PDA

View Full Version : Game thread forum a mess...



Pages : [1] 2

WVRedsFan
04-17-2007, 03:32 AM
Just a suggestion.

I've been around here a long time. Probably too long for some people, but last year we had a game thread in the Reds Live forum that degenerated into what we saw tonight. Do we need two game threads? Apparently we do. I'm as annoying as the next person, but what went on tonight was shameless. I quit in the 4th inning. It's just too much for me to bare.

If there is to be a game thread (and I like it when I'm on the road away from my TV and without my XM), let's have one where actual baseball discussion is the rule and not the exception. Yes, I'm a grouchy old guy, and I know my constant harping on our putrid offense and fragile bullpen, but tonight, time after time, and for most nights this season, it has been shamefully horrible. No scores, no intellignet discussion, etc. I thought the ORG game threads were civil and mods didn't have to watch every post.

Just a suggestion.

paintmered
04-17-2007, 07:59 AM
Game threads are a privilege, not a right. So if last night's performance repeats itself, the game thread will be closed. If someone starts a new thread, that will be closed as well.

Chat is an excellent alternative for posters. The rules are much more relaxed compared to the game threads. If some of the board traffic moves to chat, it will solve a few problems. First, the threads won't be so big, so they should be easier to follow. Also, this should help with our bandwidth issues (threads with 1,000+ posts and 30,000 views are resource intensive). So please consider going to the chatroom instead tonight.

remdog
04-17-2007, 08:31 AM
I've contended for a long time that too many people use the game thread as a chat room while the real chat room is ignored.

The nice thing about chat is that it is 'self-cleansing'. When you log off it's gone and doesn't eat up space by being archived.

Another feature that I like is that you can converse privately with someone while still chating to the general populace.

Rem

coachw513
04-17-2007, 08:34 AM
With this my first full year in RZ I've been interested in following some game threads and have clearly come to the same conclusion every single night...unless you want to truly be miserable and feel awful about the Reds and every single mistake, DO NOT FOLLOW ALONG...it's a simple premise, if a player has a previous record of doing something poorly and is on the RZ hit list (Milton, Castro, now add Ross), then the moment they don't succeed you know the board will explode with negativity...if a player with a poor track record is doing well (Lohse and the bullpen for ex.) their good results are going to be downplayed because we all know he stinks anyways...and expect a firestorm when the opposing forces of nature collide when Griffey and Dunn's names are invoked...

Count me among those who can't handle that much negative emotion at the end of a day, when enjoying and rooting for the Reds is a joy in my life...I rooted like heck for Milton last night, I forgave Griffey and wondered how frustrating it must be for a HOF CF to have to learn a new position knowing your personal pride is on the line...I got excited for Ross because he looked much better at the plate and I will be confident the next time Coffey takes the mound...why???...because it's just a heck of a lot more fun rooting for this team for finding reasons why not to root for them...

I have no problem with the intellectual debate that baseball brings (should he have pinch-hit, did he leave that pitcher in too long, why did he swing at the 2-0 pitch???) but on game threads the raw emotions render the debates unintellectual and simply become "he sucks" posts...I recognize folks' rights to let loose like that, but I've realized I just can't get sucked into it and feel good about watching or listening to the game...

I hope I'm not out of line in my thinking...

RFS62
04-17-2007, 09:11 AM
With this my first full year in RZ I've been interested in following some game threads and have clearly come to the same conclusion every single night...unless you want to truly be miserable and feel awful about the Reds and every single mistake, DO NOT FOLLOW ALONG...it's a simple premise, if a player has a previous record of doing something poorly and is on the RZ hit list (Milton, Castro, now add Ross), then the moment they don't succeed you know the board will explode with negativity...if a player with a poor track record is doing well (Lohse and the bullpen for ex.) their good results are going to be downplayed because we all know he stinks anyways...and expect a firestorm when the opposing forces of nature collide when Griffey and Dunn's names are invoked...

Count me among those who can't handle that much negative emotion at the end of a day, when enjoying and rooting for the Reds is a joy in my life...I rooted like heck for Milton last night, I forgave Griffey and wondered how frustrating it must be for a HOF CF to have to learn a new position knowing your personal pride is on the line...I got excited for Ross because he looked much better at the plate and I will be confident the next time Coffey takes the mound...why???...because it's just a heck of a lot more fun rooting for this team for finding reasons why not to root for them...

I have no problem with the intellectual debate that baseball brings (should he have pinch-hit, did he leave that pitcher in too long, why did he swing at the 2-0 pitch???) but on game threads the raw emotions render the debates unintellectual and simply become "he sucks" posts...I recognize folks' rights to let loose like that, but I've realized I just can't get sucked into it and feel good about watching or listening to the game...

I hope I'm not out of line in my thinking...


You're right on target, IMO.

It's too bad, really. Those threads used to be a lot of fun.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 09:14 AM
Chat is an excellent option IMO. Then again, GAC pays me to say that, so take it for what it's worth. :)

WVRedsFan
04-17-2007, 09:50 AM
I have no problem with the intellectual debate that baseball brings (should he have pinch-hit, did he leave that pitcher in too long, why did he swing at the 2-0 pitch???) but on game threads the raw emotions render the debates unintellectual and simply become "he sucks" posts...I recognize folks' rights to let loose like that, but I've realized I just can't get sucked into it and feel good about watching or listening to the game...

I hope I'm not out of line in my thinking...
You hit the nail on the head. I'm not going back to review last night's debacle, but the whole thing was never about the game. All of a sudden the game thread broke into a gang fight over rep points that wouldn't go away. Although PMR kept trying to get everyone back on track, it just kept going on. There was no real discussion over strategy, just who sucked the most. Griffey makes a mistake and all of a sudden we need to bring up a rookie to replace him. Huh? Most baseball towns have their heroes, but here we have our goats and they outweigh good play. It's a junior high study hall complete with spit wads and a seventh grader pleading with the teacher that it's really not their fault that the spit wad hit someone in the eye.

I don't put myself in the category of great posters like Cyclone, Stormy, and RFS62, but it's no wonder their presence is missing most of the time. I'm going to skip the game thread for awhile. My life is full of too much negativity to continue it for 100 posts of bladerdash like most of the game threads have become.

redsrule2500
04-17-2007, 09:51 AM
What was wrong?

REDREAD
04-17-2007, 10:13 AM
What was wrong?

I came in late.. I missed the first half. I'm guessing that if you read the first 30 pages, you will see what they are talking about.

The second half of the game thread seemed ok to me.

Reds Fanatic
04-17-2007, 10:18 AM
The sad thing about last night's game thread is it just a handful of people that are screwing up the game thread for everyone else. We had a few people break well known board rules then spend more time complaining about how the rules are stupid. Then people starting complaining about rep points which led to other people complaining about how they have lost rep points and what they lost points for.

As far as the rules go if you don't like the rules here go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to post here but game threads are not the place to complain about the rules of the board.

As far as rep points go if you have a problem PM the person that gave you rep points or ignore it. I have lost rep points one time and while I didn't agree with it I just ignored it and moved on. Taking well over 20 posts of a game thread to talk about rep is a total waste.

Unassisted
04-17-2007, 10:24 AM
When a poster's posts in a thread contribute negatively to your enjoyment of the board, that's a perfect opportunity to use your negative rep. The rep system isn't just about handing out shiny gold stars for delightful posts. You were also issued a stick at the same time you got that carrot.

lollipopcurve
04-17-2007, 10:31 AM
have clearly come to the same conclusion every single night...unless you want to truly be miserable and feel awful about the Reds and every single mistake, DO NOT FOLLOW ALONG...it's a simple premise, if a player has a previous record of doing something poorly and is on the RZ hit list (Milton, Castro, now add Ross), then the moment they don't succeed you know the board will explode with negativity...if a player with a poor track record is doing well (Lohse and the bullpen for ex.) their good results are going to be downplayed because we all know he stinks anyways

I have to agree. I've found myself gravitating away from game threads and away from posting in others because of this trend.

BRM
04-17-2007, 10:53 AM
Another feature that I like is that you can converse privately with someone while still chating to the general populace.

Rem

Really? I didn't know about that feature. Good to know. :)

I read through last night's game thread this morning. Wow is about all I can say. I'm glad I wasn't around last night.

membengal
04-17-2007, 11:03 AM
As a general rule, I avoid game threads when the Reds are losing. Perspective can run short. Understatement of the year.

Tell you what though, one of these years when the Reds go 162-0, then we will finally have some satisfied folks...

jojo
04-17-2007, 11:16 AM
Chat is an excellent option IMO. Then again, GAC pays me to say that, so take it for what it's worth. :)

I'll say it----for half the price...:D

WMR
04-17-2007, 11:37 AM
We had a few people break well known board rules then spend more time complaining about how the rules are stupid. Then people starting complaining about rep points which led to other people complaining about how they have lost rep points and what they lost points for.

As far as the rules go if you don't like the rules here go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to post here but game threads are not the place to complain about the rules of the board.

As far as rep points go if you have a problem PM the person that gave you rep points or ignore it.

This all nailed the worst parts of the 'game thread' last night, IMO.

For the newbs: You don't talk about rep points!!

The most unfortunate and disturbing part of last night's gamethread is that many of those most passionately and virulently whining about rep points are people who absolutely SHOULD know better.

Additionally, saying "so-and-so SUCKS" is about as intellectually lazy and uninspired as you can get and it doesn't add a damn thing to the gamethread.

I think one of the best aspects of the game threads is sharing in an experience--both the highs and the lows--of one of my favorite things, Cincinnati Reds baseball. I like the off-the-cuff humor, griping, and analysis, but things have been going way, way overboard lately and I don't want the best members of this site run off because of that.

Gainesville Red
04-17-2007, 11:52 AM
This all nailed the worst parts of the 'game thread' last night, IMO.

For the newbs: You don't talk about rep points!!


It seems like it happens on an almost nightly basis. It never ceses the amaze me that people even care enough about rep points to make it an issue. Just post your stuff. If someone likes it they'll rep you. If not, and they mean that much to you, make it a point to post better stuff.

deltachi8
04-17-2007, 12:01 PM
I have to agree. I've found myself gravitating away from game threads and away from posting in others because of this trend.

i agree 100%

Puffy
04-17-2007, 12:05 PM
"A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch."

Dean Wormer

LincolnparkRed
04-17-2007, 12:10 PM
"A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch."

Dean Wormer

I knew that didn't sound right. Here is the actual quote

Dean Vernon Wormer: Well, well, well. Looks like somebody forgot there's a rule against alcoholic beverages in fraternities on probation!
Otter: What a tool.
Dean Vernon Wormer: I didn't get that, son, what was that?
Otter: Uh, I said, "What a shame that a few bad apples have to spoil a good time for everyone by breaking the rules."
Dean Vernon Wormer: Put a sock in it, boy, or else you'll be outta here like ____ through a goose.

Redsland
04-17-2007, 12:10 PM
"A few bad apples spoil the whole bunch."

Dean Wormer
You're talking about Delta, sir.

Puffy
04-17-2007, 12:16 PM
I knew that didn't sound right. Here is the actual quote

Dean Vernon Wormer: Well, well, well. Looks like somebody forgot there's a rule against alcoholic beverages in fraternities on probation!
Otter: What a tool.
Dean Vernon Wormer: I didn't get that, son, what was that?
Otter: Uh, I said, "What a shame that a few bad apples have to spoil a good time for everyone by breaking the rules."
Dean Vernon Wormer: Put a sock in it, boy, or else you'll be outta here like ____ through a goose.

Yeah, I knew it - I was gonna add or "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go thru life, son" but figured you guys would get the gist of it.

I didn't expect anyone to go digging for the whole damn quote!!!

;)

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 12:19 PM
Yeah, I knew it - I was gonna add or "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go thru life, son" but figured you guys would get the gist of it.

I didn't expect anyone to go digging for the whole damn quote!!!

;)

Well, we do have standards here, you know.

WMR
04-17-2007, 12:24 PM
Dean Wormer: Mr. Kroger: two C's, two D's and an F. That's a 1.2 grade average. Congratulations, Kroger. You're at the top of the Delta pledge class. Mr. Dorfman?

Flounder: Hello!

Dean Wormer: Zero point two... Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Mr. Hoover, president of Delta house? One point six; four C's and an F. A fine example you set! Daniel Simpson Day... HAS no grade point average. All courses incomplete. Mr. Blu - MR. BLUTARSKY ... ZERO POINT ZERO.


Prolly my favorite scene from the movie.

TeamBoone
04-17-2007, 12:31 PM
last year we had a game thread in the Reds Live forum that degenerated into what we saw tonight. Do we need two game threads? Apparently we do. I'm as annoying as the next person, but what went on tonight was shameless. I quit in the 4th inning. It's just too much for me to bare.

If I don't participate in the game thread, I later read the last page first and then go back to fill in any gaps I may have in mind. Last night, the last page told me all I wanted to know.

I'm asking this question because I didn't read the thread... was the problem percipitated by new posters, old posters, or a pretty even mix of the two?

I never liked the idea of two game threads; it's like telling the folks on Reds Live that they're too stupid to discuss the game intelligently so "pardon me, but I don't want to 'play' with you".

Many of our new posters appear to be pretty savvy baseball fans. Others are very interesting posters but will never reach 200 rep points merely because they don't post often enough... but when they do, they're worth the read.

Bottom line... it's not fair to leave them out because they don't have enough rep points.

Paintmered's solution sounds fair without regressing to two game threads. Deal with the problem posters instead of punishing everyone.

LincolnparkRed
04-17-2007, 12:33 PM
Well, we do have standards here, you know.

Any saying that movie is on at some point every weekend of the year, you can get pretty good at knowing who said what.

WVRedsFan
04-17-2007, 01:21 PM
If I don't participate in the game thread, I later read the last page first and then go back to fill in any gaps I may have in mind. Last night, the last page told me all I wanted to know.

I'm asking this question because I didn't read the thread... was the problem percipitated by new posters, old posters, or a pretty even mix of the two?

I never liked the idea of two game threads; it's like telling the folks on Reds Live that they're too stupid to discuss the game intelligently so "pardon me, but I don't want to 'play' with you".

Many of our new posters appear to be pretty savvy baseball fans. Others are very interesting posters but will never reach 200 rep points merely because they don't post often enough... but when they do, they're worth the read.

Bottom line... it's not fair to leave them out because they don't have enough rep points.

Paintmered's solution sounds fair without regressing to two game threads. Deal with the problem posters instead of punishing everyone.

TB:

It was a few new posters and a couple of old posters, too. Truth was, and is, some outrageous things are being said in the game threads these days. I went back to see the ages of some of the posters and found what I feared. a lot of them are very young. I think they need to understand that this is not a chat room where they can say anything they want about anyone and when it gets tough apologize by saying "my bad" and everyone loves one another again. Teenagers kills me.

I'm negative I know, and I'm working on this daily, but it was a horrid experience last night and really all year.

Someone who shall remain nameless sent me an email the other night and said, "If Griffy would just retire, dunn could be traded, Milton could be DFA'd, etc. the game thread would return to normal". I told him no. There will be goats to replace them in these teenybopper's eyes. And some adults too, i might add.

At my age, I've given up hope for another WS championship in my lifetime and I'm not that old. It's time to enjoy the baseball without worrying about who sucks and how much.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 01:31 PM
I'm negative I know, and I'm working on this daily

At my age, I've given up hope for another WS championship in my lifetime and I'm not that old.

Glad to see you are making progress.... :confused:

All kidding around asside, I understand completley where you are comming from on this WVReds

Razor Shines
04-17-2007, 01:39 PM
nm

remdog
04-17-2007, 01:59 PM
TB:

It was a few new posters and a couple of old posters, too. Truth was, and is, some outrageous things are being said in the game threads these days. I went back to see the ages of some of the posters and found what I feared. a lot of them are very young.

