1B, Felipe to 2B, BP to SS, Deno should be in CF, yadda yadda. I guess everyone not named Austin Kearns is playing the wrong position on this team.

If you want to actually follow along with a game clearly, and not have to work to find out what is going on, then a game thread probably isn't for you. You are going to have people screaming and yelling and you also are going to have 6 random conversations going on at the same time. Tonight I thought was one of the better gamethreads, and for the most part I tried to keep it updated. I hope it helped.

savafan
05-20-2006, 12:08 AM
BP to SS

Who's going from the bullpen to shortstop? :confused:

CrackerJack
05-20-2006, 12:10 AM
All I know is that Dunn K's too much and isn't a clutch hitter. Don't know about the rest of y'all.

Chip R
05-20-2006, 12:12 AM
Who's going from the bullpen to shortstop? :confused:

Dude, he meant Batting Practice. :lol:

paintmered
05-20-2006, 12:24 AM
All I know is that Dunn K's too much and isn't a clutch hitter. Don't know about the rest of y'all.

This thread hijacking has been brought to you by the letter R and the number 4.

TOBTTReds
05-20-2006, 12:32 AM
I personally have never really looked at the game threads except the walk off Jr. HR just to see the reactions. But usually it is just too much of a jumble. Personally I think that only about 5 people should be designated to post on a game thread for each night. Just my 2 cents.

savafan
05-20-2006, 12:43 AM
This thread hijacking has been brought to you by the letter R and the number 4.

You could call it a crackerjacking.

reds44
05-20-2006, 01:11 AM
I personally have never really looked at the game threads except the walk off Jr. HR just to see the reactions. But usually it is just too much of a jumble. Personally I think that only about 5 people should be designated to post on a game thread for each night. Just my 2 cents.
You can't do that.

If you want to have one with 5 people posting in a game thread and another with everyone else that is fine (a bad idea, but sure why not) but you can't just have 1 game thread and allow only 5 people to post in it.

Go to any other baseball site A. they don't have split forums and B. game threads are open to everyone.

savafan
05-20-2006, 01:18 AM
Ever read the book Sneetches by Dr. Seuss? ;)

TOBTTReds
05-20-2006, 01:43 AM
You can't do that.

If you want to have one with 5 people posting in a game thread and another with everyone else that is fine (a bad idea, but sure why not) but you can't just have 1 game thread and allow only 5 people to post in it.

Go to any other baseball site A. they don't have split forums and B. game threads are open to everyone.

OK,

A. We don't have to follow the leader.

B. We can have one thread for people to be informed where a select few are chosen each night on ORG, and one for discussion (maybe on Live). Choose your thread.

C. Thanks for the 'tude.:rant2:

reds44
05-20-2006, 01:50 AM
First of all there wasn't any attitude. Second of all, I agree that a seperate thread for just play by play is a good idea.

All I was saying was you can't only have 1 game thread and allow only a certain number of people to post in it. Thats it.

KronoRed
05-20-2006, 02:05 AM
All I know is that Dunn K's too much and isn't a clutch hitter. Don't know about the rest of y'all.
No such thing as too many K's or clutch

:D

TOBTTReds
05-20-2006, 02:23 AM
First of all there wasn't any attitude. Second of all, I agree that a seperate thread for just play by play is a good idea.

All I was saying was you can't only have 1 game thread and allow only a certain number of people to post in it. Thats it.

Maybe it is just the list thing I dont like. sorry.

I think the pbp thread is what I was getting at by having only a few post. A couple for pbp, a couple for commentary, like a real broadcast, thread style.

reds44
05-20-2006, 02:25 AM
Maybe it is just the list thing I dont like. sorry.

I think the pbp thread is what I was getting at by having only a few post. A couple for pbp, a couple for commentary, like a real broadcast, thread style.
Oh sorry I do that for alot of my posts where I make multipe post. Didn't want to show any attitude.

Cyclone792
05-20-2006, 02:56 AM
Go to any other baseball site A. they don't have split forums and B. game threads are open to everyone.

I'd like to introduce you to Sons of Sam Horn (http://sonsofsamhorn.net/), a baseball site and forum with some of the most diehard and crazy Boston Red Sox fans you'll ever meet. If you're a Boston Red Sox fan, and you want to post on the best Boston Red Sox fan forum site, SoSH is the place you want to be.

Feel free to register and attempt to post in their game threads. In fact, feel free to register and attempt to post anywhere in their forum.

But hey, I'll be nice to ya and save ya the trouble ;) You won't be able to post at all. Not game threads, not in their baseball discussion, not anywhere.

SoSH is a tight knit community and is very strict about who they allow to post in their forum. I wouldn't at all recommend for RedsZone to be ran like that, but it is how the folks who run SoSH have decided to run their ship, and they've found that their system works for them how they want it to work.

dsmith421
05-20-2006, 04:38 AM
For the record, I think r44 made some excellent points, and, although he and I have clashed in the past, I think he's a good addition to RZ.

GAC
05-20-2006, 06:15 AM
What I don't understand is if there are those that just want game updates/highlights, why they would ever want to use the gamethread as that source when they can go to so many other sports sites, such as the Red's official one, and get that info at any time?

The gamethreads were started for the sole purpose of what we are seeing now.

The only way you are going to bring "order" to the gamethread - and I am referring to the elimination of repetitive posts, better pbp, etc., is to no longer make it an open thread where anyone can post.

