PDA

View Full Version : Site Feedback/Questions



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Ltlabner
03-27-2009, 08:46 AM
...increasingly, I catch myself wondering if it's worth it to try and engage on certain subjects and whether the effort to compose more time consuming posts like below is really going to be worth it.

I gave up creating threads (and I used to start a lot of them) a while back.

Mostly it was because I ran out of ideas and the threads I liked to start had a very limited range. There's only so many "what's your favorite...." you can do.

But I also learned that very few people are here to learn about some esoteric aspect of the game or "expand their knowledge". The vast majority of us lean towards arguing our viewpoint about the Reds/Reds players/Reds management decisions as the real enjoyment of coming here. It's the same thing that happens at a sports bar, why would RZ be any different?

Obviously subjects like Dunn, how runs are created, old-school vs new-school, walks vs hits vs strike outs and why ______________ is a horrible player or why _________________ was a bad decision are going to get the most traction. If you start limiting those subjects you don't get better threads, you just get less of them. There's only so many of the outstanding threads RMR, Cyclone and WOY can create.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't have clear standards and evenly enforce them, but wholesale elimination of topics does nothing to stimulate website discussion quality IMO.

jojo
03-27-2009, 08:57 AM
I gave up creating threads (and I used to start a lot of them) a while back.

Mostly it was because I ran out of ideas and the threads I liked to start had a very limited range. There's only so many "what's your favorite...." you can do.

But I also learned that very few people are here to learn about some esoteric aspect of the game or "expand their knowledge". The vast majority of us lean towards arguing our viewpoint about the Reds/Reds players/Reds management decisions as the real enjoyment of coming here. It's the same thing that happens at a sports bar, why would RZ be any different?

Obviously subjects like Dunn, how runs are created, old-school vs new-school, walks vs hits vs strike outs and why ______________ is a horrible player or why _________________ was a bad decision are going to get the most traction. If you start limiting those subjects you don't get better threads, you just get less of them.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't have clear standards and evenly enforce them, but wholesale elimination of topics does nothing to stimulate website discussion quality IMO.

You make a lot of excellent points. That said, the ORG is supposed to be content driven in the sense that it's held to a much higher standard. I'd think the motivation for getting in is because it had something to offer that one couldn't necessarily get at a local sports bar.

Again the mods might totally disagree with me on this.

Boss-Hog
03-27-2009, 09:35 AM
Don't forget that Dunn is not the only verboten subject these days. Willy T is also apparently an irritating subject since "all that has been discussed has been discussed".

If that's really the measuring stick for mods and admins to decide a subject is tired then there's about a hundred other subjects that should be stopped immediately. Any Marty B, George Grande or any other Reds announcer being horrible thread should be locked. That's a tried subject with plenty of chance for non-respectful conversation. (Yet those continue.....funny huh?)

All of the hot-stove league reports should be discontinued (sorry Chip) because nothing new really comes out of them other than 100 "thanks Chips" and assorted digs at the host. Any thread discussing why Dusty Baker is/isn't a good manager should be locked yesterday. It's all old news. Why are we discussing Keppeninger at all? No new news to discover there. He is what he is. What about Weathers? I mean, is there really any new ground to cover there? It's old news to everyone at this point.

So the application of the "tired subject/chance for squabbling" standard is very uneven at best.

This is Boss's & GIK's house. If they decide they are tired of hearing about Dunn obviously that is their prerogative. As long as they understand that the uneven and capricious closing of subjects and dispensing of infractions like Pez does nothing to further the "quality of the board". If you are going to have a "standard" have a standard and stick to it. Because right now what you really have are "subjects that irritate an admin so he doesn't want to hear about them anymore".

Because frankly, if the standard was really "tired thread/non-respectful talk" Dunn conversations should have been stopped a long, long time ago.

Perhaps we should have a sticky about subjects that irritate the admins and mods so we know which topics we should avoid altogether? That sounds far more smart-alec in words than it is intended. But I think it's a serious question. If the standard for stopping discussion of a topic is really more about what irritates the admins/mods than some actual concrete standard then shouldn't the RZ members know what those irritating subjects are so we can avoid them?

While I'm sure many of you could care less, my interest in RZ has evaporated. There's really nothing of interest to discuss anymore. If you can't discuss the fundamental issues of baseball (run creation, how to improve a team, how performance is measured) because someone brought up an irritating players name then what else is there to discuss? The Reds TV schedule, goofy trade ideas and a story about a cradle-robbing Pirates wife aren't really a good reason to spend any time here. Write it off as off-season slowness if you wish, but the same trend will continue into the season if topics are banned willy-nilly.
You bring up some good points, but where I strongly disagree with your main one is as follows: most of the the topics you mentioned that have been debated are at least relevant to the team this site was founded to discuss. Adam Dunn, no longer being a member of the Reds, does not warrant rehashing the same arguments over and over again - I rarely saw any good come from them in the first place. More often than not, all they did was to help create a larger rift among members of the board. The previous discussions probably did more harm than good, but I was willing to let them slide because they at least had relevance to the team. I don't think that discussion of the player should be taboo if it's genuinely new information, but I will emphatically say that I think continuing the same volume of arguments for or against a player that's no longer a member of the Cincinnati Reds is not in the board's best interests. My personal opinion is not that the Dunn threads are "irritating" - it's that it's not good for the board to continue the very same debates, which I don't think were good in the first place, about a player who is no longer a member of the Reds.

redsfandan
03-27-2009, 09:53 AM
...most of the the topics you mentioned that have been debated are at least relevant to the team this site was founded to discuss. Adam Dunn, no longer being a member of the Reds, does not warrant rehashing the same arguments over and over again - I rarely saw any good come from them in the first place. ...

So this site is for Reds fans to discuss anything that has to do with the CURRENT Reds team and some other things but just not whatever we want to discuss?;)

jojo
03-27-2009, 10:09 AM
So this site is for Reds fans to discuss anything that has to do with the CURRENT Reds team and some other things but just not whatever we want to discuss?;)

The standard seems pretty clear. If someone wants to start an in depth discussion about Dunn going forward, it needs to be related to the Reds somehow and it needs to provide some type of new insight.

Given the last statement of the site rules:


It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

The above standard doesn't seem arbitrary.

Boss-Hog
03-27-2009, 12:14 PM
So this site is for Reds fans to discuss anything that has to do with the CURRENT Reds team and some other things but just not whatever we want to discuss?;)
I'll be as clear on this as I possibly can: it's fine to discuss other MLB teams, players and non-MLB related events in the appropriate forum (provided the rules of the board are followed). However, on this particular topic, historically, I think the discussions have caused enough friction and problems among posters (that often spill in to other discussions) that I don't think it's prudent to continue the very same arguments in the same volume - particularly now that the subject (Adam Dunn) is no longer relevant to the Reds.

camisadelgolf
03-27-2009, 02:38 PM
It still gets back to the point that the flaming is the problem as opposed to discussions about Dunn being the problem. Regardless of whether we're allowed to discuss Dunn or not, I'd like to see more done to combat needless, biased, subjective criticisms. When that happens, maybe we can discuss Dunn or anything else with less hassles. I'm not going to name names because, honestly, I just don't keep track (I could be one of them for all I know), but I'd guess that the repeated offenses are coming from a select few in tORG.

nate
03-27-2009, 02:57 PM
The only problem I really have with this is a point Jojo touched on. That is, many discussions about run creation and player value inevitably lead to Adam Dunn. I've found these discussions to be very enlightening and would hate for zeal (about Dunn either way) to stifle them.

WMR
03-27-2009, 03:18 PM
I've got lots of respect for the work that Boss does for the site, but I just want to add: the Adam Dunn Home Run Tracking Thread was one of the shining lights of RedsZone and it absolutely, IMO, should be allowed to continue. There was no nasty debate within that thread and that is what made it special, IMO.

Boss-Hog
03-27-2009, 04:39 PM
I've got lots of respect for the work that Boss does for the site, but I just want to add: the Adam Dunn Home Run Tracking Thread was one of the shining lights of RedsZone and it absolutely, IMO, should be allowed to continue. There was no nasty debate within that thread and that is what made it special, IMO.
I have decided to reopen that thread provided AtomicDumpling continues to use it for that purpose (if he so chooses).

Highlifeman21
03-27-2009, 06:20 PM
Don't forget that Dunn is not the only verboten subject these days. Willy T is also apparently an irritating subject since "all that has been discussed has been discussed".

If that's really the measuring stick for mods and admins to decide a subject is tired then there's about a hundred other subjects that should be stopped immediately. Any Marty B, George Grande or any other Reds announcer being horrible thread should be locked. That's a tried subject with plenty of chance for non-respectful conversation. (Yet those continue.....funny huh?)

All of the hot-stove league reports should be discontinued (sorry Chip) because nothing new really comes out of them other than 100 "thanks Chips" and assorted digs at the host. Any thread discussing why Dusty Baker is/isn't a good manager should be locked yesterday. It's all old news. Why are we discussing Keppeninger at all? No new news to discover there. He is what he is. What about Weathers? I mean, is there really any new ground to cover there? It's old news to everyone at this point.