At my age, I've given up hope for another WS championship in my lifetime and I'm not that old. It's time to enjoy the baseball without worrying about who sucks and how much.

I had the same thought WVR and I also did a random check of ages and came up with similar results.

I'm probably a lot older than you but I haven't given up hope for another World Championship in my lifetime. Heck with advances in cryogenics, I think I've still got a shot. :laugh:

Rem

remdog
04-17-2007, 02:00 PM
...asside...

Is that masked profanity? :evil:

Rem

Caveat Emperor
04-17-2007, 02:01 PM
I prefer game threads to chat because game threads stay with the board -- I can go back and read through a good game thread and get the reactions when big events occured. I went back and read through the game thread after Josh Hamilton hit his first HR. The other day I went back through the game thread from Aaron Harang's 1-0 duel vs. Chris Carpenter from last year to relive Coffey striking out Edmonds to preserve the lead.

I don't know what the solution is -- but I'm really not a chat fan and I think the Game Thread system can work if we all set a good example and do better about policing ourselves (negging bad behavior and reporting bad posts). The moderators do a fabulous job, but I'd be in favor of a more "zero tolerance" policy to trolling in the game threads (I'd also make whining about rep an instant one-day ban, but thats just me). As it has been said, they're a privilege not a right.

coachw513
04-17-2007, 02:04 PM
I had the same thought WVR and I also did a random check of ages and came up with similar results.

I'm probably a lot older than you but I haven't given up hope for another World Championship in my lifetime. Heck with advances in cryogenics, I think I've still got a shot. :laugh:

Rem

Glass half-full boys, half-full :thumbup:

I'm close enough to Tampa to understand what NO hope means :eek:

At least we know if a bunch (yes, a bunch) of things go right that we can be a playoff team :D

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 02:04 PM
Is that masked profanity? :evil:

Rem

:laugh:

Nah, just mentally challenged spelling! hahaha

paintmered
04-17-2007, 02:08 PM
Is that masked profanity? :evil:

Rem

:laugh: :)

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 02:10 PM
I'd also make whining about rep an instant one-day ban, but thats just me.

Totally in favor of that. Either asking for rep points or complaining about neg points. Automatic 1 day ban for a first offense. A month for a second offense. No questions asked.

I also think the rep system has to be looked at again. It just doesn't seem fair that some people's rep is worth 20 points + and others are worth 2 points. You could get rep from 10 people and get ORG priviledges. Just doesn't seem right. That "balance" has to be looked at.

remdog
04-17-2007, 02:11 PM
Eliminate rep points and you eliminate that problem.

Rem

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 02:15 PM
Eliminate rep points and you eliminate that problem.

Rem

I would agree with that, but I like the seperation of ORG and Reds Live. Less noise.

Maybe instead of rep there should be a mandatory 1 year wait to get access to ORG. Make it based on time rather than "rep". :dunno: That way you can't say that a poster doesn't know what the "culture" of the board is before getting access to ORG. In 1 year they should know how this board is run and how they are expected to behave. If they don't want to stick around for a year, then how big of contributors are they going to be anyway?

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 02:18 PM
Seems like this is starting to turn into a referendum on rep points. Frankly, I think it's a good system for what it's intended to do. That is, provide a self policing tool for the board. Someone gets way out of line and "society at large" of the board can let said poster that thier behavior is not accepted. If someone offers a post that greatly benefits the board in some positive way, a positive rep is meant as positive reinforment of the types of behavior that is deamed acceptable.

The problems start when people think rep = they are right. The more rep you have doesn't mean the more right you are. Conversly, thinking rep means acceptance and begging/pimping for more is also a problem. Or, if a poster weilds rep as a weapon.

Anyway, we've been over this a bunch of time, but I think the rep system is a very good tool. Problem is we are either (1) not dilligent in using it (2) use it incorrectly.

Caveat Emperor
04-17-2007, 02:20 PM
Eliminate rep points and you eliminate that problem.

Rem

Not to turn this thread into a rep-system discussion (because those are tired, at this point) but...

If anything, I think that posters should be given more ability to neg bad behavior off the board. I'd give everyone neg power of x 2 their positive power and make any poster that accumulates 3 negs in a day sit out for the rest of the evening; accumulating 5 negs in a week puts you out for the week. I'd make posting on ORG a 500 level point requirement and game thread posting a 200 level requirement. Dropping below 400 (after 500) and you lose access to ORG. Dropping below 100 (after hitting 200) and you lose access to the game threads.

Talk about rep? 1 day ban, no questions asked.

The rep system works if people would take the time to ding posts that they feel don't keep within the spirit and culture of RedsZone. When bad behavior continues on a board where the users have the power to make it stop, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 02:21 PM
I would agree with that, but I like the seperation of ORG and Reds Live. Less noise.

Maybe instead of rep there should be a mandatory 1 year wait to get access to ORG. Make it based on time rather than "rep". :dunno: That way you can't say that a poster doesn't know what the "culture" of the board is before getting access to ORG. In 1 year they should know how this board is run and how they are expected to behave. If they don't want to stick around for a year, then how big of contributors are they going to be anyway?

A draw back to the time limit, are those posters who are able to figure out the culture of the board and start making postive controbutions well before a year is over. They are penalized because some fools can't figure out the rules. That doesn't seem right.

jojo
04-17-2007, 02:23 PM
Eliminate rep points and you eliminate that problem.

Rem

Maybe, but I think rep points help keep people civil...at least for the first 200 or so.... it's a nice carrot that basically trains new members to be good citizens...

Also, based upon rep point feedback, I've learned how best I can contribute to a discussion here....

Besides giving positive rep points to a good post is ALOT of fun... as well as a nice way to reinforce to a poster that the time they took to research and formulate a post is much appreciated (some posts can be the result of a several hours worth of research).

paintmered
04-17-2007, 02:23 PM
Not to turn this thread into a rep-system discussion (because those are tired, at this point) but...

If anything, I think that posters should be given more ability to neg bad behavior off the board. I'd give everyone neg power of x 2 their positive power and make any poster that accumulates 3 negs in a day sit out for the rest of the evening; accumulating 5 negs in a week puts you out for the week. I'd make posting on ORG a 500 level point requirement and game thread posting a 200 level requirement. Dropping below 400 (after 500) and you lose access to ORG. Dropping below 100 (after hitting 200) and you lose access to the game threads.

Talk about rep? 1 day ban, no questions asked.

The rep system works if people would take the time to ding posts that they feel don't keep within the spirit and culture of RedsZone. When bad behavior continues on a board where the users have the power to make it stop, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I'm not sure the vBulletin software allows that capability. Maybe there's a hack somewhere. It would definitely be too labor intensive to check that kind of thing manually.

Reds Fanatic
04-17-2007, 02:25 PM
The moderators do a fabulous job, but I'd be in favor of a more "zero tolerance" policy to trolling in the game threads (I'd also make whining about rep an instant one-day ban, but thats just me). As it has been said, they're a privilege not a right.
I agree with that. There were a few people that last night kept complaining about rules or points and if they would have been bounced for a night it would have been a much better game thread. I think for most people if this happened they would get the point quickly and stop doing this and if they don't get the point they can go to reds.com and do whatever they want there. Also it may be time to sticky up the board rules again for new people. I have noticed a lot of things like masked profanity that keep happening this year and if someone brings it up it is always followed by an argument. The rules here are not hard to follow but for those that don't want to or want to complain about the rules I have no problem with them being bounced from the thread.

paintmered
04-17-2007, 02:26 PM
Maybe, but I think rep points help keep people civil...at least for the first 200 or so.... it's a nice carrot that basically trains new members to be good citizens...

Also, based upon rep point feedback, I've learned how best I can contribute to a discussion here....

Besides giving positive rep points to a good post is ALOT of fun... as well as a nice way to reinforce to a poster that the time they took to research and formulate a post is much appreciated (some posts can be the result of a several hours worth of research).

Yes. I view positive reputation as a way of thanking a poster for positively contributing to the board. Posts you describe absolutely fall into that category.

I've given rep to posters that say things I don't agree with. But I gave them rep because there was thought put into their post and it was presented in a manner worth recognizing.

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 02:26 PM
A draw back to the time limit, are those posters who are able to figure out the culture of the board and start making postive controbutions well before a year is over. They are penalized because some fools can't figure out the rules. That doesn't seem right.

You're right, those people are unfairly penalized and have to wait longer than they probably should. But, IMO, that's better than the opposite, letting people in that have no idea of the culture of the board too early and then they are the ones that are making decisions.

paintmered
04-17-2007, 02:27 PM
I agree with that. There were a few people that last night kept complaining about rules or points and if they would have been bounced for a night it would have been a much better game thread. I think for most people if this happened they would get the point quickly and stop doing this and if they don't get the point they can go to reds.com and do whatever they want there. Also it may be time to sticky up the board rules again for new people. I have noticed a lot of things like masked profanity that keep happening this year and if someone brings it up it is always followed by an argument. The rules here are not hard to follow but for those that don't want to or want to complain about the rules I have no problem with them being bounced from the thread.

I'm not sure if everyone knows this, but the board's rules are displayed at the very bottom of every page.

remdog
04-17-2007, 02:27 PM
RL:

I'm good with doing away with the separation between ORG and Live but your suggestion does have some merit. However, there are people that have been here less than a year and have thousands of posts. There are others that have been here multiple years and have yet to crack a hundred. Some of those 'longtime readers, first time poster' types understand the culture quite well 'cause they lurk here everyday; others only occassionally and don't necessarily have a feel for the board. :dunno:

Some people have been banned here and it had nothing to do with points, posts or longevity. To my recollection, the people that I'm aware of that have been banned have all qualified in terms of all three criteria----but I could be wrong about that. Simply continue, warn, suspend progessively for problem posters and, finally, ban as a last repost. (Redszone would sort of become the NFL of baseball boards. ;)

Rem

KoryMac5
04-17-2007, 02:31 PM
I haven't dealt much with the game threads since last year. I looked at a few in spring training but it was more of the same type of conversations that killed threads last year. Game threads to me are much more enjoyable when you have a set experienced person doing play by play, instead of three pbp's going on at the same time. The majority of the time when you look through threads you can't even tell what the score is.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 02:33 PM
You're right, those people are unfairly penalized and have to wait longer than they probably should. But, IMO, that's better than the opposite, letting people in that have no idea of the culture of the board too early and then they are the ones that are making decisions.

You are talking about getting into ORG right? If so, you have to acquire the 200 rep plus be a member of the board for a month IIRC. While some might slip through the cracks, I think this process weeds out most of the trools and troublemakers quite well. There should be zero trolls who come on the board, act like lunatics and somehow get to 200rep and make it a month.

And the trouble makers aren't making any of the decisions. Ultimatley, those decisions are up to Boss, GIK and the mods. So while someone might make trouble in the short term, in the long term they have zero controll. I'd be willing to bet that after Paintmered's efforts in the thread last night, and these discussions today, the behavior in the gamethread tonight will be much improved.

I guess I don't see a need for a sweeping overhaul when (1) individual members actually using rep as it is intented (2) mods doing their job - which they do very well takes care of 99% of the problems.

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 02:36 PM
RL:

I'm good with doing away with the separation between ORG and Live but your suggestion does have some merit. However, there are people that have been here less than a year and have thousands of posts. There are others that have been here multiple years and have yet to crack a hundred. Some of those 'longtime readers, first time poster' types understand the culture quite well 'cause they lurk here everyday; others only occassionally and don't necessarily have a feel for the board. :dunno:

Some people have been banned here and it had nothing to do with points, posts or longevity. To my recollection, the people that I'm aware of that have been banned have all qualified in terms of all three criteria----but I could be wrong about that. Simply continue, warn, suspend progessively for problem posters and, finally, ban as a last repost. (Redszone would sort of become the NFL of baseball boards. ;)

Rem

It's a difficult balance, and I'm not saying my ideas are the best, the smartest, or anything like that. I'm pretty much just thinking out loud at this point. With the rep system, you are rewarding those that post frequently. With the approach of making it based on time, you are rewarding someone for sticking around and being loyal to the board. That would reward people who "lurk" on the board, but rarely post. I think too often those people are ignored. The argument to that, though, is that they will continue to lurk. Under the rules now, I believe they can read all forums and threads, just not post, which is fine for them, if they are just going to continue to lurk.

I just think people should have to know the way the board runs, who runs it, and how they are expected to behave before posting and especially before gaining access to ORG. Seems that with people having high "rep power" these days, it has become somewhat easier for others to get 200 pts and access to ORG. That is only going to get worse as more and more people get access to ORG and are allowed to distribute rep themselves. When that happens, we might as well do away with rep and go back to the single board approach because it'll feel pretty much the same.

gonelong
04-17-2007, 02:39 PM
The largest reason for the seperation as I recall was to:
1) Incentive people to post something that is of value to the board (to gain rep)
2) disincentive people to post something that is not of value to the board (to lose rep)
3) Give posters a chance to learn the culture of the board in the Reds Live area and give the longer-term members of the board a place to retreat to if a large number of trolls descend on the board at one time.

I just can't see how this penalizes anyone. If you want something (posting access to ORG) then Redszone is asking for something in return (content).

If you just want to lurk, you can do that. I just cannot see how anyone is "penalized" in this scenario. It'd be different if it was a pay site, it's not. Its a free site with voluntary participation.

The owners of the board have given the members of the board the ability to self police it. We continue to fail miserably at it.

This board is getting way too big to just assume that everyone will just show up and use "Redszone decorum". People need to be help the Mods to some degree in shaping the newcomers and letting them know what the expectations are. You don't have to go all Barney Fife on people by any means, but when you see posts that are out of hand and you don't give that person some Negative rep, you get and are getting the board you deserve.

I can't believe the patience that the owners of the site display with the gardern variety knuckleheads that seem to show up on a monthly basis wondering why the site won't bend to their every need. :laugh:

GL

M2
04-17-2007, 02:41 PM
The problems start when people think rep = they are right. The more rep you have doesn't mean the more right you are.

Frankly, I can't think of one person with a lot of rep points who has that attitude. In fact, I'd say the people who have a lot of rep points are the exact same people they were before they had a lot of rep points - WOY, RFS, Cyclone, Redsland, Chip, FCB, vaticanplum, etc. I just perused the first page of the rep list (http://www.redszone.com/forums/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=reputation&pp=50) and I don't see anyone there who fits the above description.

As for game threads, two separate ones worked fairly well last year. It seems like the complaint about game threads is that there's too many new posters bumping up against the established community, requiring a lot of time spent on matters like trying to say more than so-and-so sucks (e.g. at least have something original to say on the subject) or why it's bad form to talk about your rep points (e.g. gimme rep or ohmigod I got negged) or that we try to keep the language PG (e.g. no seven words you can never say on television, not even with *s).

In general I'd say the probie system on the board works. Good new posters graduate quickly, those who come onto the board and do little other than kick and scream don't. I haven't been in the game threads much this year, but in looking at yesterday's I didn't find it that bothersome. Yet if people are bothered by it, then I've got no complaint with the two threads system.

On a separate note, what's the issue with Seabass? It's lifted from the Cam Neely character in "Dumb and Dumber".

Razor Shines
04-17-2007, 02:46 PM
I would agree with that, but I like the seperation of ORG and Reds Live. Less noise.

Maybe instead of rep there should be a mandatory 1 year wait to get access to ORG. Make it based on time rather than "rep". :dunno: That way you can't say that a poster doesn't know what the "culture" of the board is before getting access to ORG. In 1 year they should know how this board is run and how they are expected to behave. If they don't want to stick around for a year, then how big of contributors are they going to be anyway?

The other problem I see with that in keeping out the "noise", is that there are posters who would gladly wait out that year just so they could come over to ORG and bring the "noise" so to speak.