I'm not recommending or suggesting that, just saying that is the only way it would be accomplished.

As far as the discussions (and disagreements) that go on there.... let'em go. That is what fans do. The gamethread is simply a "reflection" of Redszone condensed.

I respond to those posts that I want to.... and ignore the rest. And unless someone is really getting out of hand, inwhich a mod then needs to step in, then I wouldn't change anything except to somehow include a score update in the title of the thread.

But there is no way you can appoint one or two people to do pbp and not expect others to still chime in as long as it's an "open" thread. An impossible task/request.

savafan
05-20-2006, 06:26 AM
I think paintmered has been doing a pretty good job lately of trying to keep people in line on the game threads. Honestly, I don't know what more he could do without resulting to permanently banning everyone who gets upset during the game.

What some people seem to be asking is almost like sitting in a bar watching the game and the bartender comes over and tells you that you can't make any negative comments today or you're going to have to go home.

oneupper
05-20-2006, 08:05 AM
The GameThread serves two purposes, IMO. Entertainment (for those posting) and Information (for those with no other media access to the game). The game thread becomes MORE important for day games (people at work) and home games (blackouts), which is probably when the most experienced posters are unavailable.

Unfortunately the first objective gets in the way of the second.
If not for the information "value" of the thread, it would, as GAC states, be better played out in chat. But then...posting that chat? Useless.

My suggestion would be for now to leave the thread at RL...but making an effort to "designate a pbp guy" as in "Who's going to do pbp?" ....and nudging the "conversationists" over to chat (where GAC is waiting with open keyboard) as in "hey guys...take it over to chat?" (take it outside).

RFS62
05-20-2006, 08:55 AM
What some people seem to be asking is almost like sitting in a bar watching the game and the bartender comes over and tells you that you can't make any negative comments today or you're going to have to go home.



The sports bar analogy is one I've always liked regarding RedsZone.

I'd modify what you said a little Sava. I think it's more like the bartender coming over and telling a group of drunks that they can't jump up on the bar and yell and scream and turn it into a mosh pit.

It's all about what kind of bar you want to run here.

deltachi8
05-20-2006, 09:37 AM
Ever read the book Sneetches by Dr. Seuss? ;)

perhapps my favorite book....

Wheelhouse
05-20-2006, 11:54 AM
OK.

I'm going into my grumpy old man mode now.

In years past, the game threads were a joy. Seriously, i enjoyed them. Intelligent baseball fans gathered there to do pbp, joke and discuss the game in a (somewhat) rational manner. Of course, it might be my memory failing--like my Dad's walks to school "uphill both ways barefoot."

Still, I can't help it. Today's thread was a lot like most of them since they have gone exclusively to the "Reds Live" board. Everyone sucks on the team. Dunn, Griffey, and Kearns either need to switch positions or be traded. You get the idea. Long-time members like Creek, Stormy, Cougarquest, RILA, RFS62 etc. don't even come around. I spent my first whole game in the game thread today out of necessity--I had no TV or radio coverage at work. And it was non-uplifting. I threw my stapler at the monitor more than once. We won, but I felt like everyone sucked, so it didn't matter.

Was it a mistake having the game thread only on the RL side? It seemed to be a good idea at first, but now I don't know. I'd like my RedsZone back.

Why can't there be two game threads?

reds44
05-20-2006, 12:46 PM
For the record, I think r44 made some excellent points, and, although he and I have clashed in the past, I think he's a good addition to RZ.
Thanks man, you definately are a good poster on redsozone yourself; just look at how much rep you have with how few posts you have.

Keep it up! :thumbup:

GAC
05-20-2006, 01:12 PM
The GameThread serves two purposes, IMO. Entertainment (for those posting) and Information (for those with no other media access to the game).

Unfortunately the first objective gets in the way of the second.

And you just nailed it right there.

And I really don't see any way it which this situation can be reconciled without "hurting" either one of the above groups.


If not for the information "value" of the thread, it would, as GAC states, be better played out in chat.

Again I agree; but some, for whatever reasons, have a "hangup" concerning chat. It has some great features, including a "BRB" option that allows you to stay logged on in chat while you do other things.

I do wish we could add a page headliner that could carry the inning/score in chat. But then you'd have to insure that someone in chat has the capability to update it (I would be more then happy to volunteer for this if it is possible).

We have an awful lot of people who do "pop" into chat, or those who are in chat who walk away from the computer for a bit, who ask for updates on the inning and score, and the above would be a HUGE help.

KittyDuran
05-20-2006, 02:52 PM
I do wish we could add a page headliner that could carry the inning/score in chat. But then you'd have to insure that someone in chat has the capability to update it (I would be more then happy to volunteer for this if it is possible). We had that before in chat, didn't we? Speaking of chat... it was hoppin' last night! :beerme: Between remembering quotes from "Ghostbusters" to TC and me flashing to shakin' down the newbies - a good time was had by all! :thumbup:

SandyD
05-20-2006, 03:17 PM
Just some thoughts:

The "chat" like responses are what brings the game thread down IMO. Say you have 10 people sitting at a bar and watching a game. Something happens and everyone reacts. Waving at the screen if it's bad, moaning, expletives and such abound. Takes a few seconds.

In the game thread, if all of those people post their reaction, that's 10 posts of nothing more that "That was dumb" or "why did he do that" or "come on" if it's bad. Or 10 posts of "Woo Hoo" or something like it if it's good. That might be followed by 10 more posts of "Freel got picked off" or "HR Kearnsy" or something like it.