So the application of the "tired subject/chance for squabbling" standard is very uneven at best.

This is Boss's & GIK's house. If they decide they are tired of hearing about Dunn obviously that is their prerogative. As long as they understand that the uneven and capricious closing of subjects and dispensing of infractions like Pez does nothing to further the "quality of the board". If you are going to have a "standard" have a standard and stick to it. Because right now what you really have are "subjects that irritate an admin so he doesn't want to hear about them anymore".

Because frankly, if the standard was really "tired thread/non-respectful talk" Dunn conversations should have been stopped a long, long time ago.

Perhaps we should have a sticky about subjects that irritate the admins and mods so we know which topics we should avoid altogether? That sounds far more smart-alec in words than it is intended. But I think it's a serious question. If the standard for stopping discussion of a topic is really more about what irritates the admins/mods than some actual concrete standard then shouldn't the RZ members know what those irritating subjects are so we can avoid them?

While I'm sure many of you could care less, my interest in RZ has evaporated. There's really nothing of interest to discuss anymore. If you can't discuss the fundamental issues of baseball (run creation, how to improve a team, how performance is measured) because someone brought up an irritating players name then what else is there to discuss? The Reds TV schedule, goofy trade ideas and a story about a cradle-robbing Pirates wife aren't really a good reason to spend any time here. Write it off as off-season slowness if you wish, but the same trend will continue into the season if topics are banned willy-nilly.

There have been some interesting points touched upon by savafan, jojo, and yourself, Ltlabner. Oh yeah, remdog too, can't forget the famous shrug.

As previously mentioned, this is the house of GIK & Boss. But, as we'll probably learned/experienced in households throughout the years, there needs to be some consistency concerning the enforcement of rules. Growing up, if you knew you'd get in trouble with Mom, you'd go to Dad, and vice versa.

Use that example with the current group of moderators. It seems there's some topics that certain mods accept and will actively participate, while different mods will close threads prematurely, or IMHO without due cause. I guess there really are certain topics that rub some mods the wrong way, while other mods don't mind the same topic.

Like Ltlabner said, if Adam Dunn is the biggest verboten topic, and Willy Taveras is the heir apparent, where does it end? Marty? The Cowboy? Existence of Clutch? EE? BP? Homer Bailey? Drew Stubbs? (Insert Reds lightning rod here...) Maybe it would be easier if the mods put up a list of accepted topics for RedsZone? (I'm 1/2 kidding, 1/2 serious).

But, let's get back to consistency in this household. If individual posters are kids, then how come some kids get away with more than other kids? Some have a short leash, others quite long. Again, no consistency. While it would be fun to name names about the kids that seemingly get free reign on this board, and name the names of those frequently punished for far less (and no, this isn't just b/c I've gotten multiple slaps on the wrist lately, it just seems that my gripe is now timely, and I'm not alone...), it wouldn't be productive (although it would be highly amusing to hear the mods justify why some posters can say whatever they want about whatever they want whenever they want..).

So, while this might sound and look like plagarism of Ltlabner's post, it's not, but rather a kid in the house who feels that his siblings are treated far differently, without objective standards.

Censorship is a slippery slope, and we're already sliding.

paintmered
03-28-2009, 03:25 PM
But, let's get back to consistency in this household. If individual posters are kids, then how come some kids get away with more than other kids? Some have a short leash, others quite long. Again, no consistency. While it would be fun to name names about the kids that seemingly get free reign on this board, and name the names of those frequently punished for far less (and no, this isn't just b/c I've gotten multiple slaps on the wrist lately, it just seems that my gripe is now timely, and I'm not alone...), it wouldn't be productive (although it would be highly amusing to hear the mods justify why some posters can say whatever they want about whatever they want whenever they want..).

Can you give examples of this?

We mods don't claim to be infallible. I've made plenty of mistakes. But I do try to make it right and explain myself if ever questioned.

camisadelgolf
03-28-2009, 03:52 PM
I agree with Highlifeman21 in the sense that it seems like some people are treated differently. It's hard to give details because there is a lot of stuff that happens behind closed doors, but that's just how it seems to me, and apparently, at least a few others. Even if I could give details, I don't think it would be a good idea to publicize them, and I think paintmered's question should be answered via PM.

All in all, though, this is my favorite message board, so I don't think a lot of change is needed. However, improvement is always good, so I just wanted to say that some of the recent accusations made in this thread aren't completely off base in my opinion.

paintmered
03-28-2009, 04:15 PM
I agree with Highlifeman21 in the sense that it seems like some people are treated differently. It's hard to give details because there is a lot of stuff that happens behind closed doors, but that's just how it seems to me, and apparently, at least a few others. Even if I could give details, I don't think it would be a good idea to publicize them, and I think paintmered's question should be answered via PM.

All in all, though, this is my favorite message board, so I don't think a lot of change is needed. However, improvement is always good, so I just wanted to say that some of the recent accusations made in this thread aren't completely off base in my opinion.

I'm fine with that. All I ask is that you give us a chance to engage you on any issues. What I don't want to see is this blow up to an us vs. mods situation. It should never come to that.

camisadelgolf
03-28-2009, 06:08 PM
To be honest, I consider myself an unbiased party because in pretty much every facet of my life, I'm hated equally.

jojo
03-28-2009, 06:36 PM
If redszone was unmoderated, it wouldn't be readable.

redsfandan
03-28-2009, 07:07 PM
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Redszone be unmoderated. But it seems like it can be tricky to not overmoderate sometimes. Closing threads is an obvious example. I wonder if it would be possible for a mod/admin to mark a post as invisible if it's offensive or baiting with a warning attached.

jojo
03-28-2009, 07:37 PM
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Redszone be unmoderated. But it seems like it can be tricky to not overmoderate sometimes. Closing threads is an obvious example. I wonder if it would be possible for a mod/admin to mark a post as invisible if it's offensive or baiting with a warning attached.

The benefits of moderation are tangible and substantial. The downside is that it takes a lot of effort and it's a voluntary endeavor by some dedicated people. I'm willing to accept a thread being closed as collateral damage for the obvious benefits.

Also, I can't recall many closed threads off of the top of my head where the decision was demonstrably poor-maybe one or two but certainly not a pattern that indicates uneven or hair trigger moderation.

As to an uneven treatment of members, I'm not sure how we'd even know given we have no way of knowing about warnings given to others.

westofyou
03-28-2009, 07:39 PM
What if Red Sox fans could not discuss Manny Ramirez?

Because he's a polarizing part of that teams recent history and yet a large part of it as well.

Adam Dunn is a baseball outlier and that and a all the kings horseman won't change that or the fact that he his the Reds all time leader in games played in LF.. ALL TIME.

That's not going away nor is the reaction his game creates when discussed. It's kind of hard to not discuss an active player 1/2 a season removed from the team after he was talked about for the last decade.

redsfandan
03-28-2009, 07:46 PM
...
Also, I can't recall many closed threads off of the top of my head where the decision was demonstrably poor-maybe one or two but certainly not a pattern that indicates uneven or hair trigger moderation.
...

Actually I was thinking about when threads are closed before there's any hint of trouble just because Dunn is part of the discussion. Like westofyou, I don't see how you can avoid discussions about Dunn on a message board dedicated to the Reds. It's just not possible.

dougdirt
03-28-2009, 09:31 PM
What if Red Sox fans could not discuss Manny Ramirez?

Because he's a polarizing part of that teams recent history and yet a large part of it as well.

Adam Dunn is a baseball outlier and that and a all the kings horseman won't change that or the fact that he his the Reds all time leader in games played in LF.. ALL TIME.

That's not going away nor is the reaction his game creates when discussed. It's kind of hard to not discuss an active player 1/2 a season removed from the team after he was talked about for the last decade.

There doesn't seem to be much Griffey talk around the boards these days and he was here longer.

membengal
03-28-2009, 11:41 PM
No need to repeat any of what has been said in the last few pages.

For what it's worth, I have donated to the site (tonight, as a matter of fact), as I have for the last several years, because it is a worthwhile place. It took me a little while longer this year, but well, money's tight.

That said, the board has been over-moderated WAY too much of late, and frankly, it is killing discussion in general. IMO. If that's the goal, that's fine, it is succeeding. It is far less fun when everything typed is measured against wondering if it walks too close to an ever-shifting line that is apparent only to the mods. And, while we're here, I find my patience with posters in general with whom I disagree has actually been tried far more in this environment, where it feels like the mods are letting some get away with stuff that if others engaged in, they would get in "trouble". I in no manner think that is actually the case, but it FEELS like it, and that is a direct result of censorhip and over-moderation. Like B follows A, you start down this road, and it leads to unnnecessary tension among posters and toward mods. It's no win.

So what we are left with is a board that is less fun, less full of legit discourse (whether prickly or not), and full of posters who are walking on eggshells and unhappy to be doing so.