I like it the way it is. I think it took me 3 months to get over to ORG and I think that's about the average time. I'm no super poster like Ltlabner or jojo, who did it in like a week, but it's not too long and it's enough time to get a good understanding of the board. I think anyway.

Spring~Fields
04-17-2007, 02:47 PM
Doesn’t this come up about every year, the last six losing seasons running? It seems to me that those that are emotionally and passionately attached to the Reds become more sensitive during trends that are indicative of their downfall. Some might be better served to somewhat emotionally detach from what looks to be a .500 team or worse because a team like this will keep them on an emotional yo-yo, one day up the next day down leading them to act out their frustrations. I, myself, try to refrain from typing anything in the game threads anymore when I recognize within myself that I am frustrated or disappointed and that I am just turning to the readers asking them indirectly to sooth my wounds from the Reds woes of the moment when in fact, none of you can do that. Perhaps others should stop before they type and hit submit and while considering that the rest of the readers can do nothing for them regarding the Reds mishaps that can be so disappointing and frustrating.

Though I did try to forewarn moderators during the Buckeye threads early last fall and into the spring when outsiders were trying to bait and back door flame the Buckeye fans (who are also Reds fans) into defensive comments that those were nothing in comparison, that they should see the Reds fans in the game threads. I think history and red flags long before this season arrived should have been sufficient for the moderators to have come up with a suitable plan and defining of what they wanted the game threads to be before now.

Fans invest a lot of sincere emotion into their favorite teams and are going to have thoughts and comments that are in the venting nature at times.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 02:47 PM
Frankly, I can't think of one person with a lot of rep points who has that attitude.

Come on now M2. It's only natural that people who have been around a while tend (notice I said tend, not will) be a little more sarcastic and loose with the rules from time to time. I think that's a direct relation to comfort level, longeivity on the board and amount of rep. Most of us have crossed that line before.

I'm not saying the high rep posters are all high and mighty because of their rep, but I do think sometimes the high rep posters get a little lax and post things they might not have had they been in a "probationary" period waiting to get into ORG.

And overall, I think people not negging bad behavior and handing out rep for the wrong reasons are a far bigger issue.

remdog
04-17-2007, 02:49 PM
Good points, RL. Especially this one:

"With the approach of making it based on time, you are rewarding someone for sticking around and being loyal to the board. That would reward people who "lurk" on the board, but rarely post. I think too often those people are ignored. The argument to that, though, is that they will continue to lurk. Under the rules now, I believe they can read all forums and threads, just not post, which is fine for them, if they are just going to continue to lurk."

I agree that it's pretty easy to accumulate 200 points if you post a lot. Perhaps the solution would be to raise the requirements to 6 months and 500 points. :dunno:

Rem

Razor Shines
04-17-2007, 02:51 PM
On a separate note, what's the issue with Seabass? It's lifted from the Cam Neely character in "Dumb and Dumber".

Actually Alex Gonzalez played Sea Bass in his high school's stage adaptation of "Dumb and Dumber".

remdog
04-17-2007, 02:56 PM
And overall, I think people not negging bad behavior and handing out rep for the wrong reasons are a far bigger issue.

Let's talk about not negging. I have never negged someone on this board. I've always felt it's not necessary nor am I comfortable with it (even though someone has personally ticked me off). Maybe I'm wrong in that approach but I balance it with being very stingey with plus rep points. (shrug) Most days I give out none. I feel if rep points were more difficult to come by it would make ORG more 'exclusive' but I'm open to opinions on the matter.

Rem

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 02:57 PM
Let's talk about not negging. I have never negged someone on this board. I've always felt it's not necessary nor am I comfortable with it (even though someone has personally ticked me off). Maybe I'm wrong in that approach but I balance it with being very stingey with plus rep points. (shrug) Most days I give out none. I feel if rep points were more difficult to come by it would make ORG more 'exclusive' but I'm open to opinions on the matter.

Rem

I'm currious, why are you uncomfortable negging someone?

M2
04-17-2007, 02:59 PM
Come on now M2. It's only natural that people who have been around a while tend (notice I said tend, not will) be a little more sarcastic and loose with the rules from time to time.

You may think that, but, quite frankly, we were always a pretty sarcastic bunch to begin with. You're talking about people who've known each other from multiple boards in the past (Fastball, DDN, Cincinnati.com, Dickie Thon). I'm telling you, it's the tendency of those people on that rep list to be themselves and that's probably no small part of the reason why they're on that list.

For instance, I'm as obnoxious, overbearing, smug and self-congratulatory as I ever was. I'm totally on top of my game.

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 03:01 PM
For instance, I'm as obnoxious, overbearing, smug and self-congratulatory as I ever was. I'm totally on top of my game.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Razor Shines
04-17-2007, 03:01 PM
I don't really understand why some people feel the need to raise the minimum to get in the ORG. Unless it's just because they want it more exclusive, and that's fine, but I don't think that has much to do with the problems of the board or game threads. I mean is it people like me, who are barely stretching into the ORG, that are causing the problems? Maybe, but IMO it's the mostly from people who are no where near the ORG. If they are two seperate issues, then I get that and understand the want for it to be more exclusive.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:03 PM
You may think that, but, quite frankly, we were always a pretty sarcastic bunch to begin with. You're talking about people who've known each other from multiple boards in the past (Fastball, DDN, Cincinnati.com, Dickie Thon). I'm telling you, it's the tendency of those people on that rep list to be themselves and that's probably no small part of the reason why they're on that list.

For instance, I'm as obnoxious, overbearing, smug and self-congratulatory as I ever was. I'm totally on top of my game.

So it isn't comfort level and longevity. Just some of those folks are plain old jerks? hahahahahah That makes it much easier to understand then. hahahaha

Most of the folks you mentioned were grandfathered into ORG wern't they? Impossible to do, but it would be interesting to see how some of those sarcastic and occasionally condescending remarks would fly if they only had 107 points and 2 months of service time and working their way towards ORG.

Like I said, I think the one thing you highlighted from my post is a very small part of the overall problem regarding the use of rep.

membengal
04-17-2007, 03:04 PM
Is it possible to make the game threads a slightly more elevated posting level than Reds Live but less so than ORG? I avoided it last night, and, like I said earlier, don't go near them when the team is losing, but if it is new people still getting acclimated, would holding off game threads from new posters for a month, and raising the level to posting in there to something like 75 or so points help at all?

By the way, I have finally been here long enough to know that this comes up every year...

Also, I think it was CE who defended the reason for the game threads earlier, and I am in 100% agreement. They are often fun to read after the fact, and a nice place to put general observations while the game is going on (or even after it is over). Unforunately, too many times new folks in particular are slow to realize the best way to participate in them...

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:07 PM
Maybe, but IMO it's the mostly from people who are no where near the ORG. If they are two seperate issues, then I get that and understand the want for it to be more exclusive.

Agreed. The issues of the game threads have little to nothing to do with enterence into ORG. Totally unrealated issues IMO. Somone who has -52 rep points and is casuing trouble in the game thread likely is a ways off from posting on ORG.

The issue has more to do with the proper self policing we all do. As GL said very well, we generally do a poor job of it.

remdog
04-17-2007, 03:08 PM
I'm currious, why are you uncomfortable negging someone?

Because I realize that:

A: There is an emotional element involving the Reds for most people.

B: There are some people on this board that I will not connect with due to style. However, that doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong to use that style.

C: If people would not reward them/ignore them they would have no audiance, which is (IMO) what some people crave. Some posters get off on neg points because it proves (to them) that they are getting the audiance that they want and that they are 'getting to you'.

Just me, I guess. (shrug)

Rem

cincy09
04-17-2007, 03:12 PM
Let's talk about not negging. I have never negged someone on this board. I've always felt it's not necessary nor am I comfortable with it (even though someone has personally ticked me off). Maybe I'm wrong in that approach but I balance it with being very stingey with plus rep points. (shrug) Most days I give out none. I feel if rep points were more difficult to come by it would make ORG more 'exclusive' but I'm open to opinions on the matter.
Rem

I feel the same way about giving out the rep points. I have never been negged and I always try to post something that adds to the board. At the same time it took me almost 2 1/2 years and 1300 posts to reach Org. When I saw people getting here in a matter of days it was very discouraging. I realize some posters add enough to the board to warrant this, but at the same time rep points should be somewhat tough to come by.

REDREAD
04-17-2007, 03:14 PM
I would agree with that, but I like the seperation of ORG and Reds Live. Less noise.

Maybe instead of rep there should be a mandatory 1 year wait to get access to ORG. Make it based on time rather than "rep". :dunno: That way you can't say that a poster doesn't know what the "culture" of the board is before getting access to ORG. In 1 year they should know how this board is run and how they are expected to behave. If they don't want to stick around for a year, then how big of contributors are they going to be anyway?

I think we have to accept that if we have a rep system or something similiar to it.. That no matter how tough the initiation is, we are going to see people on ORG that we'd rather not see.

Personally, I make good use of the ignore feature. I have a group of people that rotate in and off it, depending on whether I want to deal with them on a given day.. For me, that's the best way to handle it, but I'm not saying it's ideal for everyone.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:14 PM
Because I realize that:

A: There is an emotional element involving the Reds for most people.

B: There are some people on this board that I will not connect with due to style. However, that doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong to use that style.

C: If people would not reward them/ignore them they would have no audiance, which is (IMO) what some people crave. Some posters get off on neg points because it proves (to them) that they are getting the audiance that they want and that they are 'getting to you'.

Just me, I guess. (shrug)

Rem

Interesting. Never really thought about it that way.

A: True, you have to use some judgement to know when someone is just "blowing off steam" and someone is downright being nasty.

B: I've positive rep'd plenty of people I dissagree with, don't understand, don't get, etc. Conversly, I've negged a few people I usually agree with, or at least enjoy. But your point is a good one. People have to check themselves to make sure they are not negging someone just because they don't get them. But that gets back to the proper use of rep in the first place IMO.

C: You may be right, but how many of those folks are lurking around casuing problems. 2 or 3? out of 500 or whatever it is. I'd say that's a very small minority of folks. That leaves plenty of people who have posted something that is beyond what is generally acceptable on RZ and a "slight correction" via neg rep would help them understand the decorm a bit better.

Just my opinions. I might be way off on all that.

PS: I might start negging you if you keep posting (shrug) in every last one of your posts :p: :evil:

Eric_Davis
04-17-2007, 03:15 PM
With this my first full year in RZ I've been interested in following some game threads and have clearly come to the same conclusion every single night...unless you want to truly be miserable and feel awful about the Reds and every single mistake, DO NOT FOLLOW ALONG...it's a simple premise, if a player has a previous record of doing something poorly and is on the RZ hit list (Milton, Castro, now add Ross), then the moment they don't succeed you know the board will explode with negativity...if a player with a poor track record is doing well (Lohse and the bullpen for ex.) their good results are going to be downplayed because we all know he stinks anyways...and expect a firestorm when the opposing forces of nature collide when Griffey and Dunn's names are invoked...

Count me among those who can't handle that much negative emotion at the end of a day, when enjoying and rooting for the Reds is a joy in my life...I rooted like heck for Milton last night, I forgave Griffey and wondered how frustrating it must be for a HOF CF to have to learn a new position knowing your personal pride is on the line...I got excited for Ross because he looked much better at the plate and I will be confident the next time Coffey takes the mound...why???...because it's just a heck of a lot more fun rooting for this team for finding reasons why not to root for them...

I have no problem with the intellectual debate that baseball brings (should he have pinch-hit, did he leave that pitcher in too long, why did he swing at the 2-0 pitch???) but on game threads the raw emotions render the debates unintellectual and simply become "he sucks" posts...I recognize folks' rights to let loose like that, but I've realized I just can't get sucked into it and feel good about watching or listening to the game...

I hope I'm not out of line in my thinking...

I agree coach.

dabvu2498
04-17-2007, 03:18 PM
That no matter how tough the initiation is, we are going to see people on ORG that we'd rather not see.

What qualifies someone as a person you'd "rather not see" on ORG?

M2
04-17-2007, 03:18 PM
Most of the folks you mentioned were grandfathered into ORG wern't they? Impossible to do, but it would be interesting to see how some of those sarcastic and occasionally condescending remarks would fly if they only had 107 points and 2 months of service time and working their way towards ORG.

Honestly, I doubt a single person on that list would act any differently. I'm 100% positive those people would post the same as they do now and not give a rip if it was in the ORG or Red Live. There's a reason why RedsZone became the phenomenon it did in the first place, because you had a large group of Reds fans who weren't shy about writing down what they think.

My guess is if you polled every single person on the board with more than 400 rep points whether they ever think about rep when they're making a post, you'd get a 100% response rate of no. I tend to view the assemblage we've got on the ORG as inevitable. We accept you, one of us.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:21 PM
What qualifies someone as a person you'd "rather not see" on ORG?

People who can not spell.

Serriously, very interesting question.

remdog
04-17-2007, 03:24 PM
I feel the same way about giving out the rep points. I have never been negged and I always try to post something that adds to the board. At the same time it took me almost 2 1/2 years and 1300 posts to reach Org. When I saw people getting here in a matter of days it was very discouraging. I realize some posters add enough to the board to warrant this, but at the same time rep points should be somewhat tough to come by.

I just looked and you're averaging about 1.6 posts per day. There are a number of people that come on here and post in the double didgit category from the get go---those people tend to acquire points very rapidly. (And I understand that, for some people, finding a place to talk to other Reds/baseball fans is a very emotional, exciting thing, so I'm OK with that.) Others, like yourself, tend to take a more conservative approach---one influences the rep points more directly than the other. :dunno: (For LtlAbner :p: )

Rem

Eric_Davis
04-17-2007, 03:24 PM
Dean Wormer: Mr. Kroger: two C's, two D's and an F. That's a 1.2 grade average. Congratulations, Kroger. You're at the top of the Delta pledge class. Mr. Dorfman?

Flounder: Hello!

Dean Wormer: Zero point two... Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son. Mr. Hoover, president of Delta house? One point six; four C's and an F. A fine example you set! Daniel Simpson Day... HAS no grade point average. All courses incomplete. Mr. Blu - MR. BLUTARSKY ... ZERO POINT ZERO.


Prolly my favorite scene from the movie.

The first movie, and one of the only ones, I thought was so dang good, I sat through the theater for the next showing and watched it again. It's one of those movies that you can walk in during any five-minute segment and laugh your head off.

dabvu2498
04-17-2007, 03:24 PM
People who can not spell.

Serriously, very interesting question.

Post of the day.

gonelong
04-17-2007, 03:25 PM
Impossible to do, but it would be interesting to see how some of those sarcastic and occasionally condescending remarks would fly if they only had 107 points and 2 months of service time and working their way towards ORG.

The thing is, when I see posts from 20-30 of the top posters (not by rep pts, but by gonelong standards) I read them. Its has nothing to do with rep pts, but it has everything to do with the reputation they have built for themselves over the years.

Many of the top posters here have BUILT this community, it just didn't spring from the ground. They built it by giving ... sometimes money and more importantly, content. The heavy hitters of the site deserve quite a bit more leeway than somebody who joined last week. Sure, almost everyone will be grouchy from time-to-time. I'll give more leeway to the guy that shows a level of respect for 360+ days a year for 5-6 years than I will for someone who showed up last week and is getting his panties in a wad.

IMO the only problem with rep is that it isn't being used enough on the minus end.

GL

REDREAD
04-17-2007, 03:25 PM
What qualifies someone as a person you'd "rather not see" on ORG?

Sorry, I meant it in a generic fashion.. There might be someone that a given person would rather not see. In other words, there's no ORG criteria that would please everyone.. Someone would always think the bar should be raised higher.