I submit that the biggest problem is there are too many people making too many posts. If we all think a bit before we post, that might improve. The game threads "used to be" a fun read if you missed a game. I can't imagine trying to or even wanting to read one of the recent ones after the game is over. It's real time or nothing. That's a bit of a shame.

Reacting like the entire season hangs in the balance on every pitch is a bit over the top, too. It's May. The season is still young. A lot more baseball to be played. And this team has been fun to watch this year ... warts and all. Truthfully, that's all we could ask for this year. Anything else is lagniappe.

Not sure what the mods and admins can do about it. Truthfully, sometimes I think we rely too much on them to "control" our behavior. Most of us are adults here, and we shouldn't need babysitters.

CTA513
05-20-2006, 03:58 PM
Have 2 game threads.
One in which only a play by play person can post in and the second one in which everyone can post in. That way everyone who complains about people posting in the game thread can just check the play by play thread.

SandyD
05-20-2006, 04:03 PM
I'm not crazy about the PBP only idea. There's room for some commentary. Some discussion. And even some reaction. Some wide-eyed visions of post season play and some hammer-on-the-head criticism. Right now, it's just a bit too much of too many things.

Falls City Beer
05-20-2006, 04:16 PM
I think the only way you can make the game thread more of a country club atmosphere is to prevent them from being held on Reds Live. That would require mods repeatedly having to shut them down, but if you want the unwashed masses and their comments off the game threads, then they're going to have be limited to ORG.

If you don't mind my asking: why can't people who want game threads to improve post on them more often?

Just a thought.

CTA513
05-20-2006, 04:17 PM
I'm not crazy about the PBP only idea. There's room for some commentary. Some discussion. And even some reaction. Some wide-eyed visions of post season play and some hammer-on-the-head criticism. Right now, it's just a bit too much of too many things.

Do we make a post and vote on who can post in the game threads?

:beerme:

REDREAD
05-20-2006, 04:25 PM
How about everyone that is unhappy about the game thread start a second thread with their own special rules? If enough people agree with them, it will thrive, otherwise it won't.

SandyD
05-20-2006, 04:27 PM
I don't post much on the game threads because I'm rarely around for the entire game, and just can't keep up with them. Personally, I rarely open them anymore. Thoughtful posts just get lost in there, IMO. More posts isn't the answer. More thought before posting is.

I don't want to see game threads on ORG exclusively. Might be worth a try to have a separate one on ORG. Just not sure how active it would be. Or if it would solve the problem.

CrackerJack
05-20-2006, 04:57 PM
The RedsZone Ten are demanding exclusive game threads to serve their own purposes!! :)

Tyrants!

But seriously, I really don't know what all the fuss is about - let people get excited and enjoy and react - there's enough pbp and commentary included in those that I don't think it's a problem really.

If anything, just wish people (myself included) would not post one-line reactions every few seconds - I try to spread that stuff out over time and not clutter up the thread constantly, and limit it to big plays only. Not sure about others.

The "Dunn SuCks!!!" type of comments seem to be fairly rare.

KronoRed
05-20-2006, 05:14 PM
The "Dunn SuCks!!!" type of comments seem to be fairly rare.
Not really, they happen after every at bat if his, he hit a homer last night they happened :confused:

KronoRed
05-20-2006, 05:14 PM
Honestly, I don't know what more he could do without resulting to permanently banning everyone who gets upset during the game.

Great idea :devil:

Seriously, why not 2 game threads? keep the noise down a bit because it will be in 2 places, also easier to moderate.

BCubb2003
05-20-2006, 05:30 PM
I vote for not doing anything drastic, just adding more play by play if possible, and hoping that people will on their own cut down on some of their more repetitive posts, as several people have already admitted to. Give folks a chance to raise their own performances before any heavy-duty rules are imposed.

Falls City Beer
05-20-2006, 05:38 PM
Message boards are ruthlessly democratic--make your intelligent voice heard if you demand change. Staying away from them while they're being made, and then grousing about the decline in quality after the fact seems a bit backwards to me.

It's like what Smokey Bear always said: "Only YOU can improve game threads. Only you."

membengal
05-20-2006, 06:12 PM
Not really, they happen after every at bat if his, he hit a homer last night they happened :confused:

It has gotten so bad it is happening after almost every pitch. Ranging from "He sucks! Why did he take that?" to "He sucks! Why did he swing at that?"

To call it tiresome is to a disservice to the word tiresome.

UKFlounder
05-20-2006, 07:18 PM
Just some thoughts:

The "chat" like responses are what brings the game thread down IMO. Say you have 10 people sitting at a bar and watching a game. Something happens and everyone reacts. Waving at the screen if it's bad, moaning, expletives and such abound. Takes a few seconds.

In the game thread, if all of those people post their reaction, that's 10 posts of nothing more that "That was dumb" or "why did he do that" or "come on" if it's bad. Or 10 posts of "Woo Hoo" or something like it if it's good. That might be followed by 10 more posts of "Freel got picked off" or "HR Kearnsy" or something like it.

I submit that the biggest problem is there are too many people making too many posts. If we all think a bit before we post, that might improve. The game threads "used to be" a fun read if you missed a game. I can't imagine trying to or even wanting to read one of the recent ones after the game is over. It's real time or nothing. That's a bit of a shame.