It seems an odd choice to make, and I genuinely wish you all were not making that choice.

For what it's worth.

---Aaron

Boss-Hog
03-29-2009, 01:24 PM
All,

After discussion with GIK, we have decided to relax the rules as they apply to Adam Dunn - he will no longer be a "forbidden" topic (that was never actually the case, but we wanted to ensure that anything involving him had not already been sufficiently discussed). The same rules that apply throughout the site, listed at the bottom of every page, will continue to apply to this and any other topic, so make sure you are keeping any discussion civil with other fellow posters. If you have any questions, please feel free to reply.

*BaseClogger*
03-29-2009, 05:59 PM
All,

After discussion with GIK, we have decided to relax the rules as they apply to Adam Dunn - he will no longer be a "forbidden" topic (that was never actually the case, but we wanted to ensure that anything involving him had not already been sufficiently discussed). The same rules that apply throughout the site, listed at the bottom of every page, will continue to apply to this and any other topic, so make sure you are keeping any discussion civil with other fellow posters. If you have any questions, please feel free to reply.

Thanks, Boss. Honestly, how you just stated it is perfectly fine with me. As long as the rules as they are written on the bottom of the page are enforced there shouldn't be any problems...

savafan
03-29-2009, 09:52 PM
All,

After discussion with GIK, we have decided to relax the rules as they apply to Adam Dunn - he will no longer be a "forbidden" topic (that was never actually the case, but we wanted to ensure that anything involving him had not already been sufficiently discussed). The same rules that apply throughout the site, listed at the bottom of every page, will continue to apply to this and any other topic, so make sure you are keeping any discussion civil with other fellow posters. If you have any questions, please feel free to reply.

Thanks Boss, I think that's all any of us were asking.

reds44
03-31-2009, 02:30 AM
At what point will I again be allowed to discuss my favorite baseball player, Adam Dunn?

Thanks
Oh this post was too funny.

Well done.

*BaseClogger*
03-31-2009, 12:52 PM
Oh this post was too funny.

Well done.

I guess opened up a bit of a 'can of worms' with that post... :lol:

kaldaniels
04-20-2009, 10:52 AM
I always find myself wondering how to do this and I'm sure the answer is simple...

How do you just quote part of a post...I see it done all the time with a reply to a post that portions out the orignal post.

Thank you!

Boss-Hog
04-20-2009, 10:55 AM
I always find myself wondering how to do this and I'm sure the answer is simple...

How do you just quote part of a post...I see it done all the time with a reply to a post that portions out the orignal post.

Thank you!
Click the quote button for the message you'd like to respond to and remove the portion of the original post you don't wish to quote.

Parrothead Red
05-06-2009, 12:36 PM
Quick question...

How do I earn access to post in the Sun Deck?

Boss-Hog
05-06-2009, 07:20 PM
Quick question...

How do I earn access to post in the Sun Deck?
Please re-read the "About Us" section that was presented to you upon registration.

highheat11
05-07-2009, 12:38 PM
I was hoping to figure out how to put something else under my name instead of "Member". I originally thought maybe it was something you earned from your number of posts, but I've seen posters with fewer posts than me with their own little saying or nickname under their actually username rather than just "Member". Could someone help me out with that? If so, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Boss-Hog
05-07-2009, 03:05 PM
I was hoping to figure out how to put something else under my name instead of "Member". I originally thought maybe it was something you earned from your number of posts, but I've seen posters with fewer posts than me with their own little saying or nickname under their actually username rather than just "Member". Could someone help me out with that? If so, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Try User CP | Edit Your Details | Custom User Title.

WILD THING
06-17-2009, 02:58 PM
I was just reading through the Feedback/Questions forum to find out how to do the same thing with the Custom User Title and it's not available on my Edit Your Details page. Is there an issue regarding the time I've been a member of RedsZone? (I joined not too long ago) It's not a huge deal for me, but if it were possible I would like to be able to have a Custom User Title.

Boss-Hog
06-17-2009, 05:07 PM
I was just reading through the Feedback/Questions forum to find out how to do the same thing with the Custom User Title and it's not available on my Edit Your Details page. Is there an issue regarding the time I've been a member of RedsZone? (I joined not too long ago) It's not a huge deal for me, but if it were possible I would like to be able to have a Custom User Title.
Give it a try now.

WILD THING
06-17-2009, 05:43 PM
Awesome, thanks for whatever you had to do to fix that Boss :thumbup:

*BaseClogger*
06-27-2009, 01:52 AM
I was hoping for some clarification as to why the "Drunk" thread was closed?

Thanks...

paintmered
06-27-2009, 10:14 AM
I was hoping for some clarification as to why the "Drunk" thread was closed?

Thanks...


Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts.

I think drug use falls under that.

camisadelgolf
06-27-2009, 03:30 PM
So, theoretically, it's okay to start the thread again as long as it doesn't go back to meth use?

*BaseClogger*
06-27-2009, 04:42 PM
So, theoretically, it's okay to start the thread again as long as it doesn't go back to meth use?

Especially since I think the poster was making a joke?

camisadelgolf
06-27-2009, 05:32 PM
I might agree that the 'meth' post broke the rules, but I don't think it was necessary to close the thread. Couldn't we've just edited the post?

westofyou
06-27-2009, 08:56 PM
I was hoping for some clarification as to why the "Drunk" thread was closed?

Thanks...

Because it was inane?

Raisor
06-27-2009, 09:44 PM
Because it was inane?

also redundent. It's not like it's a new thing for people to be drunk and posting on RZ.


Krono is so full of apple juice sometimes that you'd think he was a member of the Rat Pack back in the old days.

camisadelgolf
06-27-2009, 09:55 PM
Because it was inane?
How does that separate it from the other threads?

westofyou
06-27-2009, 10:22 PM
How does that separate it from the other threads?

What other threads? You mean like threads about music or TV shows? Films, Ipods, laptops, or ones about baseball, football, basketball?

There are a lot of "other" threads out there, I'm unsure what you mean by "other" threads myself.

KronoRed
06-27-2009, 11:32 PM
Krono is so full of apple juice sometimes that you'd think he was a member of the Rat Pack back in the old days.

I can stop anytime I want

redsfandan
06-27-2009, 11:56 PM
And where exactly do you draw the line between "inane" and "non-inane" threads? If it seems too silly for your standards? It was silly, and probably a few other names could be used. It was also harmless. If it was cuz it was about drinking... well we've also got a thread for favorite beer. Should that thread be closed too? If it was cuz someone mentioned meth (more likely) why not just edit the relevant post, take out the reference to meth, and post a reminder about what's allowable and what isn't?

westofyou
06-28-2009, 01:24 AM
And where exactly do you draw the line between "inane" and "non-inane" threads? If it seems too silly for your standards? It was silly, and probably a few other names could be used. It was also harmless. If it was cuz it was about drinking... well we've also got a thread for favorite beer. Should that thread be closed too? If it was cuz someone mentioned meth (more likely) why not just edit the relevant post, take out the reference to meth, and post a reminder about what's allowable and what isn't?

Everyone has their own line I suppose, and when I say inane, I don't mean that exactly as a negative, I was just stating an opinion, I thought it was inane, plus I'm not against inane myself, I like that and irreverent too but I also think that others might see it as something else. Thus IMO any inane thread is a possible closed thread the next time you refresh your browser.

redsfandan
06-28-2009, 01:49 AM
That's slippery slope talk. What's inane to one person another person thinks is just harmless. Which label would the majority of people think applies best and would the majority think it deserved closing? Why not nip the problem in the bud and address the illegal drug reference when it's posted and/or the person that makes the reference instead of waiting more than a day for the same person to mention it a 2nd time and then just closing the thread altogether. I've yet to understand why so many threads end up closed. Maybe someday...

camisadelgolf
06-28-2009, 04:17 AM
I agree with redsfandan. It just makes more sense to me to edit individual posts instead of closing a thread. If it gets to a point where multiple posts are the problem, I think that's when it's sometimes logical to close the entire thread. If there were a semi-lengthy thread about Homer Bailey's promotion in which one person hinted that Bailey might have been using meth tonight, would it be more logical to close it or just edit the single post that violated the rules?

Come to think of it, I just mentioned meth. Are we going to close this thread now? I'm not trying to be antagonistic--I just really believe there is a lack of logic going on.

redsfandan
06-28-2009, 11:29 AM
I'm not sure "lack of logic" would be the way I'd put it exactly and I differ in that I think closing a thread when alot of members get out of line is more understandable than when it's only one or two members that have multiple posts that disrupts things.

But, otherwise, I think we're asking the same question: where should the focus be? Say you have a thread where people are being civil, asking thought provoking questions and engaging in civil discussions without the humor getting too out of line. If one or two members start making posts in the thread that cross the line into inappropriate stuff do you close the thread which ruins things for everyone else or focus on the specific poster(s) that are the problem? It almost seems like the current policy could enable a member in that if they're in a rotten mood and want to take it out on someone they could just start spouting off in any thread, end up with the thread closed, and possibly get away with it if they so choose.