Personally, I liked it better when it was just one forum, not seperated. So there's no one on ORG that I want booted out.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:25 PM
My guess is if you polled every single person on the board with more than 400 rep points whether they ever think about rep when they're making a post, you'd get a 100% response rate of no.

I don't think people actually think about their rep as posting. I just think it confers a little more leeway to "push the boundries" so to speak. That's not a big problem, just sometimes it touches off a wildfire with the newer posters.

That said, I've not been around all that long so I will defer to your input regarding to how things over the life of the board, and people's behavior.

One question for you though, what's the deal with that Willymorocks guy? Has he always been a punk?

paintmered
04-17-2007, 03:27 PM
I just looked and you're averaging about 1.6 posts per day. There are a number of people that come on here and post in the double didgit category from the get go---those people tend to acquire points very rapidly. (And I understand that, for some people, finding a place to talk to other Reds/baseball fans is a very emotional, exciting thing, so I'm OK with that.) Others, like yourself, tend to take a more conservative approach---one influences the rep points more directly than the other. :dunno: (For LtlAbner :p: )

Rem

Sure it influences how much reputation is awarded. People who post more have more opportunities to earn rep. Part of the incentive of ORG is to get people posting in a way consistent with the ideals of Redszone.

REDREAD
04-17-2007, 03:28 PM
One question for you though, what's the deal with that Willymorocks guy? Has he always been a punk?

Name calling isn't productive.. Just put the guy on ignore if you don't want to deal with him.

Redsland
04-17-2007, 03:28 PM
The system isn't broken just because three folks wandered in and peed all over the place. Those people need to be dealt with. Beyond that, the rep system did the job was intended to do and seems to be working reasonably well.

Heck, maybe some of the same "service time" minimums should have to be met before someone can post in the Game Thread Forum. Either that or let the Game Thread forum continue to be the wild west, and have another game thread in ORG.

remdog
04-17-2007, 03:29 PM
By LtlAbner: I might start negging you if you keep posting (shrug) in every last one of your posts"

I can type (shrug) faster than opening the smilie screen scrolling down and clicking. Plus that character is just 'dweeby' looking. (shrug) :evil:

Rem

gonelong
04-17-2007, 03:29 PM
I feel the same way about giving out the rep points. I have never been negged and I always try to post something that adds to the board. At the same time it took me almost 2 1/2 years and 1300 posts to reach Org. When I saw people getting here in a matter of days it was very discouraging. I realize some posters add enough to the board to warrant this, but at the same time rep points should be somewhat tough to come by.

I find myself giving rep based on a body of work rather than single posts. If I get online and read 2-3 posts from someone there username gets in my head a bit. I'll often search out their other posts to see if they have been "on" lately and give them rep that way.

If you are spreading your posts very thin you have probably slipped under my radar.

Quite honestly, now that you have ORG status, does it really seem like a big deal to you?

GL

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:30 PM
By LtlAbner: I might start negging you if you keep posting (shrug) in every last one of your posts"

I can type (shrug) faster than opening the smilie screen scrolling down and clicking. Plus that character is just 'dweeby' looking. (shrug) :evil:

Rem

Watch it buddy. You are on thin ice. :cool:

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:31 PM
Name calling isn't productive.. Just put the guy on ignore if you don't want to deal with him.

Uhhh....I was kidding. I guess I forgot the smiley. But serriously, I was kidding because me and Willymo are cool like that. He proof reads all my posts for me to make sure I haven't misspelt anything.

Spring~Fields
04-17-2007, 03:32 PM
What qualifies someone as a person you'd "rather not see" on ORG?


Yes a very interesting and what could be a profound question, one that should be answered in a clear and concise manner by those that want to imply or express a need for the differentiation. I don’t want to drag out psych 101 or sociology, but we all know that there are micro cultures who like to keep their comfortable group in tact. Is that what is going on here or are “others” a serious problem?

Danny Serafini
04-17-2007, 03:32 PM
I guess I look at the whole rep system a little bit differently, so maybe my thoughts will make sense and maybe they won't, but here they are.

I very, very rarely will give a positive rep to somebody over 200 points. It's not that I don't like or appreciate their posts, I just don't see the point of adding rep when someone is already in ORG. That's the whole reason we have a rep system. Once you're in it doesn't matter what your number goes to. Sure it's nice to see that number move up, but it's not why I, or anyone else I imagine, is posting here. I don't see much point in keeping score after 200. It doesn't upset me either, I'm not calling for the numbers to be abolished, I just don't really care, and that's why I don't pass rep around like that.

I've got a couple points about negative rep. First, in the very early days of this system you could give a neutral rep. I'd really like to see that option return. I've only given one negative, and it had nothing to do with baseball. There are times where maybe someone deserves a warning, they're teetering on going over the line, but I don't want to hammer their points for it. The ability to say "Hey, watch it" would come in handy sometimes. I think there would be more self-policing by the members if they had the ability to send a message without stripping points from someone.

The other problem with negatives come when someone gets ganged up on. Sometimes someone says something dumb, and deserves to get their rep dinged. The problem comes when 20 other people pile on and neg the person back to the Stone Age. One bad day can destroy an otherwise decent poster. Maybe a limit of 5 negs for one post might be appropriate. If a person gets dinged 5 times for one post that should send enough of a message without the unnecessary piling on.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:33 PM
Quite honestly, now that you have ORG status, does it really seem like a big deal to you?

GL

Maybe the upper limit on rep should be set to whatever the number is to get into ORG. Once you get to 200, or whatever, you can't go any higher. You can always, however, come down if you start acting up and get negged.

Eric_Davis
04-17-2007, 03:33 PM
Personally, I look at the game threads to gather opinions about what's happening from someone who's watching the game live, because I rarely get to see the REDS. I'm usually viewing the gameday via Sportsline or MLB.com, or Yahoo, or Fox (they all offer different things).

So, I'll ask questions...or share in the joy, or anticipation of the game. A perfect example of what I like to see is what coach said regarding Ross, that although he's been in a horrible slump, he seemed to be doing a little better last night. That's something I can't tell looking at GameDay, because it just shows him sitting there with his bat on his shoulder (strike looking, strike looking, ball, ....). I assume coach was referring to the shot that went to the outfield. I also like hearing what people say Jeff Brantley is saying. I hear a lot of negative about Brantley on this board, but I do like hearing what he has to say. I find him to be extremely knowledgeable, and I like the fact that he doesn't mind saying exactly what he thinks.

WMR
04-17-2007, 03:35 PM
Uhhh....I was kidding. I guess I forgot the smiley. But serriously, I was kidding because me and Willymo are cool like that. He proof reads all my posts for me to make sure I haven't misspelt anything.

Hahahahaha ohhhh Lt you're gonna get yours you just wait.

There's a secret movement afoot to institute a spelling exam in order to maintain ORG access and ... well ... I've said too much already!! :mooner:

remdog
04-17-2007, 03:35 PM
Sure it influences how much reputation is awarded. People who post more have more opportunities to earn rep. Part of the incentive of ORG is to get people posting in a way consistent with the ideals of Redszone.


One of the interesting things (to me anyway) is that 'Live' consistently has more posts/threads than does ORG---and they are written, very heavily, by ORG members. I think that this reflects a desire by most posters to expose their thoughts/opinions to the most people and to accept feedback on them.

So, my question is: If most posters ignore ORG to open up to the wider community on 'Live', just how much value is ORG? I'd like to hear some discussion on this aspect because it's something we've not talked about much.

Rem

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 03:36 PM
People who can not spell.

Serriously, very interesting question.

Funny you say that because that was my initial thought as well: people who treat this site like a text message board instead of a baseball discussion board...

It is an interesting question.

I kind of fall with Rem on this. I have negged a couple people but it usually has to be something blatant for me to do so. I'm always thinking, did I take that the wrong way and not understand the intent? Am I just in a bad mood? Are they just in a bad mood? etc, etc, and I ease off the trigger because I'm unsure on one of those answers. I also try to avoid conflict. I don't need to get in a big back and forth shouting match on a message board. Really, there's no point in that. I get enough crap in my everyday life. I come hear to enjoy myself, to learn, and to keep updated on the news of my favorite game and team, not to argue, or fight, or prove that I'm right 100% of the time.


I think I'm a little more liberal in handing out rep, though. I try to reward good interesting discussion or posts. My weakness is humor. I reward posts that make me laugh. Probably shouldn't be rep'd just for humor and nothing baseball related, but hey, if it puts a smile on my face during a long workday, that's a-ok with me and I feel in those cases that the person deserves something for brightening my day. Many will disagree with that approach, but there are no strict rules for what gets rep'd. It's up to each of us to determine that. I read all forums everyday, not just ORG, and look to reward people for what they write. I may not open every thread and read them, but I do read most of them. As for my own rep, I don't really even look at it. The only times I really notice it is when I go to change my avatar or something like that. I'll look at the list to see who I received rep from, or read to remember who I gave rep to. Other than that, I ignore it. I know I've got my 200 points and that's all I need.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:36 PM
Hahahahaha ohhhh Lt you're gonna get yours you just wait.

There's a secret movement afoot to institute a spelling exam in order to maintain ORG access and ... well ... I've said too much already!! :mooner:

Oh crap! I'm screwed.

Oh well, back to cinninnati.com I guess.

919191
04-17-2007, 03:37 PM
I'd like to hear what the owners think.

WMR
04-17-2007, 03:38 PM
Name calling isn't productive.. Just put the guy on ignore if you don't want to deal with him.

:mooner:

Was that a veiled suggestion? :laugh:

dabvu2498
04-17-2007, 03:38 PM
Sorry, I meant it in a generic fashion.. They might be someone that a given person would rather not see. In other words, there's no ORG criteria that would please everyone.. Someone would always think the bar should be raised higher.

Personally, I liked it better when it was just one forum, not seperated. So there's no one on ORG that I want booted out.

Understood.

Here's my $.02, even though no one's asked for it.

When I joined (around a year ago), I'd just happened upon the site. (Via a google search for "Chris Sabo autographed picture" BTW.) I read the rules about rep points and ORG and all that jazz and I thought it was kinda silly.

So I figured, why not... I'm independently wealthy, with plenty of time to kill, I'll start posting some.

My first few posts were bad... as in "Adam Dunn=Dave Kingman" bad, and I got called on it (though never negged). So I looked around and thought "these people are serious. Better actually think about what I post before I post it."

Some people never realize that. They just post away. For those people, don't read it. Like RR said, there is an ignore function. See a post with what you consider a stupid title? Don't read it. Think there's too much noise in the Game Thread? Don't read it.

This is a good message board. I've spent some good time here and got to talk to some nice, nice people.

But it's not like we're curing cancer or promoting world peace.

I've already spent enough time thinking about this, so I'm done now.

remdog
04-17-2007, 03:38 PM
The thing is, when I see posts from 20-30 of the top posters (not by rep pts, but by gonelong standards) I read them. Its has nothing to do with rep pts, but it has everything to do with the reputation they have built for themselves over the years.

Many of the top posters here have BUILT this community, it just didn't spring from the ground. They built it by giving ... sometimes money and more importantly, content. The heavy hitters of the site deserve quite a bit more leeway than somebody who joined last week. Sure, almost everyone will be grouchy from time-to-time. I'll give more leeway to the guy that shows a level of respect for 360+ days a year for 5-6 years than I will for someone who showed up last week and is getting his panties in a wad.

IMO the only problem with rep is that it isn't being used enough on the minus end.

GL

I agree very strongly with that (except for the last sentance, of course. :laugh:

Rem

WMR
04-17-2007, 03:39 PM
Oh crap! I'm screwed.

Oh well, back to cinninnati.com I guess.

Uh-oh, Lt's days of posting about the Reds really are through.

He'll never find his way to 'cinninnati.com' or thereabouts!!

:laugh: :mooner: :laugh: :mooner:

zombie-a-go-go
04-17-2007, 03:40 PM
I just like to neg people.

People have commented that ever since we were given the ability to neg posters, my BPW (Bans Per Week) has gone way down. Now when I see a poster crack a racist joke, defend Eric Milton, allude to something 'historical' (aka 'bore me senseless'), or spell something incorrectly I have the option of negging them instead of smacking them around with the ban-stick.

In the end this has contributed to a much more pleasant and family-friendly environment, and I think that, just as much as the newly-installed arboretum and Enya muzak, puts us all at ease, doesn't it?

REDREAD
04-17-2007, 03:41 PM
Uhhh....I was kidding. I guess I forgot the smiley. But serriously, I was kidding because me and Willymo are cool like that. He proof reads all my posts for me to make sure I haven't misspelt anything.

Ok.. didn't realize it was a joke..

Danny Serafini
04-17-2007, 03:41 PM
The thing is, when I see posts from 20-30 of the top posters (not by rep pts, but by gonelong standards) I read them. Its has nothing to do with rep pts, but it has everything to do with the reputation they have built for themselves over the years.

I just wanted to quote this because I think we're on the exact same wavelength. There are posters I pay a lot of attention to with very high rep totals and low rep totals. And there are posters I don't really read much with very high rep totals and low rep totals. I'm not basing the value of the poster on the rep number, but what I get out of that person's posts.

coachw513
04-17-2007, 03:42 PM
This is a good message board. I've spent some good time here and got to talk to some nice, nice people.

But it's not like we're curing cancer or promoting world peace.

But we are totally destroying our nation's GNP with a total abandon of work-related issues while putting forth full effort to improve the RZ

And well done, I say :beerme:

M2
04-17-2007, 03:42 PM
I don't think people actually think about their rep as posting. I just think it confers a little more leeway to "push the boundries" so to speak.

That said, I've not been around all that long so I will defer to your input regarding to how things over the life of the board, and people's behavior.

One question for you though, what's the deal with that Willymorocks guy? Has he always been a punk?

I love Wily Mo. Over the years I've found there's just some oil and water combinations, perhaps that's what you've got there. FWIW, a few years ago I went from clashing with one poster consistently (Steel and we were brutal to each other) to getting along with quite well. Side question, when's Steel coming back? I miss that guy. - Doh! Missed the joke. Sorry about that.

As for the first part, you're talking about a pack of inveterate boundary pushers. If anything, the original group has gotten more tame over the years. You should have seen the fur that was flying around here in 2001-03. Those were our Deadwood days.

dabvu2498
04-17-2007, 03:43 PM
I just wanted to quote this because I think we're on the exact same wavelength. There are posters I pay a lot of attention to with very high rep totals and low rep totals. And there are posters I don't really read much with very high rep totals and low rep totals. I'm not basing the value of the poster on the rep number, but what I get out of that person's posts.

Agreed. I like the search function. I can go and search for all "Danny Serafini" posts and I'm good for the day. :D

WMR
04-17-2007, 03:43 PM
I love Wily Mo. Over the years I've found there's just some oil and water combinations, perhaps that's what you've got there. FWIW, a few years ago I went from clashing with one poster consistently (Steel and we were brutal to each other) to getting along with quite well. Side question, when's Steel coming back? I miss that guy. - Doh! Missed the joke. Sorry about that.

As for the first part, you're talking about a pack of inveterate boundary pushers. If anything, the original group has gotten more tame over the years. You should have seen the fur that was flying around here in 2001-03. Those were our Deadwood days.


Everyone's buying this disdain for Wily Mo a little too easily, IMO!! :laugh:

:eek: :eek:

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 03:43 PM
One of the interesting things (to me anyway) is that 'Live' consistently has more posts/threads than does ORG---and they are written, very heavily, by ORG members. I think that this reflects a desire by most posters to expose their thoughts/opinions to the most people and to accept feedback on them.

So, my question is: If most posters ignore ORG to open up to the wider community on 'Live', just how much value is ORG? I'd like to hear some discussion on this aspect because it's something we've not talked about much.

Rem

This is a fantastically interesting discussion, although I know the old timers are probably totally bored since it happens every year.

All of the threads I start go into Reds Live! for the exact reason you gave. I want everybody to have a chance to comment on them.