Reacting like the entire season hangs in the balance on every pitch is a bit over the top, too. It's May. The season is still young. A lot more baseball to be played. And this team has been fun to watch this year ... warts and all. Truthfully, that's all we could ask for this year. Anything else is lagniappe.

Not sure what the mods and admins can do about it. Truthfully, sometimes I think we rely too much on them to "control" our behavior. Most of us are adults here, and we shouldn't need babysitters.


Great post here, and I agree that too many "chat-like" posts are the issue, but I don't see any solution, as I feel game threads exist for that type of comments (and I see the same thing happening in game threads for college basketball or football as well.)

It's frustrating when you see several "way to go" posts with some pbp sandwiched in between, but if people can't react to game situations by posting their comments, then why would they come to a game thread?

I guess some people want only to read them & follow the game, and that's how I usually am, but that's where the others sites become useful.

Game threads are for fans to be fans, IMO, and having so many reactions to each play is just a natural happening.

WVRedsFan
05-20-2006, 07:22 PM
Message boards are ruthlessly democratic--make your intelligent voice heard if you demand change. Staying away from them while they're being made, and then grousing about the decline in quality after the fact seems a bit backwards to me.

It's like what Smokey Bear always said: "Only YOU can improve game threads. Only you."

FCB:

I totally agree, but the "suck" messages are so many and frequent that it would take a concerted effort by several mambers to combat it. And I don't see any sentiment for that.

I'll be the first to say that, yes, some players on this team give me a gigantic case of heartburn. They do dumb things and cost us ballgames. It's one thing to say, "that was a stupid move." It's quite another to say, "we suck, Dunn sucks, Griffey sucks, and Williams sucks." Constantly. I'd like to see a little intelligence back on the game threads. I suspect that folks like Creek, Stormy, and RFS62 stay away because of the tone of the conversation. I may be wrong, but those folks are MIA on the baseball board. The board is poorer for it.

Unassisted
05-20-2006, 11:50 PM
FCB:

I totally agree, but the "suck" messages are so many and frequent that it would take a concerted effort by several mambers to combat it. And I don't see any sentiment for that.

I'll be the first to say that, yes, some players on this team give me a gigantic case of heartburn. They do dumb things and cost us ballgames. It's one thing to say, "that was a stupid move." It's quite another to say, "we suck, Dunn sucks, Griffey sucks, and Williams sucks." Constantly. I'd like to see a little intelligence back on the game threads. I suspect that folks like Creek, Stormy, and RFS62 stay away because of the tone of the conversation. I may be wrong, but those folks are MIA on the baseball board. The board is poorer for it.Maybe that word should be added to the forbidden word filter? Those who rely on it might think that a petty solution, but if it improves the tone of the board, why not?

redsrule2500
05-21-2006, 12:40 AM
You don't like the negativity?

OnBaseMachine
05-21-2006, 01:10 AM
I'm tired of people saying the game is over when the Reds fall behind early, or overreacting when Weathers blows a save. ;) :mooner:

I feel that I have been contributing to ruining these game threads over the last few weeks. I don't know what has gotten into me this year but lately I have been getting more frustrated than I use to...leading to me making impulsive posts. Maybe it's the lack of sleep from working third shift, or maybe my expectations are higher this year now that we have a new regime in place. I don't want to be known as the doomster who disrupts the game threads with heat of the moment posts. I will tone it down, I promise. :)

I've noticed that some of the more respected posters who usually participate in the game threads have been absent from them lately - guys like pedro, woy, MWM and so on. I don't want to speak for them, but they are probably frustrated with the game threads lately, and I hope that's not because of me. Hopefully we can clean these threads up a bit and get some of the older posters back.

The Baumer
05-21-2006, 04:28 AM
I've noticed that some of the more respected posters who usually participate in the game threads have been absent from them lately - guys like The Baumer, pedro, woy, MWM, The Baumer and so on.

Sorry I've tried my best to make the game day threads but sometimes my mlb.tv is a few seconds behind the people doing PBP. To re-state what has just happened would be a little too redundant IMO. I'm happy just being thane.

Topcat
05-21-2006, 05:39 AM
I just read them almost always but its a true example of people reacting to a situation and not totally grasping that this is a 162 game situation. I have loved how the Reds are competing far beyond what I have expected. 85 wins and Krivsky goin forward to me will be a spectacular year! My tongue biter for the year though is how Brandon Phillips gets ripped on. Godd god he is young and can improve and he came cheap and can field. Get off his back and enjoy the chance at hope!

dsmith421
05-21-2006, 07:57 AM
If you don't mind my asking: why can't people who want game threads to improve post on them more often?



Since I'm one of the complainers, I'll answer this. I live in Nevada and have a 30-minute commute from work to home. Due to time difference, I miss the first six innings of more or less every game and, as a result, getting the Extra Innings package would be a waste. I should post more often, but it's occasionally not tenable. The game threads keep me updated.

GAC
05-21-2006, 09:21 AM
We had that before in chat, didn't we?

Yes, we did. But somehow when we changed/updated the chat software, because we were having trouble with it, we lost that feature.

I wish we could bring it back.


Speaking of chat... it was hoppin' last night! :beerme: Between remembering quotes from "Ghostbusters" to TC and me flashing to shakin' down the newbies - a good time was had by all! :thumbup:

Yes, it was hoppin'....