I want to make it a point to say that I'm honestly not trying to start something with the specific poster in the thread that prompted this discussion. I have no problem with him/her. As far as I know, I don't know them at all and for all I know they could be someone that I could become good friends with offline. Who knows. That isn't MY focus. This is just about closing threads. I've a hunch that some may think this is much ado about nothing and a tired subject. I've been a member for less then a year so I don't know what happened and what was discussed and tried in regard to the site policies in the previous 8+ years. I do realize that this topic was touched on a few months ago along with the suject of a certain former Red. And yet it seems not much has changed. Maybe it's time.

Highlifeman21
07-06-2009, 05:25 PM
Why have these nominations anymore?

Just let anyone and everyone in.

The latest crop of tORG inductees have really contributed in a positive way and elevated the level of discussion...

Is this the appropriate place to post my opinion on the subject?

Boss-Hog
07-06-2009, 05:30 PM
Is this the appropriate place to post my opinion on the subject?
Sure

Highlifeman21
07-06-2009, 05:31 PM
I agree with redsfandan. It just makes more sense to me to edit individual posts instead of closing a thread. If it gets to a point where multiple posts are the problem, I think that's when it's sometimes logical to close the entire thread. If there were a semi-lengthy thread about Homer Bailey's promotion in which one person hinted that Bailey might have been using meth tonight, would it be more logical to close it or just edit the single post that violated the rules?

Come to think of it, I just mentioned meth. Are we going to close this thread now? I'm not trying to be antagonistic--I just really believe there is a lack of logic going on.

Hit the nail on the head there.

Some mods let some threads run their course, others carry the padlock with them at all times.

There's just no consistency with RedsZone, except for the fact there is inconsistency. So, RedsZone is consistently inconsistent.

But the biggest inconsistency is how mods mod this board. But at least they're consistent in that inconsistency as well, right?

Highlifeman21
07-06-2009, 10:35 PM
SunDeck quality thread, tORG style (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77026)

Some mod locked this thread b/c it was in tORG, but if this thread was started in the SunDeck, it would probably be 5 pages long by now...

Boss-Hog
07-06-2009, 10:40 PM
SunDeck quality thread, tORG style (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77026)

Some mod locked this thread b/c it was in tORG, but if this thread was started in the SunDeck, it would probably be 5 pages long by now...
I'm not the one who closed that thread but I'm wondering - what exactly is your issue here?

Highlifeman21
07-06-2009, 10:58 PM
I'm not the one who closed that thread but I'm wondering - what exactly is your issue here?

Why have tORG and the SunDeck if the lines separating the two forums are becoming increasingly blurred?

Boss-Hog
07-06-2009, 11:01 PM
Why have tORG and the SunDeck if the lines separating the two forums are becoming increasingly blurred?
I'm not sure I understand your point - on one hand, you assume the closed ORG thread would have been allowed to remain open in the Sun Deck, but in your next post, you're saying the two forums are more or less the same?

Highlifeman21
07-06-2009, 11:10 PM
I'm not sure I understand your point - on one hand, you assume the closed ORG thread would have been allowed to remain open in the Sun Deck, but in your next post, you're saying the two forums are more or less the same?

Yes, I assume the closed tORG thread would have run for awhile on the SunDeck, whereas since it was a thread in tORG, it got the padlock. Not a double standard, but the mods trying to hold tORG to a higher standard.

My other point is that what's the point in having tORG and the SunDeck if posters start threads like that?

Boss-Hog
07-06-2009, 11:17 PM
Not a double standard, but the mods trying to hold tORG to a higher standard.

That is, and always has been, one of the main points of the forum's existence; if it wasn't, we wouldn't have the nomination system in place that we do. I fully support the effort to ensure that those with ORG access are held to a high standard.


My other point is that what's the point in having tORG and the SunDeck if posters start threads like that?

We don't want posters to start threads like that; hence, it was (correctly) closed and the issue has been addressed.

Caveat Emperor
07-07-2009, 01:20 AM
My other point is that what's the point in having tORG and the SunDeck if posters start threads like that?

A bad loss and the emotional aftermath will bring out the worst in anyone from time to time -- even otherwise respected and quality posters.

I don't know how you'd ever keep even an invite-only forum completely free from the occasional garbage post or thread. It happens -- it gets dealt with.

BTW -- I closed the thread. If I'd seen a thread like that in the Sun Deck, it'd have been closed just as fast. I'm usually one to let things run their course a bit before jumping in, but this thread added absolutely nothing to the discourse. Easy call for me, and I'd do the same thing 10 times out of 10 on any forum I happened to be moderating.

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2009, 06:08 PM
I don't usually have any issue with closing threads or any of the moderating or moderators for that matter. I think they do a great job and I won't even suggest that is "for the most part", they just do a great job period.

However on ocassion a thread might be locked or threatened to be locked for things that I think are awfully ticky tack. But I don't put that on the moderators so much but with the rules in general. I mean if the rules say a particular topic cannot be discussed in a certain area of the board or even anywhere on the site then I can't begrudge a moderator for enforcing said rule. Sometimes some might feel a moderator is getting a bit carried away with his/her interpretation of a particular rule and that might be a fair point to consider. I know for example we aren't to discuss minor league stuff in the ORG but to an extent one is relevant to the other so we should have some leeway there to hash things out sometimes. For example I was in a thread just earlier and a moderator suggested we get back on point or risk having the thread closed. I could see how the moderator felt like we were getting off the point but I felt like in order to make one point that was relevant to the thread and forum we had to make another point which didn't belong in that forum but was still relevant IMO to the discussion. Now by rule the moderator was well within their rights to lock it up and to be fair again I could see how the mod could see this as a change of topic but I felt like once we put to bed this point it would lead us right back on track of the original discussion. But without that point the original discussion was mostly moot IMO.

But on to my main point I think outlawing if you will a particular subject that is baseball related is extremely tough to swallow. A couple of examples.

Adam Dunn
Drew Stubbs
Sabermetrics vs. Traditional thinking

Now all 3 of these topics get people heated and rightly so perhaps and really it's not so much about the 1st 2 as it is about the final topic there. But I just don't get the outlawing of discussing, debating or even flat out arguing about any of it. We aren't throwing knives at each other here and we aren't using curse words so what's the problem? Isn't this a place for getting to the bottom of it all? I know there have been posters who have come here with a certain view about baseball and who now have a completely different view or at least an altered view of it. And if it weren't for those heated debates in which people got so wound up that they ultimately did their best analysis/explaining we wouldn't be seeing the rise of intelligent baseball conversation all over the place. Go look at other forums that I know didn't have this type of talk in it when I came here to RZ, now they do. Some small samples of course but it's begun to spread is the point.

As far as I see it Adam Dunn, Stubbs, Sabremetrics and the like must be discussed, at length, ad nauseum and frankly even heatedly. Without that we get no where.

savafan
07-20-2009, 09:42 PM
I know there have been posters who have come here with a certain view about baseball and who now have a completely different view or at least an altered view of it. And if it weren't for those heated debates in which people got so wound up that they ultimately did their best analysis/explaining we wouldn't be seeing the rise of intelligent baseball conversation all over the place.

Count me as one of those posters. This board changed my thinking on Sabremetrics.

Girevik
08-03-2009, 08:42 AM
I have the ability to respond to a post in the Sun Deck forum, but can't create a new topic. Is there a minimum post count needed before I'll be able to start a new thread or something?

Boss-Hog
08-03-2009, 09:25 AM
I have the ability to respond to a post in the Sun Deck forum, but can't create a new topic. Is there a minimum post count needed before I'll be able to start a new thread or something?
Yes - please reread the "About Us" section you agreed to upon registration.

Mario-Rijo
03-09-2010, 02:14 AM
So we can no longer copy and paste full articles from other online sources? Can someone further clarify this new rule, how far does this go, is it newsprint only or what?

If it is what I think I am reading just go ahead and kill forums and blogging alltogether. So we can go back to having to visit 100 sites a day to get all the info we want.

**Disregard I somehow managed to overlook the link provided in the original sticky. For others who haven't noticed here is the link to the sticky in the ORG.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80688

jojo
03-09-2010, 08:54 AM
So we can no longer copy and paste full articles from other online sources? Can someone further clarify this new rule, how far does this go, is it newsprint only or what?

If it is what I think I am reading just go ahead and kill forums and blogging alltogether. So we can go back to having to visit 100 sites a day to get all the info we want.

**Disregard I somehow managed to overlook the link provided in the original sticky. For others who haven't noticed here is the link to the sticky in the ORG.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80688

I'm a fan of the new policy.

Providing a link to the article with a specific discussion point highlighted seems to me like a great idea that should promote discussion. All too often anything and everything Reds tends to get cut and pasted (alot of times without even a talking point) and IMHO, it clogs threads and confuses discussions.