That said, lots of the threads I start are "light weight" threads. That is, I love the "what's your favorite....." type threads, or imaginary scanarios because I love to hear people talking/posting about baseball in general. Whether you've been around from day 1 or this is your day 1, you can contribute and there is very little controversy so no aguments insue. Frankly, while I enjoy creating threads, most of them are not ORG worthy.

Now, someone like Cyclone, for example, he posts some heavy weight threads. Lots of indepth statistical research, charts, graphs, etc. That should be in ORG because people want to discuss the numbers without it falling apart into a "stats suck" debate. That can happen on Reds Live.

Long winded answer but threads that are worthy of serrious discussion without the noise of "Dunn is the sux" should go into ORG. Otherwise, Reds Live is a perfect place for the thread so all have a chance to contribute.

zombie-a-go-go
04-17-2007, 03:44 PM
I'd like to hear what the owners think.

They don't; not since early 2006, anyway, when they were bought out by a consortium of shady New Zealanders and Pete Rose supporters for ten cases of rye whiskey and a song.

The song, by the way, was "The Sign."

Damn good song. For Swedes, anyway.

WMR
04-17-2007, 03:44 PM
I love Wily Mo. Over the years I've found there's just some oil and water combinations, perhaps that's what you've got there. FWIW, a few years ago I went from clashing with one poster consistently (Steel and we were brutal to each other) to getting along with quite well. Side question, when's Steel coming back? I miss that guy.

As for the first part, you're talking about a pack of inveterate boundary pushers. If anything, the original group has gotten more tame over the years. You should have seen the fur that was flying around here in 2001-03. Those were our Deadwood days.

I want Steel back too. Dude is a genius when it comes to analyzing baseball.

gonelong
04-17-2007, 03:44 PM
Maybe the upper limit on rep should be set to whatever the number is to get into ORG. Once you get to 200, or whatever, you can't go any higher. You can always, however, come down if you start acting up and get negged.

I think the number serves to show people how what type of information people regard as worthy of rep.

GL

Danny Serafini
04-17-2007, 03:45 PM
Agreed. I like the search function. I can go and search for all "Danny Serafini" posts and I'm good for the day. :D

Wow, that's got to make for one boring day! :laugh:

remdog
04-17-2007, 03:46 PM
By Danny Sarafini:

"...in the very early days of this system you could give a neutral rep. I'd really like to see that option return."

I'd like that too.

Rem

remdog
04-17-2007, 03:51 PM
This is a fantastically interesting discussion, although I know the old timers are probably totally bored since it happens every year.

All of the threads I start go into Reds Live! for the exact reason you gave. I want everybody to have a chance to comment on them.

That said, lots of the threads I start are "light weight" threads. That is, I love the "what's your favorite....." type threads, or imaginary scanarios because I love to hear people talking/posting about baseball in general. Whether you've been around from day 1 or this is your day 1, you can contribute and there is very little controversy so no aguments insue. Frankly, while I enjoy creating threads, most of them are not ORG worthy.

Now, someone like Cyclone, for example, he posts some heavy weight threads. Lots of indepth statistical research, charts, graphs, etc. That should be in ORG because people want to discuss the numbers without it falling apart into a "stats suck" debate. That can happen on Reds Live.

Long winded answer but threads that are worthy of serrious discussion without the noise of "Dunn is the sux" should go into ORG. Otherwise, Reds Live is a perfect place for the thread so all have a chance to contribute.

Interesting way to look at it. However, I have doubts that most people segragate their posts that way. (shrug) Ohhh, all right, all, right....:dunno:

Rem

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 03:54 PM
Interesting way to look at it. However, I have doubts that most people segragate their posts that way. (shrug) Ohhh, all right, all, right....:dunno:

Rem

Despite your doubts, that's usually the way I divide them as well. Maybe that's just the way Ltlabner and I do it, but I really would find that hard to believe. If it's something stat-heavy (which isn't often for me) and I don't want people saying "you're a stupid stat-geek, watch the game," then I put it in ORG. Otherwise, all of the threads I start go into Reds Live so everyone can discuss them.


BTW, I love this guy :dunno:. I don't think he's 'dweeby' at all. Reminds me of Steven Van Zandt on the Sopranos.

Danny Serafini
04-17-2007, 03:56 PM
I actually do segregate threads that I start that way. If I've got a question or a comment that will require a more thought out discussion I'll put it in ORG. If it's a lighter topic or general news I'll put it in Live where everyone can get at it. That said, most of my stuff will go into Live because I don't have the analytical depth that others here do.

Eric_Davis
04-17-2007, 03:56 PM
Honestly, I doubt a single person on that list would act any differently. I'm 100% positive those people would post the same as they do now and not give a rip if it was in the ORG or Red Live. There's a reason why RedsZone became the phenomenon it did in the first place, because you had a large group of Reds fans who weren't shy about writing down what they think.

My guess is if you polled every single person on the board with more than 400 rep points whether they ever think about rep when they're making a post, you'd get a 100% response rate of no. I tend to view the assemblage we've got on the ORG as inevitable. We accept you, one of us.

I never even knew what rep points were until about 2-3 months ago, nor had I even hear about them. I also didn't know there was a chatroom you could go to until today. And I've been speaking with all of you since 1995 as the forums have migrated. I kept losing my passwords and so "BlazerBenner" became "Eric_Davis", but those with long memories (the elephants, I guess), like M2, know my history, such as thinking Jason Lane would be better than he is, and other things :) . Anyway, I agree that most people don't really think about it at all.

FWIW, I haven't viewed as many sites as many or most of you, but when I did go searching other fan sites in the past, I contiunally found the best of them to be the worst that our sites here ever get.

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 03:58 PM
This is a fantastically interesting discussion, although I know the old timers are probably totally bored since it happens every year.




This thread has been very therapeutic for me. It's nice to be able to discuss things like this without the appearance of shouting, arguing, etc. It actually "feels" like people are listening to each other and responding (hey! novel concept). It's been awhile since I felt like that on this board.

zombie-a-go-go
04-17-2007, 04:01 PM
This thread has been very therapeutic for me. It's nice to be able to discuss things like this without the appearance of shouting, arguing, etc. It actually "feels" like people are listening to each other and responding (hey! novel concept). It's been awhile since I felt like that on this board.

Whatever.

WVRedsFan
04-17-2007, 04:02 PM
This thread has been very therapeutic for me. It's nice to be able to discuss things like this without the appearance of shouting, arguing, etc. It actually "feels" like people are listening to each other and responding (hey! novel concept). It's been awhile since I felt like that on this board.

And, thus, the opposite of last night.

Folks, we can lose the good posters if the stuff that was going on in the game thread continues (and about 80% of what goes on in Live). Just my opinion of course, but when was the last time you saw RFS62 and many others post in the game thread?

I rest my case.

M2
04-17-2007, 04:05 PM
This is a fantastically interesting discussion, although I know the old timers are probably totally bored since it happens every year.

All of the threads I start go into Reds Live! for the exact reason you gave. I want everybody to have a chance to comment on them.

That said, lots of the threads I start are "light weight" threads. That is, I love the "what's your favorite....." type threads, or imaginary scanarios because I love to hear people talking/posting about baseball in general. Whether you've been around from day 1 or this is your day 1, you can contribute and there is very little controversy so no aguments insue. Frankly, while I enjoy creating threads, most of them are not ORG worthy.

Now, someone like Cyclone, for example, he posts some heavy weight threads. Lots of indept statistical research, charts, graphs, etc. That should be in ORG because people want to discuss the numbers without it falling apart into a "stats suck" debate. That can happen on Reds Live.

Long winded answer but threads that are worthy of serrious discussion without the noise of "Dunn is the sux" should go into ORG. Otherwise, Reds Live is a perfect place for the thread so all have a chance to contribute.

That's a pretty good breakdown of it. There's certain things that are guaranteed to jump down a "stats make me angry" rabbit hole on Reds Live.

I've also noticed that what side gets more activity tends to run in cycles. For the most part, I'd say the healthy amount of activity on Reds Live demonstrates that we don't have an us vs. them system. ORG's just around to weed out a lot of metaposting when folks would rather talk about baseball.

I don't start a ton of threads, but when I do, it's always on ORG because I want to kick around the meat of the issue. When a major move gets made, I generally post in the ORG thread too because that's where I find the deeper analysis occurs.

IMO, just the act of having some visible standards helps matters.

So if people think the game threads would benefit from a split then I say go for it. There will be an inevitable flare up about it this summer (as membengal said, these things are predictable), but that system worked last year.

HumnHilghtFreel
04-17-2007, 04:09 PM
Just thought I'd toss in my two pennies.

I haven't been a member of this board too long, almost a year now, IIRC. I got my posting privileges in here about a month ago. I love the system, but I think it's mainly because I'm a very goal oriented person. It gave me something to get to and in the process I figured out what flies and what doesn't around here. Show substance and be rewarded. I think it definitely helps the quality of the site.

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 04:10 PM
Just my opinion of course, but when was the last time you saw RFS62 and many others post in the game thread?.

Not to be argumentative, but would RFS62 post in the game thread if it were pure as the wind driven snow? My point is, some folks might not be posting there because they just don't enjoy the format regardless of the content. I don't often post there, unless chat is totally dead, because I don't care for having to refresh 1000 times. Has nothing to do with the content.

I agree that the shenangans can run off some quality posters, but I don't think you can make a +1 correlation between people acting up and people not posting on the game thread.


So if people think the game threads would benefit from a split then I say go for it. There will be an inevitable flare up about it this summer (as membengal said, these things are predictable), but that system worked last year.

The only downside to seperated threads is that if you have a game thread with only reds live folks (1) there's typically very few people in it (2) there's no self policing going on because all of the solid/regular posters are elsewhere.

Sure it's easier to have seperate theads, but with some self policing and work, shouldn't one game thread suffice? Maybe that's just too utopian since this conversation has been had many times before.

Strikes Out Looking
04-17-2007, 04:15 PM
Interesting thread--ok, not that much, but I have work to do that I'm putting off!

I was on the game thread early last night before I left to go to a meeting. I was listening to the game, so I was trying to update the game (because someone asked for it) and no one else was doing it--most of the folks were just typing like monkeys trying to write Shakespeare (I don't think they were successful).

I don't know what the answer is to the game thread--I do know I've negged a few times--I hate to do it--I remember doing it to one Albert Pujols--it was a funny neg because whoever the poster was--was trying to be a wisenheimer, not a real RZ poster. And I've gotten negged a couple of times, some called for--I learned that if I'm going to be flippant here, I've got to back up my statement or be LOL funny (which I'm usually not except in my own mind).

And I start threads in both forums, depending on what kind (poll in RL) and who's opinion I personally want to hear.

Just my two cents.

Wheelhouse
04-17-2007, 04:21 PM
I think the threads are for observations that one would want archived. For general ranting during a game, go to the chat. That's what I do :)

Wheelhouse
04-17-2007, 04:24 PM
I also think last night's game is a tough one to take posters to task on--the Reds got beat 1) by the worst call I've ever seen 2) the Brewers, that mediocre team that always seems to whip the Reds for the last decade and 3) Hall, that mediocre player who always seems to pound Reds pitching. Many buttons were pushed I'm sure.

paintmered
04-17-2007, 04:25 PM
I don't know what the answer is to the game thread--I do know I've negged a few times--I hate to do it--I remember doing it to one Albert Pujols--it was a funny neg because whoever the poster was--was trying to be a wisenheimer, not a real RZ poster. And I've gotten negged a couple of times, some called for--I learned that if I'm going to be flippant here, I've got to back up my statement or be LOL funny (which I'm usually not except in my own mind).


Albert Pujols is the alter-ego of a well-known RZ poster.

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 04:26 PM
Albert Pujols is the alter-ego of a well-known RZ poster.

probably zombie = not funny :D

Unassisted
04-17-2007, 04:36 PM
Here's a simple idea to reduce the chat-like characteristics of the game threads. How about raising the minimum length for a post in the Game Thread forum?

If a post was requred to have, say 200 characters, a poster would be compelled to include a thoughtful reason why Player X sucks.

If the Player X-hater simply wants to vent, s/he can do so in less than 200 characters in chat.

remdog
04-17-2007, 04:38 PM
This thread has been very therapeutic for me. It's nice to be able to discuss things like this without the appearance of shouting, arguing, etc. It actually "feels" like people are listening to each other and responding (hey! novel concept). It's been awhile since I felt like that on this board.

Kinda' funny. I took a break to start lunch and I was thinking the same things you've said. (Including the word 'therapeutic' so I hope you can spell it 'cause I sure can't!) I feel a lot better about the board now than when I started on this thread this morning. Good discussion.

And, reading through other replies, apparently many/some of you do segregate your posts/threads by the board. Who'd a thunk it? Apparently, everyone else but me. :dunno:

Say! You're right! That little guy (:dunno:) does look like Stevie! That just makes him even creapier! :laugh:

Rem

M2
04-17-2007, 04:39 PM
I don't often post there, unless chat is totally dead, because I don't care for having to refresh 1000 times. Has nothing to do with the content.

That tends to be my issue too. It gets impossible to watch the game and keep up with the thread at the same time.

It actually touches upon my main complaint with game threads, that there's a lot of "chat" type posts in there - stuff that's the equivalent of saying "yay" or "boo." I've got nothing against chat, in fact I think it's probably underutilized. It's perfect for stream of consciousness and posts that consist of nothing but a few smilies.

By definition, a game thread should be a place where you can type a paragraph or two and have an ongoing and easily traceable conversation. That's probably why I've got no problem with splitting the threads. It would make the individual game threads more manageable, less of a firehose chug.

HumnHilghtFreel
04-17-2007, 04:39 PM
Here's a simple idea to reduce the chat-like characteristics of the game threads. How about raising the minimum length for a post in the Game Thread forum?

If a post was requred to have, say 200 characters, a poster would be compelled to include a thoughtful reason why Player X sucks.

If the Player X-hater simply wants to vent, s/he can do so in less than 200 characters in chat.

The only problem with this, as I can see, is that it would make play by play very hard to do.

M2
04-17-2007, 04:40 PM
I think the threads are for observations that one would want archived. For general ranting during a game, go to the chat. That's what I do :)

That's pretty much the perfect way of phrasing it.

Heath
04-17-2007, 04:46 PM
Is the Father in for confessional?

As a member of the "front page rep & post club" - I look at that list and I am probably the most unqualified of all of those folks. I also tend to spurt out at times.

My actions and posts of game thread from April 16, 2007 were warranted in my own mind. I was even informed by a mod that it wasn't necessary after I hit the send button.

But, what gets my goat (sorry Puffy) is that there are open attacks on moderators' decisions. While this is a friendly, democratic board, there are people who have the ability to make a totalitarian decision and the people in charge of this board have given the right to do that. Moderators have the thankless job of keeping this board from falling apart at the seams. They have earned the job that they have been asked to do. So, in my haste, I lashed out at the problems, especially at some folks who disrespected moderators.

There are some around here that it is their First Amendment right to access and discuss on a message board Reds baseball or other topics as they come up. What people fail to realize is the privilege we have been given mostly by Boss, GIK, other mods, & donators to express our "rights" can be simply removed with one click of a mouse key.

Until some realize that "privileges" and "rights" are different, it may be a mess around here for a while.

Heath
04-17-2007, 04:47 PM
Kinda' funny. I took a break to start lunch and I was thinking the same things you've said. (Including the word 'therapeutic' so I hope you can spell it 'cause I sure can't!) I feel a lot better about the board now than when I started on this thread this morning. Good discussion.