Ghostbuster talk, pbp, and solid conversation about lopsided breasts! :lol:

I missed Saturday night. Laid down to watch "Make My Saturday" (Eastwood marathon) and fell asleep. Woke up around 11 PM.

Turned on ESPN's Baseball Tonight and saw Jr's GS and thought we may have won.

Then I saw the Weather's/Lopez highlight and went back to sleep.

Red in Chicago
05-21-2006, 09:27 AM
We had that before in chat, didn't we? Speaking of chat... it was hoppin' last night! :beerme: Between remembering quotes from "Ghostbusters" to TC and me flashing to shakin' down the newbies - a good time was had by all! :thumbup:

is there a different chat room other than the link at the top of our screens? i checked in a couple of times and no one was there...maybe too early, or i'm doing something wrong?

KittyDuran
05-21-2006, 10:27 AM
is there a different chat room other than the link at the top of our screens? i checked in a couple of times and no one was there...maybe too early, or i'm doing something wrong?RIC, there wasn't anyone in chat last night. I checked after you did. Hopefully, we'll have some for today's game, tho' I'll be at work.

TeamCasey
05-21-2006, 12:08 PM
Good crowd Friday night. No one in there last night. I would have come in but I was channel surfing between the game and a movie.

Falls City Beer
05-21-2006, 12:17 PM
I'm happy just being thane.

Archduke is within your reach.

KittyDuran
05-21-2006, 12:55 PM
Good crowd Friday night. No one in there last night. I would have come in but I was channel surfing between the game and a movie.So was I... the game and "Top Hat" on TCM...

RedFanAlways1966
05-21-2006, 01:36 PM
My POV on game threads...

If people try to use the game thread after the game is over to see what happened, they can go to mlb.com or espn.com and get the straight dope in that regard. They show every at-bat in a very simple way that is easy to read.

I tend to hang in the game thread when I can. I tend to watch/listen to a lot of REDS games by myself (while the rest of the family watches their reality junk!). The game thread makes me feel as though I am hangin' with other REDS junkies like myself. There are always worthless comments and stupid comments (e.g. Player X sucks), but I just ignore those comments b/c I think those who make them are looking for attention from the other RZ members. Most have been here long enough to understand that comments like that will get grief and if you make them then you are a poor-poor attention starved person. I try not to give these attention-needers what they want. I hope too much of this from an attention-needer will get the attention of the mods, who are good at taking care of this crap.

Just my take and I think it should be left as it is today. :)

Boss-Hog
05-21-2006, 01:53 PM
After reading this thread, I have no problem with allowing a game thread to exist in the ORG. I was one of the people who was in favor of moving it to Reds Live to give everyone a chance to respond, but I've seen what the game threads look like there and it's not pretty. So, while I think it's not exactly ideal to have two game threads in separate forums, that seems like a much better solution than the status quo and it hopefully make the ORG a more active forum. Starting today, you may have a game thread in the Old Red Guard.

vaticanplum
05-21-2006, 09:27 PM
Well, a lot of how I feel has already been covered, but I want to put in my two cents since I was one of the ones complaining about the game threads the other day. That notwithstanding, I DO enjoy game threads a lot and I like the format of them (Reds Live, everyone can post). Two game threads I think would be too much for me and I don't think it solves the problem; one of them would inherently deteriorate even further in quality. I don't mind one-word posts; i don't even mind people venting. Sometimes, in fact, it's superfunny and expresses exactly the way I feel. But the two things that bother me are:

1. the excessive attention on one player or issue. lately it's been Dunn getting a lot of this wrath. The thing that bothers me about this is that if someone has a legitimate issue with Dunn and his strikeouts/at-bats with RISP/[insert mundane issue here], then that person is perfectly at liberty to start a new thread to explore this issue in-depth (which I am then perfectly at liberty to ignore). I would truly rather see a post in a game thread that says "OH CRAP HE DROPPED THE BALL I'M GOING TO SHOOT MYSELF" than a back-and-forth match about a larger issue of Adam Dunn's fundamental baseball skills, simply because the former is more of why a game thread exists. These issues not only detract from the quality of the thread and raise issues in which I am personally not interested, but they lose the thread of the game, so to speak.

which brings me to my second problem...

2. Some of us do actually use the game threads to follow the games. In my case, I keep a window up for gameday and a window up for the game thread while I try to get work done. I enjoy the "color commentary", or else I'd stick only to gameday. But, as someone else mentioned, it drives me bananas when someone informs me that the game is over and I start shouting at the gameday men for once again being slow, when it turns out that in truth the game thread has lied to me (my gameday men are very abused and I hold some of you personally responsible). So I am in the thread to follow the game and share it with fellow Reds fans. I am not in there for fake commentary nor for an in-depth analysis of any baseball player, which is an issue that can be better and more fairly explored in another thread after the game is over. Vent your frustrations on the fact that Adam Dunn's strikeout ended the game, fine. Vent your frustrations that Adam Dunn CAN NEVER SCORERI WITH RISPSSS and SUX and NEEDS TO BE TRADED NOW, go somewhere else and arm yourself with stats or eloquence to back up your assertions. It's a fine line, but I think we can all see it pretty clearly.

Chat might be a good idea I guess, but I'm scared of chat. I think I harbor bad ideas about it since it always seems like small children are getting kidnapped straight out of chat rooms. I have never been in a chat room or instant messaged in my life. I feel that if I went into a chat board, someone could see me. This may be irrational, but you're unlikely to convince me otherwise, so I'd like to keep chat-like game boards.