Is it really any harder to click a link?

Boss-Hog
03-09-2010, 10:38 AM
So we can no longer copy and paste full articles from other online sources? Can someone further clarify this new rule, how far does this go, is it newsprint only or what?

If it is what I think I am reading just go ahead and kill forums and blogging alltogether. So we can go back to having to visit 100 sites a day to get all the info we want.

**Disregard I somehow managed to overlook the link provided in the original sticky. For others who haven't noticed here is the link to the sticky in the ORG.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80688
I know you said to disregard, but it's important to keep in mind that we don't realistically have a choice in the matter if we want to keep this site up and running.

OnBaseMachine
03-09-2010, 10:59 AM
Is the new rule limited to just articles or is posting blog updates from Fay, Sheldon, Trent, and others off limits too?

Sea Ray
03-09-2010, 11:47 AM
I like the new policy but for different reasons. I'm not a fan of a 500 word column being pasted and no comments about the column made by the one posting it. I think OK, so what do you want to discuss from this article?

Boss-Hog
03-09-2010, 12:56 PM
Is the new rule limited to just articles or is posting blog updates from Fay, Sheldon, Trent, and others off limits too?
Based on what I've been told, unfortunately, the answer is that it applies to blogs, too, but if anyone has any information that contradicts that, please reply.

Mario-Rijo
03-09-2010, 05:22 PM
I'm a fan of the new policy.

Providing a link to the article with a specific discussion point highlighted seems to me like a great idea that should promote discussion. All too often anything and everything Reds tends to get cut and pasted (alot of times without even a talking point) and IMHO, it clogs threads and confuses discussions.

Is it really any harder to click a link?

It's a little more complicated than that jojo but since Boss says we have no choice in the matter there's no reason to go on about it for me.

AtomicDumpling
03-10-2010, 02:35 AM
Based on what I've been told, unfortunately, the answer is that it applies to blogs, too, but if anyone has any information that contradicts that, please reply.

When another website picks up one of my articles from my blogs or websites I am thrilled. It exposes my website to a new audience and leads to more traffic, improved search engine rankings, more subscribers to my mailing lists, improved social media buzz and more money in my pocket.

You could contact the owners of the blogs and websites to see if they are interested in the free publicity and pagerank that Redszone sends their way. They would be foolish to not enjoy it. Just explain the benefits they receive from the attention they get from Redszone trackback links and ask their permission if you feel you need it.

Secondly, you may find that CPM ad networks and/or affiliate ads generate far more revenue than Google Adsense while also being of more interest to your readers.

dougdirt
03-10-2010, 04:28 AM
So we can no longer copy and paste full articles from other online sources? Can someone further clarify this new rule, how far does this go, is it newsprint only or what?

If it is what I think I am reading just go ahead and kill forums and blogging alltogether. So we can go back to having to visit 100 sites a day to get all the info we want.


As someone who produces original content for a website, I fully understand where the people are coming from who don't want their full content copied/pasted. Lets pretend that 1000 people visit Redszone per day that read an article on here that was originally posted on the Enquirer site. Lets say that Enquirer site has 2 ads on that page. If those 1000 people weren't visiting the Enquirer and were only reading it here, you are talking about 2000 ads per day not being 'sold'. That is only about $3-4 bucks per day if the person is only reading that one article. But say that even 20% of them read another article, now we are at $4-5 per day. Not much, but it adds up to $1500 a year or so. Now think about it being done on Bengals, Reds, Bearcat and Musketeer fansites, not to mention during the HS football season. Now we are talking about something to the tune of $6000 if its just one site with 1000 viewers a day reading articles from another site. Thats a decent chunk of money we are talking about now, much less if its happening with more than a few sites for each of those teams.

As for having to visit a site 100 times a day to find the info you want, I would suggest you subscribe to twitter and find a good RSS reader and they will do the work for you.

AtomicDumpling
03-10-2010, 11:51 PM
As someone who produces original content for a website, I fully understand where the people are coming from who don't want their full content copied/pasted. Lets pretend that 1000 people visit Redszone per day that read an article on here that was originally posted on the Enquirer site. Lets say that Enquirer site has 2 ads on that page. If those 1000 people weren't visiting the Enquirer and were only reading it here, you are talking about 2000 ads per day not being 'sold'. That is only about $3-4 bucks per day if the person is only reading that one article. But say that even 20% of them read another article, now we are at $4-5 per day. Not much, but it adds up to $1500 a year or so. Now think about it being done on Bengals, Reds, Bearcat and Musketeer fansites, not to mention during the HS football season. Now we are talking about something to the tune of $6000 if its just one site with 1000 viewers a day reading articles from another site. Thats a decent chunk of money we are talking about now, much less if its happening with more than a few sites for each of those teams.

In the vast majority of Redszone threads with links to an Enquirer article only about 200-300 people max even view the thread. Most of them only skim the thread and certainly don't take the time to to click on a link to another site to read an article. Even if they do they are highly unlikely to click on a money-making ad at that site. So the monetary impact on the Enquirer is negligible. Most of the people that view the Redszone thread will do so long after the linked article has been removed from the visible areas of the host website (the Enquirer removes articles after just one day or even just a few hours and moves them to the archives and oblivion).

The link to the article from Redszone however lives on forever, so the Enquirer is receiving page rank and authority status from Redszone long after the original article is invisible from the Enquirer website. That is a great deal for them. The traffic of visitors sent from Redszone to the Enquirer is far, far less valuable than the permanent links and pagerank and authority status passed to the Enquirer free of charge -- not to mention the free advertising of their content. They probably understand this, which is why they have not complained about the use of their articles here.

Visitor traffic is far less important than the links themselves, and that is the key that most people are unaware of. The links have beneficial side effects that far outweigh the potential loss of a few visitors.

For a blog like C. Trent's or others these valuable links are even more critical and important than to an established site like the Enquirer.

Keep in mind also that most of the people reading an article here have already visited the Enquirer's site (like I do) or else would not otherwise have gone to the Enquirer's site anyway, so it is not like Redszone is diverting traffic that otherwise would have gone to the Enquirer.

dougdirt
03-11-2010, 04:37 AM
In the vast majority of Redszone threads with links to an Enquirer article only about 200-300 people max even view the thread. Most of them only skim the thread and certainly don't take the time to to click on a link to another site to read an article. Even if they do they are highly unlikely to click on a money-making ad at that site. So the monetary impact on the Enquirer is negligible. Most of the people that view the Redszone thread will do so long after the linked article has been removed from the visible areas of the host website (the Enquirer removes articles after just one day or even just a few hours and moves them to the archives and oblivion).
You don't have to click the ad for it to make money. Every time it loads, you get paid X amount of money. Point still is, copy/pasting entire articles does cost them money. Probably enough in a year to pay an entire persons salary. My site for example gets a click through rate of roughly 0.1%, or about one click per 1000 ads loaded. Most ads aren't for people to click right now, but to get the product in their head so later when they see it at the store, they know about it and choose that product over ones that they haven't seen all over the internet.



Keep in mind also that most of the people reading an article here have already visited the Enquirer's site (like I do) or else would not otherwise have gone to the Enquirer's site anyway, so it is not like Redszone is diverting traffic that otherwise would have gone to the Enquirer.
Clearly it is stopping people from going there, as noted by Mario-rijo's post who didn't want to go to another site 100 times a day to get the info.

Yes, the linkage does help some in terms of sending people to the Enquirer's site. How much, I can't be certain because I don't have the stats for Redszone, but Redszone does indeed cut into their business some as well. While I am sure there is some trade off of traffic coming from Redszone and taking away by Redszone (for readers who now won't go there). They are so big though that Redszone giving them hits isn't going to matter because they figure that people will come there anyways. They just see places posting their material and costing them money. Whether its right or wrong, I don't know. But it is what it is for them, and when it comes to someone else posting their copyrighted material, they have every right to step in and say 'knock it off'. They didn't contact RZ, but other places have in the past for it and that is why Boss/GIK took the action they did once the Enquirer started publicly cracking down on sites.

Redsfan320
07-04-2010, 06:18 PM
test.

320

ChiSox
07-04-2010, 11:39 PM
Wrong thread! But, I can't seem to be able to delete this post.

Redsfan320
07-05-2010, 08:44 AM
No, once you make a post here, you can't delete it as of yet. Typically when someone posts something, then decides they want to get rid of it, they edit, and replace whatever they said with "nm" meaning "never mind"

320

Redsfan320
10-30-2010, 09:30 PM
test1
test2
test3



test1
test2
test3


320

RedsBaron
03-02-2011, 06:34 AM
Are we allowed to tell another poster "you're wrong" if that poster makes an argument we believe is wrong?