And, reading through other replies, apparently many/some of you do segregate your posts/threads by the board. Who'd a thunk it? Apparently, everyone else but me. :dunno:

Say! You're right! That little guy (:dunno:) does look like Stevie! That just makes him even creapier! :laugh:

Rem

This can't be Rem - he forgot the (shrug)

(shrug)



:D

M2
04-17-2007, 04:49 PM
Here's a simple idea to reduce the chat-like characteristics of the game threads. How about raising the minimum length for a post in the Game Thread forum?

If a post was requred to have, say 200 characters, a poster would be compelled to include a thoughtful reason why Player X sucks.

If the Player X-hater simply wants to vent, s/he can do so in less than 200 characters in chat.

I don't think we'd need to go that far. I'm thinking a concerted effort to get people into chat would be a better step (e.g. stickies at the top of the appropriate boards about why you may prefer chats as your good/bad steam outlet during games).

There's always going to be some chat-like posts in a game thread. There probably even needs to be. Even Victorian Era Brits must have sometimes felt the need to say something brief (though I'm not sure written proof exists).

dougdirt
04-17-2007, 04:54 PM
The only problem with this, as I can see, is that it would make play by play very hard to do.

I dont generally post in the Game Threads since I can watch them or listen at home, but when I do go into them I notice 4 or 5 guys all doing PBP. It clutters things up. Maybe a way to calm that down is that 1 or 2 guys can do PBP and limit it to that and everyone else can just chime in on specifics of the game. Just a thought.

Strikes Out Looking
04-17-2007, 04:57 PM
I dont generally post in the Game Threads since I can watch them or listen at home, but when I do go into them I notice 4 or 5 guys all doing PBP. It clutters things up. Maybe a way to calm that down is that 1 or 2 guys can do PBP and limit it to that and everyone else can just chime in on specifics of the game. Just a thought.

And part of the problem last night (at least when I was in there) is that no one was doing pbb consistently.

BRM
04-17-2007, 04:59 PM
And part of the problem last night (at least when I was in there) is that no one was doing pbb consistently.

That's one of the first things I thought when I read through it this morning. There seemed to be very few updates on the game the first 30-40 pages, maybe more.

paintmered
04-17-2007, 04:59 PM
And part of the problem last night (at least when I was in there) is that no one was doing pbb consistently.

Yeah, I really had no idea what was going on in the game last night. When Hamilton hit his home run, I had to go to ESPN to find out what he did. The problem is people posted "WHOOO!!!!!" and "OMG HAMILTON!!!!1ONE!" and nobody mentioned what actually happened.

Patrick Bateman
04-17-2007, 04:59 PM
Maybe a maximum amount of posts per person in game threads. Say 10 or so. That way people may put more thought into each of their posts rather than wasting them on 'Coffey teh sucks' 100 times.

It would also help the vloume of posts in each thread.

Heath
04-17-2007, 05:00 PM
Yeah, I really had no idea what was going on in the game last night. When Hamilton hit his home run, I had to go to ESPN to find out what he did. The problem is people posted "WHOOO!!!!!" and "OMG HAMILTON!!!!1ONE!" and nobody mentioned what actually happened.

I think Josh Hamilton homered last night. 2 run HR as well.

At least that's what it says in my fantasy baseball statistics on my team..... :thumbup:

Strikes Out Looking
04-17-2007, 05:01 PM
Yeah, I really had no idea what was going on in the game last night. When Hamilton hit his home run, I had to go to ESPN to find out what he did. The problem is people posted "WHOOO!!!!!" and "OMG HAMILTON!!!!1ONE!" and nobody mentioned what actually happened.

Don't you know that WHOOO!!! is the universal sign of a home run?

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 05:10 PM
And part of the problem last night (at least when I was in there) is that no one was doing pbb consistently.

That's my problem with the game threads. Either you have a bunch of people doing the pbp and the same post is repeated for 6 posts in a row:

Dunn!
Dunn HR!!
Dunn goes yard
Dunn, gone
Adam!
Adam HR

Or no one does the pbp and you get what you got last night. Generally just rants, complaints and nonsense.

If you limit the game thread to one pbp man, it comes off much more readable. I think M2 was right that some commentary is neccessary, and sometimes welcomed, but the rants really need to stop.

Maybe we ought to pick out one pbp guy and one "color" guy per day to do the games and only give them access to post in that thread. It would be an honor to post in the thread. Could do someone that has ORG priviledges doing the pbp and a RL member doing the color commentary. Maybe that way those two would get to know each other a little better and we could establish a more friendly atmosphere instead of the chaotic college bar scene it is now.

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 05:11 PM
Talk about rep? 1 day ban, no questions asked.

I don't necessarily agree with this because every new poster is going to ask questions about it only to get slapped on the nose.

Whining and complaining about it ...... yes.

Being new and trying to understand it ..... no.

You gotta give new folks a chance.

Chip R
04-17-2007, 05:12 PM
Don't you know that WHOOO!!! is the universal sign of a home run?


I thought it was the universal sign of the end of a Ric Flair interview.

WMR
04-17-2007, 05:14 PM
What people fail to realize is the privilege we have been given mostly by Boss, GIK, other mods, & donators to express our "rights" can be simply removed with one click of a mouse key.

Until some realize that "privileges" and "rights" are different, it may be a mess around here for a while.

http://www.dnscoop.com/

According to this website, Boss and GIK are sitting on a goldmine. :clap:

Having a personal, FREE website appraised at nearly $45,000 ain't too shabby.

Great testament to the community that has been built here.

(www.dnscoop.com is a really fun website too, btw)

BRM
04-17-2007, 05:15 PM
I thought it was the universal sign of the end of a Ric Flair interview.

It's sometimes signals the beginning of a Flair interview as well...and the middle.

WMR
04-17-2007, 05:16 PM
Maybe we ought to pick out one pbp guy and one "color" guy per day to do the games and only give them access to post in that thread. It would be an honor to post in the thread.

That's an awesome idea!

I only work five innings though. (a la the coiffed one)

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 05:17 PM
As for game threads, two separate ones worked fairly well last year.

I agree. It's never been a matter of "good" or "bad" posters to me. The benefit was that it simply divided the numbers.

BRM
04-17-2007, 05:17 PM
That's an awesome idea!

I only work five innings though. (a la the coiffed one)

I didn't know you worked at all...

WMR
04-17-2007, 05:19 PM
I didn't know you worked at all...

BRM: 13-3 13-3 13-3

Indiana fans are so cute. :laugh:

HumnHilghtFreel
04-17-2007, 05:20 PM
Maybe we ought to pick out one pbp guy and one "color" guy per day to do the games and only give them access to post in that thread. It would be an honor to post in the thread. Could do someone that has ORG priviledges doing the pbp and a RL member doing the color commentary. Maybe that way those two would get to know each other a little better and we could establish a more friendly atmosphere instead of the chaotic college bar scene it is now.

That sounds like a really fun idea.

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 05:20 PM
For instance, I'm as obnoxious, overbearing, smug and self-congratulatory as I ever was. I'm totally on top of my game.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbup:

M2
04-17-2007, 05:21 PM
I dont generally post in the Game Threads since I can watch them or listen at home, but when I do go into them I notice 4 or 5 guys all doing PBP. It clutters things up. Maybe a way to calm that down is that 1 or 2 guys can do PBP and limit it to that and everyone else can just chime in on specifics of the game. Just a thought.

That's sort of the classic way it works. My guess is it will sort of straighten itself out over the next few weeks.

Danny Serafini
04-17-2007, 05:22 PM
Maybe we ought to pick out one pbp guy and one "color" guy per day to do the games and only give them access to post in that thread.

The whole point of a game thread is to talk about the game. Only allow two people in and the game thread becomes pointless.

TheBigLebowski
04-17-2007, 05:23 PM
Wow - I read this thread this morning and it was barely over a page. Now we're at 11+.

Good thread, though...obviously.

M2
04-17-2007, 05:23 PM
Yeah, I really had no idea what was going on in the game last night.

What? You don't know how to decipher the deeper meanings of bouncing smileys?

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 05:24 PM
Because I realize that:B: There are some people on this board that I will not connect with due to style. However, that doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong to use that style.
Rem

That's an excellent point and one that many of us don't think enough about.

paintmered
04-17-2007, 05:25 PM
Maybe a maximum amount of posts per person in game threads. Say 10 or so. That way people may put more thought into each of their posts rather than wasting them on 'Coffey teh sucks' 100 times.

It would also help the vloume of posts in each thread.

We've been down that road before. It created a mess of complaints.

paintmered
04-17-2007, 05:26 PM
What? You don't know how to decipher the deeper meanings of bouncing smileys?

I'm too busy trying to decipher Ph.Ds from Asia.

BRM
04-17-2007, 05:26 PM
BRM: 13-3 13-3 13-3

Indiana fans are so cute. :laugh:

Typical Kentucky fan...dwelling on the past. :rolleyes:

:p:

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 05:30 PM
The whole point of a game thread is to talk about the game. Only allow two people in and the game thread becomes pointless.

You had to go and bring that up didn't you? Other people thought I was a genius until this post...:laugh:

You're right, if you only have two people in the game thread, it more or less just becomes an observation thread...more for people that just want to follow along and can't watch or listen through some other media, rather than those that want to contribute.

I just figured it'd be a good way to develop a friendly atmosphere and allow for 2 people each night to show off their talent, humor, and sarcasm, of lack thereof, in special way.

BRM
04-17-2007, 05:32 PM
I'm going to try to get into Chat tonight. I haven't been in there yet this year and was rarely in it last year. I'd like to see if it's a good way to enjoy the game. As long as people like WilyMo leave me alone, it should be enjoyable...

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 05:35 PM
I've got a couple points about negative rep. First, in the very early days of this system you could give a neutral rep. I'd really like to see that option return. I've only given one negative, and it had nothing to do with baseball. There are times where maybe someone deserves a warning, they're teetering on going over the line, but I don't want to hammer their points for it. The ability to say "Hey, watch it" would come in handy sometimes. I think there would be more self-policing by the members if they had the ability to send a message without stripping points from someone.

Interesting idea. I like it very much. I've PMed some new people instead of negging them. I'd like the option you mention above. I've PMed them to edit out "masked profanity" or clean up a joke just so they won't get ganged up on.

RFS62
04-17-2007, 05:36 PM
Not to be argumentative, but would RFS62 post in the game thread if it were pure as the wind driven snow?

I agree that the shenangans can run off some quality posters, but I don't think you can make a +1 correlation between people acting up and people not posting on the game thread.





The ONLY reason I don't post regularily on the game thread is that it has way too much "noise". I believe it was WOY who first coined that term around here, at least to my knowledge.

There have been many, many enjoyable game threads over the years that I've had a lot of fun with. But when it's all a bunch of mindless yammering, it's not a bit of fun for me. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

I always go back to a sports bar analogy whenever these semi-annual conversations come around. The owners of the bar set the standards of behavior. It can either be a fun place to hang out and discuss the game, or a mosh pit. The free speech argument is irrelevent here, although to their great credit, the admins and mods have always bent over backwards to allow people a very long leash.

It seems more like a mosh pit these days. No doubt, many posters like that atmosphere. It's just not for me.

I love a good debate. Nothing better than intelligent arguments and good humor watching a game. And we've had that many times over the history of the site. But with the tremendous growth we've experienced, the old timers have all seen the problem of "noise" grow more and more.

The owners and mods really do their best to make it a great place to hang out, but it seems to me that we now have a bunch of people who seem to think it's their right to say or do anything they please.




I think the threads are for observations that one would want archived. For general ranting during a game, go to the chat. That's what I do :)



Boy, do I ever wish it was like that.

And, BTW, I couldn't agree more with M2 about the rep system. The guys at the top of that list couldn't care less about their rep points. I know I couldn't. And like he said, we've been hanging out together for years. I consider many, many people here good friends. There's not much better than hanging out with people you respect and talking baseball.

The noise in the game threads, and on the site in general, makes it too much like work to search out the people I want to hear and talk to.

WMR
04-17-2007, 05:40 PM
I'm going to try to get into Chat tonight. I haven't been in there yet this year and was rarely in it last year. I'd like to see if it's a good way to enjoy the game. As long as people like WilyMo leave me alone, it should be enjoyable...

I've never tried chat before, but dag-nab-it, I think it's about time I did! :mooner:

Hey, BRM, I heard Eric Gordon's Cadillac Escalade has 24" chrome rims and a vanity plate on the back that says: "KLVNLUVSME"

WMR
04-17-2007, 05:42 PM
Typical Kentucky fan...dwelling on the past. :rolleyes:

:p:

Those who ignore the past...

How's that saying go? :mooner: ;)

BRM
04-17-2007, 05:43 PM
I've never tried chat before, but dag-nab-it, I think it's about time I did! :mooner:

Hey, BRM, I heard Eric Gordon's Cadillac Escalade has 24" chrome rims and a vanity plate on the back that says: "KLVNLUVSME"

The couple of times I went into Chat last year it was a lot of fun.

Billy G. will be sporting a "KLVNOWNSME" vanity plate after a few years of Hoosier domination. :cool:

Falls City Beer
04-17-2007, 05:46 PM
I'm a gamethread socialist: save the literature for the non-game threads; game threads should be angst-wet IMO.

Bring the noise.

WMR
04-17-2007, 05:46 PM
The couple of times I went into Chat last year it was a lot of fun.

Billy G. will be sporting a "KLVNOWNSME" vanity plate after a few years of Hoosier domination. :cool:

We're gonna have to get some sort of wager going... loser has to display a UK/Indiana avatar of the other's choosing for a couple weeks or something.

If you're not CHICKEN, that is!

http://raisingchooks.typepad.com/raising_chooks/images/chicken-thumb.jpg

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 05:46 PM
One of the interesting things (to me anyway) is that 'Live' consistently has more posts/threads than does ORG---and they are written, very heavily, by ORG members. I think that this reflects a desire by most posters to expose their thoughts/opinions to the most people and to accept feedback on them. Rem

I think I read more on ORG, but post more on Reds Live .... although I haven't posted much in awhile.

I'm a casual fan. I do enough research at work and baseball is simple entertainment for me. I'm a lightweight and I'm perfectly O.K. with that. Always have been.

I fit in with the rowdy fans in the bleacher seats. ;) They're my peeps! :laugh:

I don't have anything in depth to add or that I really feel like putting a lot of energy into.

remdog
04-17-2007, 05:46 PM
Wow - I read this thread this morning and it was barely over a page. Now we're at 11+.

Good thread, though...obviously.

Please note that the number of posts recently changed fron 20/page to 15/page, ergo, more pages. ;)

Rem

BRM
04-17-2007, 05:47 PM
We're gonna have to get some sort of wager going... loser has to display a UK/Indiana avatar of the other's choosing for a couple weeks or something.


I'll take you up on that. I'm betting Razor will be around to accept the bet as well.

BRM
04-17-2007, 05:48 PM
I'm a gamethread socialist: save the literature for the non-game threads; game threads should be angst-wet IMO.

Bring the noise.

You know, I usually don't mind the noise as long as game updates are sprinkled in often enough for me to follow along.

RFS62
04-17-2007, 05:49 PM
Maybe we need to define "noise".

To me, it's mindless yapping. No thought behind it.

zombie-a-go-go
04-17-2007, 05:50 PM
probably zombie = not funny :D

not funny = hilarious :cool:

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 05:51 PM
I'm going to try to get into Chat tonight. I haven't been in there yet this year and was rarely in it last year. I'd like to see if it's a good way to enjoy the game. As long as people like WilyMo leave me alone, it should be enjoyable...

Wait a minute. In all this feal good vibery I overlooked one important thing. Does this mean that WillyMo guy will be allowed into chat? Holy crap! Wait a second. I have to rethink everything now.

Everybody should stay in the game thread. Chats the sux ! Stay away!

:evil:

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 05:51 PM
not funny = hilarious :cool:

In your specific case, yeah, I guess you're right.

Good to see you, Z. Hope all is well with you and the family.