KittyDuran
05-21-2006, 09:53 PM
Chat might be a good idea I guess, but I'm scared of chat. I think I harbor bad ideas about it since it always seems like small children are getting kidnapped straight out of chat rooms. I have never been in a chat room or instant messaged in my life. I feel that if I went into a chat board, someone could see me. This may be irrational, but you're unlikely to convince me otherwise, so I'd like to keep chat-like game boards.
If it makes you feel any better, the RedsZone chat is the ONLY chat that I participate in. :)

Yachtzee
05-21-2006, 10:35 PM
Chat might be a good idea I guess, but I'm scared of chat. I think I harbor bad ideas about it since it always seems like small children are getting kidnapped straight out of chat rooms. I have never been in a chat room or instant messaged in my life. I feel that if I went into a chat board, someone could see me. This may be irrational, but you're unlikely to convince me otherwise, so I'd like to keep chat-like game boards.

The chat-room at Redszone is like the game thread, only real-time. Children don't get kidnapped out of chat-rooms. They may meet people in chat rooms who will attempt to lure them somewhere to meet, but it's the same way with message boards and the ability to PM. You're fine as long as you don't give out your personal info.

Personally, I don't like chat or IM myself. I find it usually distracts me from what I'm supposed to be working on. However, I do like Redszone Chat, because it somewhat simulates the experience of being at the game with a bunch of friends. You watch/listen to the game and have running commentary, which sometimes goes off onto wild tangents, but it's fun.

vaticanplum
05-21-2006, 10:39 PM
The chat-room at Redszone is like the game thread, only real-time. Children don't get kidnapped out of chat-rooms. They may meet people in chat rooms who will attempt to lure them somewhere to meet, but it's the same way with message boards and the ability to PM. You're fine as long as you don't give out your personal info.

Personally, I don't like chat or IM myself. I find it usually distracts me from what I'm supposed to be working on. However, I do like Redszone Chat, because it somewhat simulates the experience of being at the game with a bunch of friends. You watch/listen to the game and have running commentary, which sometimes goes off onto wild tangents, but it's fun.

See, you guys are trying to use "logic" and "technology" to convince the luddites who are too confused by the word "room" to understand what a chat room actually is.

remdog
05-21-2006, 11:26 PM
]See, you guys are trying to use "logic" and "technology" to convince the luddites who are too confused by the word "room" to understand what a chat room actually is.

I feel that if I went into a chat board, someone could see me. This may be irrational, but you're unlikely to convince me otherwise, so I'd like to keep chat-like game boards.

OK, then let me explain it to you this way: a chat room and a bulletin board are two very different channels and they serve two different needs/purposes. If you, not being able to deal with your irrational behavior, want to turn a bulletin board into a chat room but won't enter a chat room then you're doing a disservice to both yourself and the users of the bulletin board and chat room.

Rem

smith288
05-22-2006, 01:46 PM
Yes, we did. But somehow when we changed/updated the chat software, because we were having trouble with it, we lost that feature.

I wish we could bring it back.



Yes, it was hoppin'....

Ghostbuster talk, pbp, and solid conversation about lopsided breasts! :lol:

I missed Saturday night. Laid down to watch "Make My Saturday" (Eastwood marathon) and fell asleep. Woke up around 11 PM.

Turned on ESPN's Baseball Tonight and saw Jr's GS and thought we may have won.

Then I saw the Weather's/Lopez highlight and went back to sleep.
Man...I need to make it back to chat! Last time I was there at gametime it was a ghosttown... you all only come out when I aint there or something?

smith288
05-22-2006, 01:51 PM
Chat might be a good idea I guess, but I'm scared of chat. I think I harbor bad ideas about it since it always seems like small children are getting kidnapped straight out of chat rooms. I have never been in a chat room or instant messaged in my life. I feel that if I went into a chat board, someone could see me. This may be irrational, but you're unlikely to convince me otherwise, so I'd like to keep chat-like game boards.

Actually, Boss installed a proxy on the forum that can see YOU through your monitors little green power light... Be afraid...be veeeery afraid. :evil:

Jk of course. The chat is simply the same thing as the game thread without the need to press F5 or refresh. Seriously, nothing at all different.

Joseph
05-22-2006, 02:06 PM
I concur that chat is a better feature for general chatting while watching the game 'together'.

Likewise I'm very pleased Boss allowed the return of the ORG game thread as I felt it was less cluttered and had more discussion going on instead of cheering/booing.

KittyDuran
05-22-2006, 02:37 PM
I concur that chat is a better feature for general chatting while watching the game 'together'.

Likewise I'm very pleased Boss allowed the return of the ORG game thread as I felt it was less cluttered and had more discussion going on instead of cheering/booing.Yeah, but it's a pain in the :mooner: to go from one thread to another...:thumbdown.

Reds1
05-22-2006, 02:38 PM
Maybe keep the game thread on RL and then do a play by play thread on OG. I personally watch 90 percent of the games on TV, but if I do miss the game I like going to the game thread, but I will admit there is pages and pages of stuff you have to gloss over. I might laugh or cry, but we all have opinions. I'm a play by play guy though. Just a thought.

edit. Looks like this has been done already. I'll have to check it out.

Go Reds

M2
05-22-2006, 02:40 PM
Likewise I'm very pleased Boss allowed the return of the ORG game thread as I felt it was less cluttered and had more discussion going on instead of cheering/booing.