Boss-Hog
03-02-2011, 06:57 AM
Are we allowed to tell another poster "you're wrong" if that poster makes an argument we believe is wrong?
I'd prefer that not be the basis of a rebuttal since "you're wrong" is nothing more than an opinion. As far as the actual issue that was being debated goes, I agree with the poster that told another poster "you're wrong", but I don't think that's the proper way to respond to fellow user. I think a far more tactful approach than telling someone they're wrong is to make a sound argument to oppose the other user's stance. If you're incapable of doing that, I suggest you don't bother responding. Absolutely, there are FAR more egregious offenses than this, but if anyone thinks that is the most tactful way to respond to another, we'll have to agree to disagree. Let your facts speak for themselves rather than simply saying 'I'm right, you're wrong'. In and of itself, most people (understandably) don't tend to take that particularly well.

I'm not going to get into why the user that prompted your question was banned for a single day, as I'd be violating my own stance that a matter such as this is between the user and the moderator(s), other than to say that this user knows exactly why he was banned and it most definitely was not for telling another user "you're wrong". Keep in mind when you're only hearing from one person in a matter such as this, you're only getting half the story - at best.

Roy Tucker
03-02-2011, 08:45 AM
When someone is repeatedly advocating that committing a sexual felony is acceptable, I don't think saying "you're wrong" is an attack at all. It's is a statement of fact.

And I would think a family-friendly board was reinforce this position.

Boss-Hog
03-02-2011, 09:30 AM
When someone is repeatedly advocating that committing a sexual felony is acceptable, I don't think saying "you're wrong" is an attack at all. It's is a statement of fact.

And I would think a family-friendly board was reinforce this position.

I don't think my stance was ever that "you're wrong" is an attack, because it's not, but I don't see how that remark, in and of itself, furthers the debate. All it does is create bad blood when someone insinuates 'you're wrong because I said so and nothing more.'

To your last point, I don't particularly disagree - it was our mistake to allow that topic to be discussed, but realistically, I would have never, ever thought someone(s) would feel the way a very small amount of posters apparently do. Even though I strongly disagree with that opinion, they're entitled to voice it as long as we leave the thread open. Understand, though, that had we immediately closed it, others would have complained that the topic couldn't be discussed. Still, in hindsight, knowing what I know now, that would have been the correct move in the first place.

Redsfan320
03-20-2011, 04:09 PM
It seems that in that in the last couple days, a lot of double-posts have occurred, far more than usual, all across the site. Any known cause for this?

320

Boss-Hog
03-20-2011, 04:18 PM
It seems that in that in the last couple days, a lot of double-posts have occurred, far more than usual, all across the site. Any known cause for this?

320
No, nothing that I'm aware of, anyway...

bigredmechanism
04-05-2011, 01:20 PM
Sorry if someone has already asked this. I searched for it to no avail.

Is there any way to set an option that will take you to the newest post when opening a thread you have already been to? On the really long ones, it's sometimes a pain in the neck trying to find out what page you were on.

Thanks, and again, sorry if this has already been answered.

Caveat Emperor
04-05-2011, 01:32 PM
Sorry if someone has already asked this. I searched for it to no avail.

Is there any way to set an option that will take you to the newest post when opening a thread you have already been to? On the really long ones, it's sometimes a pain in the neck trying to find out what page you were on.

Thanks, and again, sorry if this has already been answered.

Click the little red upside-down ^ next to the title of the thread to go right to the first "unread" post in the thread.

westofyou
04-05-2011, 01:54 PM
It seems that in that in the last couple days, a lot of double-posts have occurred, far more than usual, all across the site. Any known cause for this?

320

I noticed that after I posted my WYSWYG editor didn't clear the text, thus if others see the same bug they will (and have) hit submit again causing the dreaded double post.

bigredmechanism
04-05-2011, 06:41 PM
Click the little red upside-down ^ next to the title of the thread to go right to the first "unread" post in the thread.

Ah, thanks a bunch. Can't believe I haven't used that feature in 5 years haha.

_Sir_Charles_
04-12-2011, 05:38 PM
Since yesterday I've been getting quite a few of the "database error" messages. It happened a bunch in last nights game thread, and several times this afternoon. Including about 5 minutes ago. Just thought I'd let you guys know.

Boss-Hog
04-12-2011, 06:12 PM
Since yesterday I've been getting quite a few of the "database error" messages. It happened a bunch in last nights game thread, and several times this afternoon. Including about 5 minutes ago. Just thought I'd let you guys know.
Thanks - I've been getting them far too frequently, too, and I've contacted our host about this, as I'm 99.9% sure the problem is on their end. So far, they haven't been able to help, but I'm still waiting to hear back on some recent information I sent them on these errors. Thanks for everyone's patience.

_Sir_Charles_
04-12-2011, 06:25 PM
No problem Boss. Just glad you're aware of it.

Redsfan320
04-12-2011, 08:18 PM
FTR, I've had the the same problem you and SC have, Boss.

320

Boss-Hog
04-12-2011, 08:20 PM
FTR, I've had the the same problem you and SC have, Boss.

320
Unfortunately, it's a site-wide issue that sporadically keeps popping up until they can hopefully resolve the root problem.

kbrake
04-13-2011, 08:24 PM
I'm getting the database error again tonight. Just letting you know Boss, thanks.

Kingspoint
04-13-2011, 09:40 PM
Does one web browser tend to be worse than another?

I use google most of the time. I don't like using explorer, but I will. I'll use Mozilla, too.

It's like every third attempt is a database error.

Boss-Hog
04-13-2011, 10:31 PM
Does one web browser tend to be worse than another?

I use google most of the time. I don't like using explorer, but I will. I'll use Mozilla, too.

It's like every third attempt is a database error.
No, it's not browser dependent.

Simon Rhymon
04-18-2011, 05:51 PM
How long is the cookie time-out? If I read 2 or 3 threads and then compose a post, it seems like I'm getting timed out in maybe 15 minutes?

Boss-Hog
04-18-2011, 05:53 PM
How long is the cookie time-out? If I read 2 or 3 threads and then compose a post, it seems like I'm getting timed out in maybe 15 minutes?
I'm not sure I understand your question, but once you click on a thread (or mark an entire forum as read), that thread should be marked as read until there's a new post or posts to it. If I click on a thread, wait 15 minutes and if there's no new responses during that time, the thread should still be marked as read. That's how it correctly works for me, anyway.

Simon Rhymon
04-18-2011, 06:12 PM
I'm not sure I understand your question, but once you click on a thread (or mark an entire forum as read), that thread should be marked as read until there's a new post or posts to it. If I click on a thread, wait 15 minutes and if there's no new responses during that time, the thread should still be marked as read. That's how it correctly works for me, anyway.


If I log in and browse the site for awhile, then decide to respond to something, I go to the quick reply box, type up my comment, click on "submit reply" and get a message that I am not logged in and a box appears for me to log in again. Setting a "time out" cookie is a characteristic of some forum software which can be useful when people are using public computers in order that the log-in expires after a certain amount of time. So I was just wondering what the time out setting was.

westofyou
04-18-2011, 06:32 PM
the site cookies are set to expire at the end of the session.

Change your url, cookie vanishes.

Login top of page, be sure to click "remember me" if you want the cookie to set.

Boss-Hog
04-18-2011, 06:40 PM
If I log in and browse the site for awhile, then decide to respond to something, I go to the quick reply box, type up my comment, click on "submit reply" and get a message that I am not logged in and a box appears for me to log in again. Setting a "time out" cookie is a characteristic of some forum software which can be useful when people are using public computers in order that the log-in expires after a certain amount of time. So I was just wondering what the time out setting was.
Gotcha, now I see what you're asking. Westofyou's response is correct: click the "Remember me" checkbox in order for the cookie not to expire; otherwise, it does within a fairly short timeframe (not sure exactly how long).

Boss-Hog
04-18-2011, 06:43 PM
I just checked and it's set to expire after 900 seconds / 15 minutes of inactivity if you don't check the box.

jojo
04-18-2011, 08:41 PM
are there any guidelines on adding jpgs? I've added some to threads but they seem to be hogs and load slow.

Unassisted
04-18-2011, 09:16 PM
I brought up a notion in an ORG thread yesterday that seemed to get some support. Could there be a policy to put some legs under it?


Maybe if the folks who post on this board didn't concentrate all of the discussion for each Reds player into a single thread for that player, there would appear to be more discussion about Reds? This isn't Wikipedia. I don't see why we feel the need to be so... organized. :D

Thank you.

I agree, the amalgamation of talk into game threads only, minor league only, tend to stifle the jazz that baseball talk can produce.


Definately agree with the above quote as well as with WOY's reply.

RemI'd like to suggest immediately closing down any open-ended ORG thread about a single player that's over 100 posts, in an effort to get the discussion there to be more topic-based again. This current aggregation of posting into player-focused threads makes the ORG much less topical and IMO, less interesting to read.

It also has the effect of amplifying discussion of baseball topics that aren't Reds-related and making the ORG seem less focused on the Reds than it probably is.

Boss-Hog
04-18-2011, 10:23 PM
I brought up a notion in an ORG thread yesterday that seemed to get some support. Could there be a policy to put some legs under it?