WMR
04-17-2007, 05:54 PM
I'll take you up on that. I'm betting Razor will be around to accept the bet as well.

?????

http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/indiana_hoosiers.jpg

?????

Nahhhhh, even I'm not that cruel.

Eric_Davis
04-17-2007, 05:54 PM
That's my problem with the game threads. Either you have a bunch of people doing the pbp and the same post is repeated for 6 posts in a row:

Dunn!
Dunn HR!!
Dunn goes yard
Dunn, gone
Adam!
Adam HR



That's like cheering or clapping. Game threads don't have to be boring. I like it when 6 posts in a row says that Dunn hit a homerun. People get to share their enthusiasm with each other for what happened.

Strikes Out Looking
04-17-2007, 05:56 PM
We're gonna have to get some sort of wager going... loser has to display a UK/Indiana avatar of the other's choosing for a couple weeks or something.

If you're not CHICKEN, that is!

http://raisingchooks.typepad.com/raising_chooks/images/chicken-thumb.jpg

As a Hoosier grad, I want in. Especially with the team IU has next year!

Ltlabner
04-17-2007, 05:57 PM
Maybe we need to define "noise".

To me, it's mindless yapping. No thought behind it.

I would think it would be hard to crank out long, thought provoking posts in a game thread. While the pace of baseball isn't that fast, it's fast enough, IMO to prevent cranking out a paragraph about why a player could have gotten to the base quicker by sliding rather than running through the bag.

But then again, I rarely show up in the game thread so it doesn't much matter to me.

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 05:57 PM
Maybe we need to define "noise".

To me, it's mindless yapping. No thought behind it.


Are you TRYING to get me banned? ;)

WMR
04-17-2007, 05:58 PM
Wait a minute. In all this feal good vibery I overlooked one important thing. Does this mean that WillyMo guy will be allowed into chat? Holy crap! Wait a second. I have to rethink everything now.

Everybody should stay in the game thread. Chats the sux ! Stay away!

:evil:

Lt and BRM type this 1000 times

http://airek.itgo.com/images/Bart-AllYourBase.jpg

WMR
04-17-2007, 06:00 PM
As a Hoosier grad, I want in. Especially with the team IU has next year!

Ahhh! Those damn IU fans! Just like cockroaches... you see one, that means there's a hundred more just waiting to scurry out! ;) :p:

jojo
04-17-2007, 06:01 PM
To me a game thread is basically like sitting with your buddies in the stands and watching the game....sometimes the conversation is going to be rah, rah or uuuugggghhhhh.... sometimes a great conversation about strategy will break out where you can gain alot of insight or you'll talk about scouting reports or how to pitch a guy etc.... the only difference is that game threads alllow you to fact check via the internet in real time and the number of people who can hear you and your buddies (as well as join in on the conversation) is much greater...

I like it when the game thread has an "at the stadium in your lazyboy" feel...

The only draw back is sometimes people get a little more obnoxious on the computer than they would in the stands,,,, but redszone has that taken care of too.... think of the rep point system/moderators as cyber ushers....

I guess I don't see the gamethreads as being in critical condition per se... they aren't 70 page versions of the Bill James Abstract for sure, but they still have redeeming qualities...

Strikes Out Looking
04-17-2007, 06:02 PM
Ahhh! Those damn IU fans! Just like cockroaches... you see one, that means there's a hundred more just waiting to scurry out! ;) :p:

Well educated cockroaches.

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 06:04 PM
That's like cheering or clapping. Game threads don't have to be boring. I like it when 6 posts in a row says that Dunn hit a homerun. People get to share their enthusiasm with each other for what happened.

Maybe that was a bad example. I agree, it doesn't bother me to hear people overjoyed when someone hits a HR or makes a big play. It's the routine plays, non events by the Reds or the team they are playing.

It's a little worse when you see:

"Eckstein grounds out to 3rd" in 7 variations, including 2 after the next batter has come to the plate and done something else after that...

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 06:08 PM
Maybe that was a bad example. I agree, it doesn't bother me to hear people overjoyed when someone hits a HR or makes a big play. It's the routine plays, non events by the Reds or the team they are playing.

It's a little worse when you see:

"Eckstein grounds out to 3rd" in 7 variations, including 2 after the next batter has come to the plate and done something else after that...


You're never going to be able to do anything about the numbers with multiple people posting about the same event within seconds. That's something you just have to live with considering the numbers of folks participating.

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 06:09 PM
So sac up, RL!

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 06:14 PM
You're never going to be able to do anything about the numbers with multiple people posting about the same event within seconds. That's something you just have to live with considering the numbers of folks participating.

You're right.

For the most part I'm at home when the games are on. I'm either watching or listening, but rarely am I online when a game is on. For the most part, I only notice game threads when there are day games, so most of my observations are drawn from those specific occasions. I should have just said "put me in the camp with M2 and others in that I don't like hitting refresh 100 times to keep up with the game thread." Would have been a lot easier than going into detail.

Red Leader
04-17-2007, 06:15 PM
So sac up, RL!

Professional advice right there. Noted. :thumbup:

RFS62
04-17-2007, 06:17 PM
I would think it would be hard to crank out long, thought provoking posts in a game thread. While the pace of baseball isn't that fast, it's fast enough, IMO to prevent cranking out a paragraph about why a player could have gotten to the base quicker by sliding rather than running through the bag.

But then again, I rarely show up in the game thread so it doesn't much matter to me.



I'm not suggesting long, elaborate posts. I'm talking about saying something interesting.

The whole "goRedz" vs. "you suck" dialogue is what I'm talking about.

KronoRed
04-17-2007, 06:17 PM
So sac up, RL!

:laugh: :laugh:

TeamCasey
04-17-2007, 06:17 PM
She's so cute, isn't she?

KronoRed
04-17-2007, 06:22 PM
She's so cute, isn't she?

Yep :)





What happend? :devil:
*runs*

BRM
04-17-2007, 06:42 PM
Well educated cockroaches.

Be careful using big words like "educated" around WilyMo. He gets snippy when he's confused. ;)

WMR
04-17-2007, 07:37 PM
Be careful using big words like "educated" around WilyMo. He gets snippy when he's confused. ;)

Indiana Men's Basketball Team Plane

http://www.firekite.com/store/misc/pics/forum24/short_bus_plane.jpg

(President of Indiana University pictured in foreground)

Redsland
04-17-2007, 07:51 PM
Albert Pujols is the alter-ego of a well-known RZ poster.
In violation of Rule 7?

Razor Shines
04-17-2007, 07:51 PM
Everyone's buying this disdain for Wily Mo a little too easily, IMO!! :laugh:

:eek: :eek:

Face it the guy's a bum. I mean he likes UK....and he tells people about it, it's brutal.

I think that Eric Gordon avatar is going to look really nice under his SN.

KronoRed
04-17-2007, 08:06 PM
In violation of Rule 7?

Wait a sec..where did that rule come from? :eek:

WMR
04-17-2007, 08:12 PM
Face it the guy's a bum. I mean he likes UK....and he tells people about it, it's brutal.

I think that Eric Gordon avatar is going to look really nice under his SN.

http://ukteamshop.com/ukcart/files/d_38.jpg

Sorry, what'd you say, all these banners obscured my vision.

I can't decide if I'm going to give you guys a Mike Davis avatar or a Ramel "Smooth" Bradley av, or maybe go retro with Tony Delk or Kenny "Sky" Walker...

vaticanplum
04-17-2007, 08:21 PM
Well, I probably haven't read an eighth of this thread, but I will put in my two cents on the game threads. The game threads are the one place on this board where I AM selfish and territorial. The game threads are my baby, I love them. Sometimes (often?) they take a turn for the worst and I certainly feel for those policing them. But they're still mine, in the sense that all the people throwing worthless food around there are trashing my crib. Am I going to give them more food? No. I let them party, and when I want some of my floor back, I participate. And I still feel that when I'm participating the majority of people have worthwhile things to say in the midst of all the dreck. I'm not a "chatter", it's true; I tried instant messaging all of one time and I almost had a seizure, so I'm biased. But I just like the game threads.

My advice is that if someone says something that annoys you, ignore him. Unless it's a true troll -- something that's rare on this board -- he'll eventually be out of things to say if no one responds. The way to make anything better is not to give up on it; it's to contribute to and improve it. A friend of mine had a baby in the midst of some terrible events, and when she put him to bed one night she started tearing up and said to her husband, "What if we brought him into a terrible world?" And he shrugged and said, "Then he'll make it better." (That's only maybe a quarter-relevant metaphor, but I like to tell that story.)

Boss-Hog
04-17-2007, 11:17 PM
Well, I just finished reading every post in this thread and I'm going to post my two cents. I'm not, however, going to read every post in last night's game thread that helped spark this whole debate. :)

First off, from reading only the last few pages of the aforementioned game thread, it seems the negative reputation I left for reds44 may have been the catalyst for the game thread going downhill. If that is indeed the case, I apologize because that definitely wasn't the medium I should have conveyed my disdain for his repeated use of the nickname "Seabass" for Alex Gonzalez.

Ever since the reputation system was established, I've stressed that those with the ability to leave reputation should only do so for the quality (either way) of a user's post. I was in a hurry last night and rather than take the time to send him a private message, I made a mistake and chose the quick and easy way to convey my message. However, as someone who can see every reputation remark that has been left since day one, trust me when I say that there are plenty of people who don't use it for the way it was intended, and I was one of those people last night.

By the way, for those who have understandably questioned why I, and others, have a problem with "Seabass", I can only speak for myself, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the nickname being remotely offensive. Instead, it has everything to do with the user excessively using the nickname to the point that I get the impression he's trying it permanently ingrain it in others' minds so that they start using it, as well. I don't think it'd rub me the wrong way if it was a commonly accepted and used nickname, but we're talking about something that was allegedly given to him by a single ex-teammate. I've never once heard him referred to using this nickname anywhere else. Anyway, I know from reading other posts that I'm far from the only one that feels this way, but reds44's personal nickname for Alex Gonzalez isn't what I want this post to be about.

The two main topics discussed in this huge thread are a). the current state of the game threads and b). the reputation system. I do agree that some tweaks to the latter are probably needed, but I'll save my thoughts on that for a later post because I don't feel that these topics are directly related.

As far as the game threads, I'll be honest - I don't regularly read the game threads because I find them difficult to follow because of the all "noise" with so many different people posting about what they've just witnessed. I also want to make it clear that it's not fair or realistic to expect the site's administrators and moderators to read and analyze often upwards of a thousand separate posts in a game thread during a single night. If one person volunteers early in a game thread to do play by play, I think that's a great idea. Moving forward, I'll propose the following: much of the noise that currently occupies the game threads can be moved to chat (http://www.redszone.com/forums/FlashChat/flashchat.php). No one's asking that your posts model Shakespeare, particularly in something as relatively spontaneous as the game threads, but if your post is nothing more than ranting, or a different way of saying 'This player sucks', it should be taken to the chat room. This also applies to starting new threads as to whether or not a certain player is worth a darn because of something that happened in a game. All discussions about that specific game should remain in the game thread.

However, at worst, equally concerning to me is people attacking one another, complaining about the rules of the board, and discussing reputation and warnings in a game thread (or any thread, except in rare instances, such as this one). This type of behavior will absolutely not be tolerated any longer and, as paint said very earlier in this thread, if that means we have to close the game threads altogether, we'll reluctantly do it. Moving forward, everyone will maintain their access to post in game threads, but we, as administrators and moderators, absolutely will not hesitate to revoke access to post in games threads and/or the site as a whole. As has been mentioned throughout this thread, it is not your divine right to post here - you can choose to abide by the rules of the site and enjoy your time here or you will be shown the proverbial door.

I hope that everyone understands this new policy is in the best interest of the site. As the site continues to grow, it gets increasingly difficult to monitor every single post, particularly in the massive game threads. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

WebScorpion
04-17-2007, 11:33 PM
I didn't see this post until I popped in to post a few comments to the game thread. I use the game threads and chat pretty much indiscriminately...I use them the same way. I just post Go Reds!, Nice Play!, etc. with the occasional intelligent comment. Basically, I treat them as if we were all at the game together. I think the real problem is just the sheer volume of people in the threads at the same time...2 more pages every time you refresh. :eek: Anyway, I think dividing it into more manageable groups is the solution, but there are many ways to do that. You could open 2, 3 or even 4 game threads per game with some sort of object in mind for each or you could go back to the old system with a thread in each forum where only ORG members can post in that forum. We could open a stream of consciousness thread, an optimist only thread, and a play by play thread. Or you could just give them different names (Bleachers, Luxury Suite, First Base Line, etc.) and let people divide up however they wish. Either way, we've gotta thin out the numbers.
As far as posting on different forums; I just don't have the time to read all the messages here. I rarely get enough time to read the RL forum, and I don't think I've EVER posted there. I read ORG first, non-baseball if there's time, and then RL. During games, I usually just go straight to the game thread and won't see anything else until the game ends...today is the exception, just for this thread. Well, that's my 2.5 cents. :beerme:

George Foster
04-17-2007, 11:42 PM
I think you should have to be a member of the Redszone for 12 months before being able to post on the game threads, reguardless of how many points you have...IMO

RFS62
04-17-2007, 11:48 PM
It's a sports bar. The management needs to decide what they're willing to put up with and set the tone. Give the bouncers a big stick and let them us it. Otherwise, the inmates are running the asylum.

Heath
04-17-2007, 11:52 PM
Well, the Boss has spoken. Spot on as usual.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

paintmered
04-18-2007, 12:20 AM
Tonight's game thread was much better. :)

WVRedsFan
04-18-2007, 01:24 AM
I think you should have to be a member of the Redszone for 12 months before being able to post on the game threads, reguardless of how many points you have...IMO

I agree. it would separate the kids from the adults, but that's just my opinion also.


Tonight's game thread was much better.

Still the ucalled for posts about Junior is worthless and he should go to Florida and retire. Still juvinile in content, but yes. It was a little better.

Thanks to Boss for making things clear to everyone. He is da boss, you know.

919191
04-18-2007, 02:21 AM
It seems more like a mosh pit these days. No doubt, many posters like that atmosphere. It's just not for me.










What exactly is mosh, and how does one go about getting it into a pit?


Or does it occur naturally, and is simply discovered?

coachw513
04-18-2007, 10:43 AM
If you limit the game thread to one pbp man, it comes off much more readable. I think M2 was right that some commentary is neccessary, and sometimes welcomed, but the rants really need to stop.

Maybe we ought to pick out one pbp guy and one "color" guy per day to do the games and only give them access to post in that thread. It would be an honor to post in the thread. Could do someone that has ORG priviledges doing the pbp and a RL member doing the color commentary. Maybe that way those two would get to know each other a little better and we could establish a more friendly atmosphere instead of the chaotic college bar scene it is now.

What an interesting and creative idea ...I'd only allow those 2 to do their jobs and allow others to comment, but very interesting...:beerme:

In addition, this thread is proof of why this site works and is special...folks are INVESTED here, it's part of what draws me here each day

M2
04-18-2007, 10:53 AM
What exactly is mosh, and how does one go about getting it into a pit?


Or does it occur naturally, and is simply discovered?

It occurs naturally when you start playing songs with 4/4 timing.

KronoRed
04-18-2007, 11:41 AM
So we need to add audio to game threads? ;)

WebScorpion
04-18-2007, 12:32 PM
What exactly is mosh, and how does one go about getting it into a pit?


Or does it occur naturally, and is simply discovered?

It's a soft, pulpy mass usually created in the pit by energetically mixing and beating the original contents of the pit, most often driven by the rhythm of music being played nearby.
:runaway: :jump: :dancingco :runaway: :clap: :thumbup: :rockband:

SunDeck
04-18-2007, 04:24 PM
Coffey gave up that grand slam when I was on my way home, listening to the game. I remember thinking that the game thread was about the last thing I would want to look at when I got home.