I liked it too.

Just tossing out an idea but why not limit the game threads to ORG and make chat the alternate avenue?

It seems the rolling complaint is that game threads on Reds Live! devolve into any number of undesirable things. So why have game threads there? It would make graduation to the ORG a little more attractive as well. Since chat is already an option it's not like non-ORG members would be shut out from any sort of interaction with Reds fans during the game.

Heath
05-22-2006, 04:02 PM
Wasn't there even some brief nudity in Chat?

Chat's a wild place. Krono and GAC "live and in person" is a scary event. At somepoint there's even going to be face-to-face contact, and that will be a day that Cincy burns! :D

I'm not sure of the babysitting that GAC & TB want to get inolved with -

REDREAD
05-22-2006, 04:07 PM
I liked it too.

Just tossing out an idea but why not limit the game threads to ORG and make chat the alternate avenue?
.

The only downside to that is that Chat is real time only. Sometimes after a game is over, I like to read through a game thread to see what I missed. If the open game thread is chat only, I won't be able to read it after the game is over.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I like the cheering and the angst. I guess I read maybe 85% of the game thread and skip the other 15%. If all I wanted was the facts about what happened on the game, it's a lot easier to find a game log. I like reading the fan drama/reactions (or at least most of it).

Falls City Beer
05-22-2006, 04:16 PM
It just goes to show you; the worst in human tendencies isn't curbed by "taking away" the political/religious threads.

Incuriosity under any cloak is incuriosity. And facts used to defend conclusions are going to forever be called into question.

The irony is that I think great debates can arise from the frustrations of parsing anecdotal evidence, impressions, and sensations; the trouble is, some are willing to investigate beyond their gut sensations, while others trust their gut to the exclusion of (almost) every other faculty.



No one's asking for anyone to bring a howitzer of facts to the battle, only to bring a bit of curiosity. An understanding that what we don't know is probably far more valuable than what we do.

Well crap, wrong thread.

M2
05-22-2006, 05:07 PM
The only downside to that is that Chat is real time only. Sometimes after a game is over, I like to read through a game thread to see what I missed. If the open game thread is chat only, I won't be able to read it after the game is over.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I like the cheering and the angst. I guess I read maybe 85% of the game thread and skip the other 15%. If all I wanted was the facts about what happened on the game, it's a lot easier to find a game log. I like reading the fan drama/reactions (or at least most of it).

An ORG game thread would be readable by everybody, just not open for posting to everybody. My guess is it would have just about everything you like with a minimum on the junk that seems to be working its way under people's skins.

Unassisted
05-22-2006, 06:09 PM
I liked it too.

Just tossing out an idea but why not limit the game threads to ORG and make chat the alternate avenue?It's a good concept for all the reasons you mentioned.

But I think the Reds Live crowd would be unable to resist the temptation to make in-game comments with posts on the board. That bubbling-over enthusiasm would probably lead to threads being started down there with scintillating topics like "That Last At-Bat by Dunn" or "Can You Believe Lopez Missed that One?" :help:

KronoRed
05-22-2006, 07:15 PM
The only downside to that is that Chat is real time only. Sometimes after a game is over, I like to read through a game thread to see what I missed. If the open game thread is chat only, I won't be able to read it after the game is over.

Chat can be saved in a large Text file, maybe posted to the board at a later date :dunno:

reds44
05-22-2006, 07:36 PM
Another reason I don't like chat is if we are behind on MLB.TV like I am, it kind of spoils what happend.

TeamCasey
05-22-2006, 08:42 PM
What happens in chat stays in chat!

KronoRed
05-22-2006, 08:44 PM
What happens in chat stays in chat!
Not uh :devil:

M2
05-22-2006, 09:00 PM
It's a good concept for all the reasons you mentioned.

But I think the Reds Live crowd would be unable to resist the temptation to make in-game comments with posts on the board. That bubbling-over enthusiasm would probably lead to threads being started down there with scintillating topics like "That Last At-Bat by Dunn" or "Can You Believe Lopez Missed that One?" :help:

Good point.

Raisor
05-22-2006, 10:42 PM
What happens in chat stays in chat!


:wave:

deltachi8
05-22-2006, 11:39 PM
I really think you should just proceed with getting rid of people that you find offensive and taking the board that way. It just seems that what many want, so go for it.

savafan
05-22-2006, 11:51 PM
I really think you should just proceed with getting rid of people that you find offensive and taking the board that way. It just seems that what many want, so go for it.

Has anyone been banned through the reputation system?

paintmered
05-22-2006, 11:56 PM
Has anyone been banned through the reputation system?

Directly? No.

But a signifigant negative reputation score usually compliments other bannable behaviors. So one way or another they get thrown out.

Cedric
05-23-2006, 12:41 AM
I wouldn't worry about bannings, certain people that troll flame out early.

WVRedsFan
05-23-2006, 01:20 AM
Since I started this whole discussion of game threads, I'd like to say that the ORG game thread is so much better than what we had in Live. In fact, I've gone over into Live the last two days to compare. If they want a game thread over there, I don't care, but leave one here. It's been wonderful.

reds44
05-23-2006, 01:23 AM
Since I started this whole discussion of game threads, I'd like to say that the ORG game thread is so much better than what we had in Live. In fact, I've gone over into Live the last two days to compare. If they want a game thread over there, I don't care, but leave one here. It's been wonderful.
I agree. I have absolutely loved the ORG game thread.