I'd like to suggest immediately closing down any open-ended ORG thread about a single player that's over 100 posts, in an effort to get the discussion there to be more topic-based again. This current aggregation of posting into player-focused threads makes the ORG much less topical and IMO, less interesting to read.

It also has the effect of amplifying discussion of baseball topics that aren't Reds-related and making the ORG seem less focused on the Reds than it probably is.
I have no problem with that and agree with you from a readability standpoint. I endorsed the Spring Training pictures/update thread because a lot of people seemed to like that idea but I certainly never suggested we essentially have one thread per player. I don't know if this is something we need to "enforce" (I know you didn't use that word), but I want to make my stance on it clear that I've never suggested we go that direction.

Boss-Hog
04-18-2011, 10:24 PM
are there any guidelines on adding jpgs? I've added some to threads but they seem to be hogs and load slow.
No guidelines - there should be a way to include them as thumbnails to address the issues you described.

Simon Rhymon
04-19-2011, 10:41 AM
Gotcha, now I see what you're asking. Westofyou's response is correct: click the "Remember me" checkbox in order for the cookie not to expire; otherwise, it does within a fairly short timeframe (not sure exactly how long).


Ok. Thanks for the info.

_Sir_Charles_
04-27-2011, 05:08 PM
Just a quick FYI. It's not the database error today, but rather very sluggish performance. I'd post (gamethread) and it would delay about 2 to 3 minutes before the "redirect" window shows up. Then another minute before the post & forum reappear. Normally for me this is a matter of about 2 seconds and then 2 more seconds. This problem was also causing double posts. Just thought you should know.

Boss-Hog
04-27-2011, 05:52 PM
Just a quick FYI. It's not the database error today, but rather very sluggish performance. I'd post (gamethread) and it would delay about 2 to 3 minutes before the "redirect" window shows up. Then another minute before the post & forum reappear. Normally for me this is a matter of about 2 seconds and then 2 more seconds. This problem was also causing double posts. Just thought you should know.
Thanks for letting me know...we're still working on resolving the issues based on feedback from our host and vBulletin. Please continue to keep us posted.

Ron Madden
04-28-2011, 04:19 AM
Thanks for letting me know...we're still working on resolving the issues based on feedback from our host and vBulletin. Please continue to keep us posted.

Sometimes it helps to log out for awhile then log back in.

Boss-Hog
05-16-2011, 08:45 AM
All,

I moved the malware-related posts to a separate thread in this forum, so please continue the discussion there. Thanks...

GIK
07-12-2011, 10:32 PM
Just a FYI, everyone, that we're moving to a new server over the next day or two.

savafan
07-12-2011, 11:48 PM
Just a FYI, everyone, that we're moving to a new server over the next day or two.

Is this due to the large amount of database errors I've been seeing lately when coming here?

gilpdawg
07-12-2011, 11:55 PM
Is this due to the large amount of database errors I've been seeing lately when coming here?
Yeah, I've been getting them a lot today as well, but I can't complain, because this site is pretty consistently up and running well most of the time. It's not the fastest site in the world, but it's fast enough.

Boss-Hog
07-13-2011, 12:55 AM
Is this due to the large amount of database errors I've been seeing lately when coming here?
That's a reason and the main one, yes, but not the only reason.

RBA
07-14-2011, 12:17 AM
test?

gilpdawg
07-14-2011, 12:37 AM
Yay, we're back!

Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

kaldaniels
07-14-2011, 12:49 AM
Looks like a lot of posts got deleted from 7/13. That's a shame cause I posted the greatest post in the history of RZ this past morning. :D

gilpdawg
07-14-2011, 12:58 AM
Looks like a lot of posts got deleted from 7/13. That's a shame cause I posted the greatest post in the history of RZ this past morning. :D

Surrrreeee you did :)

Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

Brutus
07-14-2011, 12:59 AM
Looks like a lot of posts got deleted from 7/13. That's a shame cause I posted the greatest post in the history of RZ this past morning. :D

Yeah most of the posts from today are missing too. I was confused because I was looking in a thread I know I had posted in this afternoon, and all the posts since the 11th are missing.

Boss-Hog
07-14-2011, 06:43 AM
That likely means the move is officially completed. In hindsight, we probably should have shut down the board so that no posts were lost, but then the site would have been completely inaccessible, obviously. Short of doing that, there's no other way to avoid what happened...if we continue losing posts, we've got bigger problems, so please let me know if that happens.

Sea Ray
07-14-2011, 09:04 AM
I'm not getting the gatabase error message today but a lot of other spooky things are happening. For instance this thread shows that the last post was made by Wolfboy this morning but the last one I can access is Boss' from two hrs earlier. I'm also sometimes getting a message that forum administrator has denied access and then 10 secs later if I retry it goes through

Sea Ray
07-14-2011, 09:06 AM
When I tried to edit my spelling in the above post it instead showed me someone else's post to edit( none from KronoRed and I have no idea where it came from). I'm telling you things are getting spooky around here

Sea Ray
07-14-2011, 09:38 AM
I'm getting the following from time to time as I click onto a thread:


No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator

Boss-Hog
07-14-2011, 09:47 AM
I'll follow up with vBulletin...thanks for letting me know and continue to report any issues here.

Sea Ray
07-14-2011, 10:44 AM
I'll follow up with vBulletin...thanks for letting me know and continue to report any issues here.

After reading your post, I can no longer see it unless I log out of RZ completely and come back in. After reading your post above I tried to go back to this thread and I couldn't find anything later than Wolfboy's at 8am today.

I also couldn't find my two posts in this thread from earlier today. Did you see those?

Just trying to give you as much detail as I can so this can be properly troubleshooted.

My earlier post was on editing posts. When I tried to edit a post of mine it'd bring up a totally random, unrelated post from another person. Weird. Try editing a post and see what happens

Boss-Hog
07-14-2011, 11:17 AM
After reading your post, I can no longer see it unless I log out of RZ completely and come back in. After reading your post above I tried to go back to this thread and I couldn't find anything later than Wolfboy's at 8am today.

I also couldn't find my two posts in this thread from earlier today. Did you see those?

Just trying to give you as much detail as I can so this can be properly troubleshooted.

My earlier post was on editing posts. When I tried to edit a post of mine it'd bring up a totally random, unrelated post from another person. Weird. Try editing a post and see what happens

Yes, I saw your earlier posts and have contacted vBulletin this morning. I'm waiting to hear back from them. I haven't been on here a ton since your initial post but I have not seen anything unusual since the DNS switch propagated. Please try clearing your browser's cache.

Is anyone else seeing any odd behavior like Sea Ray described above? A confirmation either way would be helpful...thanks.

Redsfan320
07-14-2011, 11:39 AM
Is anyone else seeing any odd behavior like Sea Ray described above? A confirmation either way would be helpful...thanks.

Earlier today, several threads showed "unread posts", as indicated both by the yellow square beside the timestamps on the post, and by the thread title being bold. Anyway, I was seeing this on several threads that I had read all the posts in; it shouldn't have been showing up like that. Other than that, nothing today, no.

320

Redsfan320
07-14-2011, 11:39 AM
Is anyone else seeing any odd behavior like Sea Ray described above? A confirmation either way would be helpful...thanks.

Earlier today, several threads showed "unread posts", as indicated both by the yellow square beside the timestamps on the post, and by the thread title being bold. Anyway, I was seeing this on several threads that I had read all the posts in; it shouldn't have been showing up like that. Other than that, nothing today, no.

EDIT: Well, apparently, there's a double post thing too.

EDIT AGAIN: Forgot to mention that after my first problem this morning, I marked all forums as "read", and haven't had the issue again.

320

wolfboy
07-14-2011, 01:29 PM
Yeah most of the posts from today are missing too. I was confused because I was looking in a thread I know I had posted in this afternoon, and all the posts since the 11th are missing.

The board is probably better off and all but I can't find any of my posts from earlier today. :dunno:

Boss-Hog
07-14-2011, 01:40 PM
Earlier today, several threads showed "unread posts", as indicated both by the yellow square beside the timestamps on the post, and by the thread title being bold. Anyway, I was seeing this on several threads that I had read all the posts in; it shouldn't have been showing up like that. Other than that, nothing today, no.

EDIT: Well, apparently, there's a double post thing too.

EDIT AGAIN: Forgot to mention that after my first problem this morning, I marked all forums as "read", and haven't had the issue again.

320

I had the same issue but I strongly suspect the reasoning is due to your "read" activity being lost during the transition. In other words, the last post you read in a given thread prior to the move is what the system will see until that gets updated by opening a thread after the move.

Redsfan320
07-14-2011, 02:41 PM
I had the same issue but I strongly suspect the reasoning is due to your "read" activity being lost during the transition. In other words, the last post you read in a given thread prior to the move is what the system will see until that gets updated by opening a thread after the move.

Alright, that's fine. Still haven't had any other problems. :thumbup:

320

jfleur87
07-14-2011, 03:47 PM
I'm I the only one that couldn't access Redszone yesterday? I haven't seen any mention of the site going down.