We have had periods over the last seven years where people have ranted and then ranted about the ranting. It never stops, but I will say that I am really surprised by it this time. The Reds are moving in the right direction- they have an energetic owner who wants to win ballgames and who is not afraid to take the team in a direction. I understand the idea that they have decided to strengthen the defense as a way to improve pitching in lieu of spending money they don't have to compete in the overpriced FA market.

The Reds are NOT ready to be the great ballclub that fans want. True, they locked up two great pitchers and have had some pleasant surprises this year, so far. But they are still saddled with problems created by the previous ownership/FO (I can think of two LTC's in particular) and you can't expect that they are going to excel until they can get those things way behind them. The Reds are still basically an inferior team in many important aspects and winning baseball games at the major league level boils down to the talent you have throughout your system. I am realistic about the Reds. I hope they win the NL Central, but I understand that this is an awfully tall order, whether Jerry Narron or Lou Pinella is the manager.

What surprises me is that so many people with so much baseball knowledge, many of whom write some great things on this board, are so down about the Reds. If being a fan made me so angry I'd think of something else to do.

westofyou
04-18-2007, 04:25 PM
If being a fan made me so angry I'd think of something else to do.

Jazzercise helps burn stress.

Just sayin..

Redsland
04-18-2007, 05:01 PM
WOY, second from left.


http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e190/dj_stephana/jazzercise.jpg

:)

Red Leader
04-18-2007, 05:03 PM
WOY, second from left.


http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e190/dj_stephana/jazzercise.jpg

:)

I hope he couldn't be one of the others....:laugh: :laugh:

chicoruiz
04-18-2007, 05:29 PM
If one poster is designated as doing PbP, couldn't you click on his name, then click on "see all posts by"? Then in a few seconds the game thread minus chatter would load for you. Of course, you'd have to scroll from bottom to top to make it work chronologically...

membengal
04-18-2007, 05:34 PM
That seems a lot of work when it would be far easier for just one person to give the PBP particulars...

chicoruiz
04-18-2007, 07:00 PM
What exactly is the "mission statement" for the gamethread? Is it supposed to duplicate the experience of watching/listening to the game for those who can't, or is it supposed to duplicate the experience of watching the game with a bunch of other Reds fans? 'Cause it seems like we have people who want it to be one or the other...

Roy Tucker
04-18-2007, 08:13 PM
It occurs naturally when you start playing songs with 4/4 timing.

Mosh to disco?

:cool:

REDREAD
04-19-2007, 05:02 PM
The whole point of a game thread is to talk about the game. Only allow two people in and the game thread becomes pointless.

I agree. I participate in maybe 1 or 2 game threads per week. It's a way to relax and talk about the action as it happens. I also read them the next day if I missed the game the day before.

If there's too many rules, why would anyone want to participate?

Maybe we should have a regular game thread, and a special sanitized one for those that want only play by play or whatever. If all you want is play by play.. why not just read game tracker?

I like the emotion during the game thread. Not the personal attacks, but the show of emotion.. Even if it's 20 posts in a row cheering a Dunn HR.

GAC
04-19-2007, 06:15 PM
I agree. I participate in maybe 1 or 2 game threads per week. It's a way to relax and talk about the action as it happens. I also read them the next day if I missed the game the day before.

If there's too many rules, why would anyone want to participate?

You're absolutely right. I've said this before - it's simply a separate form of chat really. So basically, you have two chat forums going on.


Maybe we should have a regular game thread, and a special sanitized one for those that want only play by play or whatever. If all you want is play by play.. why not just read game tracker?

Yep. It's obvious that a majority there are already using a gametracker (ESPN, CBS Sportsline) already. And are using that in order to interact on the GT.


I like the emotion during the game thread. Not the personal attacks, but the show of emotion.. Even if it's 20 posts in a row cheering a Dunn HR.

What I never understood is why some many on the GT get all worked up, as well as the arguments and personal attacks? There have been many of us participating in chat for the last several years during games, and we've never had this problem at all. I guess it's possibly different "environments" or platforms draws different types of people. But we've never had the problems, not even the need for a moderator, while in chat.

We're more laid back I guess. :cool:

Handofdeath
04-20-2007, 02:45 PM
The problem I have is the neverending negativity on this board as a whole, but the game threads are the worst. It is honestly depressing sometimes. The Reds are a .500 ballclub right now but to read the threads on this board you would think they were the Nationals. 1 and a 1/2 games out of first at this point but all you hear about is the lousy bullpen because of the last two nights.

Santos 1.50 ERA
Stanton 1.69 ERA
Weathers 2.25 ERA
Belisle 3.63 ERA
Saarloos 4.70 ERA

That is 5 relievers that are doing fair to excellent. Does that sound like the relief staff is a mess? Now for the offense, there are approximately 8 offensive players with an OBP of over .340. There are also 8 players with an OPS over .700. Does that sound hopeless?

The Reds have 2 top line starters in Arroyo and Harang. Add in Lohse and Belisle and you know what you have? The top 4 starters have ERA's ranging from 2.53 to 4.37. The high ERA belongs to the Reds best pitcher who most certainly will improve. Ah yes, and then there is Redszone's whipping boy emeritius Eric Milton. He, of the 5.06 ERA so far this season. There are exactly 7 teams who have a better record than the Reds so far in the NL. Does anyone know how many of those 7 teams have a starter on their staff with the same or worse ERA than Milton? Except for the Mets, every damn one of them. The Brewers and the Padres actually have two on their staffs.

Now would someone tell me why so many people on this board act like Redszone is a focus group for those suffering with clinical depression? The Reds have a good team and they are not doing badly. It would be nice if people would stop using the game threads and Redszone as a whole as a season long *****fest. The Reds are in the playoff race and it will get better. Start acting like real fans Redszone. If Cubs fans can be hopeful year after year for no good reason why shouldn't we? We're better than they are.

creek14
04-20-2007, 03:56 PM
Somone who has -52 rep points and is casuing trouble in the game thread likely is a ways off from posting on ORG.


Maybe this is answered somewhere else in this thread, but I'm at work and reading/scanning fast - but how is it that someone with -52 points is posting at all? Isn't there some -point total where you shouldn't be allowed to post?

KoryMac5
04-20-2007, 04:02 PM
Looking at his posts did he deserve all -52 points for stating his opinion on Coffey. Yes his posts weren't very well thought out but to be given a negative 52 is a bit harsh and reactionary by the masses. :deadhorse

Chip R
04-20-2007, 04:05 PM
Maybe this is answered somewhere else in this thread, but I'm at work and reading/scanning fast - but how is it that someone with -52 points is posting at all? Isn't there some -point total where you shouldn't be allowed to post?


Nope.

remdog
04-20-2007, 04:45 PM
The Reds have a good team.....

As you pointed out, the Reds are currently a .500 team. By definition that would not qualify as good.


Start acting like real fans Redszone.

Sounds like your definition of a 'real fan' is limited to those that only say nice things and blow kisses. Real fans can also be critical of their favorite team. They are usually being critical because they are a fan of the team and want them to get better.

Rem

creek14
04-20-2007, 05:05 PM
Nope.
Guess that's why I use to read every post in every thread.

Now I'm down to about 1% of the posts in 1% of the threads.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2007, 05:24 PM
As you pointed out, the Reds are currently a .500 team. By definition that would not qualify as good.


Sounds like your definition of a 'real fan' is limited to those that only say nice things and blow kisses. Real fans can also be critical of their favorite team. They are usually being critical because they are a fan of the team and want them to get better.

Rem

Thank you, well said.

Many of us have seen and experienced being fans of good teams.

When we put a lot of heart/soul/time into following a team such as the Reds we also at times become disappointed knowing that they could be better, and hope that they eventually will be. Six straight years they have proven to be worse than a .500 team.

Handofdeath
04-20-2007, 05:34 PM
As you pointed out, the Reds are currently a .500 team. By definition that would not qualify as good.



Sounds like your definition of a 'real fan' is limited to those that only say nice things and blow kisses. Real fans can also be critical of their favorite team. They are usually being critical because they are a fan of the team and want them to get better.

Rem

Whether or not you consider a .500 club to be good is a matter of personal opinion. To me, it's all about making the playoffs. The Reds nearly did last season and they have a decent shot this year. I personally don't care if they win 82 or 102, it's all about the postseason to me. As far as being a real fan, it's not about saying nice things and blowing kisses. If you think that ownership should spend more money, then say so. It is about being hopeful and cheering them on when the chips are down It's about saying "We're 2 runs down in the 3rd but we still got a chance." Or "If the pitching can play up to their potential we've got a shot this year." Anytime someone on this board says something like "Adam Dunn is overrated" people come to his defense with numbers and many well thought out opinions. I only wish the loyalty shown to certain players on this board would also be shown to the Reds ballclub as a whole. Adam Dunn is a Red and so is Junior and Josh Hamilton. You know who else is a Red? David Weathers, Eric Milton and Todd Coffey. The sum should be greater and more important than the parts.

Heath
04-20-2007, 05:41 PM
Re: chat room

We're more laid back I guess. :cool:

You better be with the beer and women.

:beerme:

gonelong
04-20-2007, 06:03 PM
Looking at his posts did he deserve all -52 points for stating his opinion on Coffey. Yes his posts weren't very well thought out but to be given a negative 52 is a bit harsh and reactionary by the masses. :deadhorse

Had he posted once or twice, maybe. He came here to be a general pain in the patoot. -52 was a scatch on the surface IMO. and as far as I could follow he didn't get all -52 at once. He accumlated them as he repeatedly made a horses behind out of himself.

I am personally quite pleased that the board more or less policed itself in this instance. :beerme:

GL

remdog
04-20-2007, 06:34 PM
To me, it's all about making the playoffs.

Then you should be even more frustrated than the average fan. It's been 6 years since the Reds have had a winning record but 12 years since they've been to the playoffs.


Or "If the pitching can play up to their potential we've got a shot this year.

There are a lot of people on this board that feel the pitching is more likely to play down to their potential. Aren't they welcome to express their opinion?

Rem

WMR
04-20-2007, 06:36 PM
It seems to me there should be some sort of automatic suspension if a person's negative rep reaches a certain point.

Does a troll really care if they're at -50 if they're still allowed to post at will or do they wear it as a badge of honor?

remdog
04-20-2007, 06:54 PM
Good point. Actually, I had thought that -100 points bumped you out for a month (or some other such period). (famous shrug) Chip says that ain't true. (another famous shrug) Maybe it should be.

I will however say that sometimes a poster is trying to make a relevant point and sometimes just gets piled upon for a faux pas. Being the devil incarnate sympathizer that I am I usually give them positive points if that's the way I percieve it. :evil:

WMR
04-20-2007, 07:00 PM
Good point. Actually, I had thought that -100 points bumped you out for a month (or some other such period). (famous shrug) Chip says that ain't true. (another famous shrug) Maybe it should be.

I will however say that sometimes a poster is trying to make a relevant point and sometimes just gets piled upon for a faux pas. Being the devil incarnate sympathizer that I am I usually give them positive points if that's the way I percieve it. :evil:

Rebel rouser!! :D Or is that rabble rouser?

remdog
04-23-2007, 04:55 PM
Can someone tell me the date that 'rep points' were instituted?

Rem

Boss-Hog
04-23-2007, 06:40 PM
Can someone tell me the date that 'rep points' were instituted?

Rem
5/2/2005

remdog
04-23-2007, 06:50 PM
Thanks for the info Boss. I kind of thought it was around two years but I didn't know for sure.

So. We're coming up on a two year aniversary. There's been a lot of discussion, ideas and opinions in this thread. Is there consideration going on as to tweaking the system relative to what was expressed in this thread or was this exercise for naught?

Rem

Boss-Hog
04-23-2007, 06:57 PM
Thanks for the info Boss. I kind of thought it was around two years but I didn't know for sure.

So. We're coming up on a two year aniversary. There's been a lot of discussion, ideas and opinions in this thread. Is there consideration going on as to tweaking the system relative to what was expressed in this thread or was this exercise for naught?

Rem
Yes, there's consideration. That's something for GIK, the moderators and I to discuss.

reds44
04-25-2007, 12:39 AM
By the way, for those who have understandably questioned why I, and others, have a problem with "Seabass", I can only speak for myself, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the nickname being remotely offensive. Instead, it has everything to do with the user excessively using the nickname to the point that I get the impression he's trying it permanently ingrain it in others' minds so that they start using it, as well. I don't think it'd rub me the wrong way if it was a commonly accepted and used nickname, but we're talking about something that was allegedly given to him by a single ex-teammate. I've never once heard him referred to using this nickname anywhere else. Anyway, I know from reading other posts that I'm far from the only one that feels this way, but reds44's personal nickname for Alex Gonzalez isn't what I want this post to be about.
I'm not trying to ingrain it into anyone's head. I've called him Seabass since he was on the Marlins. Why should I change now?

One of the user's likes to call him "Bonzo Gonzo", I've never heard anyone call him that before. Should he not be able to call him that?

Just because the nickname "annoys" a few people, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to say it. There's nothing remotley offensive or anything that could be thought of as offensive. Nothing is masked, it's just a nickname.

There is nothing wrong with calling him Seabass.

Caveat Emperor
04-25-2007, 09:01 AM
I'm not trying to ingrain it into anyone's head. I've called him Seabass since he was on the Marlins. Why should I change now?

The original point was that it SEEMS like you're using the nickname in an attempt to get everyone to follow along. FWIW, I'd agree with that -- your intentions may well have nothing to do with that, but it does seem like (for a while) you were going out of your way to put the name out there for everyone to pick up.


Just because the nickname "annoys" a few people, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to say it.

A fair point -- but if you're doing something that you know annoys other people, you ought to be prepared for the consequences. In this case, complaints, PMs, annoyed responses in threads, and maybe even a neg or two.


There is nothing wrong with calling him Seabass.

Occasionally, probably not. Its kinda like last year with "Nature Boy" for Rich Aurillia -- which although wasn't a common nickname for him at least had a good number of posters using it -- it was something occasionally funny to call him but it wasn't an outright substitute for his name in every post. With nicknames, especially obscure ones or ones that don't immediately tell you who it is referring to, sometimes less is more.

jojo
04-25-2007, 09:51 AM
I'm not trying to ingrain it into anyone's head. I've called him Seabass since he was on the Marlins. Why should I change now?

One of the user's likes to call him "Bonzo Gonzo", I've never heard anyone call him that before. Should he not be able to call him that?

Just because the nickname "annoys" a few people, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to say it. There's nothing remotley offensive or anything that could be thought of as offensive. Nothing is masked, it's just a nickname.

There is nothing wrong with calling him Seabass.

To me the best nicknames aren't derogatory....

NJReds
04-25-2007, 09:59 AM
To me the best nicknames aren't derogatory....

Why is 'seabass' derogatory?

jojo
04-25-2007, 10:10 AM
Why is 'seabass' derogatory?

Supposedly he was given the name because he looked like a seabass when fielding...

Would that name make your top ten list of nicknames you'd hope to be called if you were an elite defender at short?

Think George Castanza and the t-bone episode....

If that's not compelling enough, fans calling him that aren't exactly using it as an endearing term the majority of the time....

NJReds
04-25-2007, 10:55 AM
Supposedly he was given the name because he looked like a seabass when fielding...

Would that name make your top ten list of nicknames you'd hope to be called if you were an elite defender at short?

Think George Castanza and the t-bone episode....

If that's not compelling enough, fans calling him that aren't exactly using it as an endearing term the majority of the time....

I've seen a lot of our players called a lot of things on this board. We're not teammates, just a bunch of knucklehead fans who comment on the games. I just don't get the backlash on one poster for this. I've seen Cormier called 'Frenchy' ... where's the outcry?