KronoRed
05-23-2006, 01:39 AM
Directly? No.

But a signifigant negative reputation score usually compliments other bannable behaviors. So one way or another they get thrown out.
Is it possible for a low neg score to result in a ban?

paintmered
05-23-2006, 08:42 AM
Is it possible for a low neg score to result in a ban?

I think it can be set up but currently isn't. I don't really think we need this feature enabled though. We really don't ban but a handful or two a year.

savafan
05-23-2006, 11:33 AM
I think it can be set up but currently isn't. I don't really think we need this feature enabled though. We really don't ban but a handful or two a year.

I thought the way it was set up originally, some crazy number like a rep of -100 resulted in a ban, but like you said previously, if the rep is on the downward slide, usually they do something to get themselves banned before the rep gets near that low. I may be wrong about this, that's just what I think I recall.

M2
05-23-2006, 02:01 PM
Plus, the point of negative rep isn't to get someone banned. Hopefully if someone has a ridiculously low negative rep they figure out that they need to make some changes.

oneupper
05-23-2006, 02:15 PM
Plus, the point of negative rep isn't to get someone banned. Hopefully if someone has a ridiculously low negative rep they figure out that they need to make some changes.

Neg repping an awful post is usually enough. I gave out my first negative rep a few days ago when someone posted a picture of a turd to represent Dave Williams.

He took it off and will probably be more careful next time.

KittyDuran
05-23-2006, 02:35 PM
I've never negged anyone - why waste time? :p:

pedro
05-23-2006, 02:37 PM
Because they deserve it and you don't want to air it out in public.

RedFanAlways1966
05-23-2006, 03:00 PM
I've never negged anyone - why waste time? :p:

Me neither. But I am about ready to with a couple of newbies who have "caused" the dual game-thread thingie IMO. My calm neg-rep finger has become very itchy lately. Very-very itchy...

:help:

membengal
05-23-2006, 03:22 PM
I finally handed out my first neg about two days ago. I find once you have done it once, it gets a little easier the second and third times...

KronoRed
05-23-2006, 05:04 PM
Plus, the point of negative rep isn't to get someone banned. Hopefully if someone has a ridiculously low negative rep they figure out that they need to make some changes.
Or they decide the entire board is out to get them and they get worse ;)

KronoRed
05-23-2006, 05:05 PM
I finally handed out my first neg about two days ago. I find once you have done it once, it gets a little easier the second and third times...
Sure does, especially when you get negged for commenting on the Reds draft history.

Wonder if Dan O did that? :evil:

gonelong
05-23-2006, 05:16 PM
.
.
Its your civic duty to +rep or -rep. Redszone will get the discussion board it deserves based upon our collective ability to do so.

Some of us have been here for years ... I can't remember when I first came into contact with statistical analysis, but I do remember it took some time for me to overcome my preconceived notions before I embraced it. Years later we tend to forget that others have yet to be exposed to the addtional information ... it takes time to process and come to grips with it and determine what weight you give to the various metrics.

Personally, I think we should create an Adam Dunn FAQ and sticky or archive it instead of rehashing it on a daily basis from ground zero.

GL

Ron Madden
05-24-2006, 05:42 AM
I have only given + rep points so far and have always had to type a reason for giving those posters + rep.

Does the same hold true if you give - rep points?

I'm not planing on negging anyone just asking. :)

savafan
05-24-2006, 10:09 AM
I have only given + rep points so far and have always had to type a reason for giving those posters + rep.

Does the same hold true if you give - rep points?

I'm not planing on negging anyone just asking. :)

Yes

membengal
05-24-2006, 10:38 AM
I have only given + rep points so far and have always had to type a reason for giving those posters + rep.

Does the same hold true if you give - rep points?

I'm not planing on negging anyone just asking. :)

For my part, I always write something with the good and, as it turns out, with the bad.

paintmered
05-24-2006, 10:40 AM
For my part, I always write something with the good and, as it turns out, with the bad.

That's good but you really don't have a choice. You are required to enter something in that field to submit.

savafan
05-24-2006, 10:44 AM
That's good but you really don't have a choice. You are required to enter something in that field to submit.

Of course you could write something like "qxplmtzfr" or "because you have cute lips". I don't think it really matters what you put in there, does it?

paintmered
05-24-2006, 10:46 AM
Of course you could write something like "qxplmtzfr" or "because you have cute lips". I don't think it really matters what you put in there, does it?

To satisfy the minimum requirement, it doesn't matter. But Boss and GIK do have the ability to read the comments.

savafan
05-24-2006, 02:59 PM
To satisfy the minimum requirement, it doesn't matter. But Boss and GIK do have the ability to read the comments.

Aha! The first crack in the conspiracy!

:D

Just kidding.

KronoRed
05-24-2006, 04:44 PM
I always put BOSS RULES

;)

Topcat
06-09-2006, 06:12 AM
I personally got neg repped for beging for points. It was educational and was a tough love experience. In the end it was chalked up to growing pains. I have also got smacked warned for being a jerk and calling out a poster who was blatantly stupid. In the end it is a learning experience and the live thread would have eventually had me banned due to what I believe is reactionary dumb comments.

My view is simple. Alot like baseball and it's minor Leagues, it takes time and an open mind and a passion for the game to progress. Stats count, heart counts, and genuine character and passion count.