I got halfway excited because in the past when the site has had issues, it was usually the result of a player trade

Boss-Hog
07-14-2011, 05:02 PM
I'm I the only one that couldn't access Redszone yesterday? I haven't seen any mention of the site going down.

I got halfway excited because in the past when the site has had issues, it was usually the result of a player trade
No, please see above.

dfs
07-14-2011, 07:40 PM
The post I made earlier about my posts disappearing has disappeared! :eek:

Thanks for the laugh.

savafan
07-14-2011, 08:33 PM
Thanks for the laugh.

I'm seeing a lot of double posts, and posts from earlier in a thread showing up again later in the same thread.

Boss-Hog
07-14-2011, 08:49 PM
I'm seeing a lot of double posts, and posts from earlier in a thread showing up again later in the same thread.

Can you provide the URLs to a thread or two to see if the issue exists on my end? Thanks...

LoganBuck
07-14-2011, 10:12 PM
Can you provide the URLs to a thread or two to see if the issue exists on my end? Thanks...

Around 5:45 pm there was a thread in the ORG called "Reds Trade Rumors", I posted in the thread, it was gone when I logged back on a 9pm

Brutus
07-15-2011, 12:04 AM
Posts are disappearing quite frequently tonight. I've seen probably half a dozen threads where they've disappeared. I'll try to get some links if I see it happen again.

Boss-Hog
07-15-2011, 06:31 AM
OK, from talking to vBulletin, I think I've finally figured out what the problem is. We signed up with our new host prior to our contract with the old host expiring to ensure we were getting what we were paying for with the new host before canceling with the old one. Even though the DNS settings have been updated to point to the new host, it appears having service with both hosts is causing the issues we're seeing, particularly missing posts. This is likely due to some posts going in the new database while others are still going in the old database (don't ask me what determines what goes where). As a result, I have asked GIK to cancel with our old host immediately, but until that service is cut off for good, unfortunately, I expect this still to be an issue. I apologize for the inconvenience...this will be resolved as soon as humanly possible. Thanks for your continued patience.

RedFanAlways1966
07-15-2011, 07:45 AM
Home and work...

I see posts at home that I do not see at work. I see posts at work that I do not see at home.

It is like having two RZs. As Old Milwaukee beer says, "It don't get any better than this!" lol

wolfboy
07-15-2011, 08:54 AM
Home and work...

I see posts at home that I do not see at work. I see posts at work that I do not see at home.

It is like having two RZs. As Old Milwaukee beer says, "It don't get any better than this!" lol

I've been having the same issue. Not that I post at work or anything. :D

So is Boss saying that there's a Bizarro Redszone? If I happen to land in Bizarro Redszone, does everyone love Gomes' defense and Janish's bat? :eek:

wolfboy
07-15-2011, 02:17 PM
I have found the trigger for the two versions of Redszone:

If you include the "www." in the address bar, you get a different Redszone than if you do not. For example, pull the following up right next to each other:


http://redszone.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31

http://www.redszone.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31

If you're seeing what I'm seeing, there are very different posts depending on the address you use. Which one is the "real" Redszone? I haven't a clue.

Boss-Hog
07-15-2011, 04:58 PM
I have found the trigger for the two versions of Redszone:

If you include the "www." in the address bar, you get a different Redszone than if you do not. For example, pull the following up right next to each other:


http://redszone.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31

http://www.redszone.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31

If you're seeing what I'm seeing, there are very different posts depending on the address you use. Which one is the "real" Redszone? I haven't a clue.
Excellent find...let me get to the bottom of that.

Boss-Hog
07-15-2011, 05:14 PM
I have confirmed the "version" with the www is the correct version that's pointed to the new host. So that we don't lose anymore posts than we already will, I have shut down the forum on the old host (redszone.com without the www). As far as the long term solution, I have to figure out if something wasn't done that needed to be done on our end that would account for this or if the DNS change has not propagated to the redszone.com address.

Thanks again for the fantastic find, wolfboy...this has been driving me nuts for the past several days.

savafan
07-15-2011, 05:18 PM
Can you provide the URLs to a thread or two to see if the issue exists on my end? Thanks...

This thread is the one that I was seeing it happen on. I'd hit refresh and it'd go back to normal, then I'd come back later, and I'd see the same thing (not the same posts) happening again. Hit refresh again and it would fix itself.

Boss-Hog
07-15-2011, 05:43 PM
All,

I've made a short-term fix that should address the losing posts issue by redirecting all traffic from redszone.com to www.redszone.com. I'm looking into the root cause for the long-term fix. Please refer to the announcement for additional details. Thanks again to wolfboy for figuring out something I've spent the past several days ineffectively trying to fix.

wolfboy
07-15-2011, 07:07 PM
I have confirmed the "version" with the www is the correct version that's pointed to the new host. So that we don't lose anymore posts than we already will, I have shut down the forum on the old host (redszone.com without the www). As far as the long term solution, I have to figure out if something wasn't done that needed to be done on our end that would account for this or if the DNS change has not propagated to the redszone.com address.

Thanks again for the fantastic find, wolfboy...this has been driving me nuts for the past several days.

Happy to help. It's was driving me nuts as well.

Brutus
07-15-2011, 07:54 PM
I hereby nominate wolfboy as chief investigator of Redszone internal technical affairs in assisting the smooth transfer of servers. It's a lengthy title that will require two business cards at all times, but you'll be responsible for the printing costs.

Boss-Hog
07-15-2011, 08:30 PM
Per our new host, they have found and fixed the problem with redszone.com. They mentioned it could take up to 12 hours to take effect.

RBA
07-16-2011, 07:32 AM
Still had problems late yesterday, even with the HTTP:///www.redszone.com.

No problems this morning with just redszone.com

Great job!

LeDoux
08-04-2011, 06:32 PM
I have read several threads about preserving the quality threads vs. over-moderation and decided to pitch an idea. The idea may not be possible, or perhaps it was considered and rejected - but here it is:

Is it possible for each member to select who can and who cannot comment on their thread via their contacts? Perhaps they could not allow ignored posters or allow only friends to comment? It this was possible, much of the 'policing' would be done by the individual members. If this was coupled with some other policies, it could lead to a more civil discussion.

Just to expound, you could also add other requirments to the forum. Theoretically, every elected member has to have 35 or so yes votes to enter the ORG. A yes vote means the new member is added to the friends list of those who vote them in. If ever they drop below 35 votes, they lose the ability to start their own threads in the ORG. In this way, someone elected who then then becomes increasingly rude would have fewer and fewer outlets for their snark. And if they drop below 20 or so friends, perhaps an exclusion from the ORG is warranted.

This idea would create some problems. There would certainly be an adjustment period. Some would also complain about forming cliches or popularity contests. But in spite of this, I believe relying on each individual's judgement will promote much more civil discussion than relying soley on moderators to enforce subjective rules. Wheras, the current system keeps people from breaking rules with obvious, over-the -top criticisms, it does not have penalities for small, repeated rude behavior. There would always be a cost to being rude with the new system. I believe tapping into the group perception would make the forum a better place and save the mods a lot of work.

Just a thought.

Boss-Hog
08-08-2011, 11:33 AM
I have read several threads about preserving the quality threads vs. over-moderation and decided to pitch an idea. The idea may not be possible, or perhaps it was considered and rejected - but here it is:

Is it possible for each member to select who can and who cannot comment on their thread via their contacts? Perhaps they could not allow ignored posters or allow only friends to comment? It this was possible, much of the 'policing' would be done by the individual members. If this was coupled with some other policies, it could lead to a more civil discussion.

Just to expound, you could also add other requirments to the forum. Theoretically, every elected member has to have 35 or so yes votes to enter the ORG. A yes vote means the new member is added to the friends list of those who vote them in. If ever they drop below 35 votes, they lose the ability to start their own threads in the ORG. In this way, someone elected who then then becomes increasingly rude would have fewer and fewer outlets for their snark. And if they drop below 20 or so friends, perhaps an exclusion from the ORG is warranted.

This idea would create some problems. There would certainly be an adjustment period. Some would also complain about forming cliches or popularity contests. But in spite of this, I believe relying on each individual's judgement will promote much more civil discussion than relying soley on moderators to enforce subjective rules. Wheras, the current system keeps people from breaking rules with obvious, over-the -top criticisms, it does not have penalities for small, repeated rude behavior. There would always be a cost to being rude with the new system. I believe tapping into the group perception would make the forum a better place and save the mods a lot of work.

Just a thought.

Thanks for the feedback. It is not possible to do what you're proposing; though you put some thought into this, which I always appreciate, even if this were possible, I would not be in favor of implementing it because it inhibits discussion rather than promotes it. You're always going to have a handful of people that disagree with the rules or enforcement of them, but I don't see anything subjective about them. I do agree with your point about the small, repeated rude behavior and that's probably something we need to look into more carefully and frequently to the extent that the moderators' free times allows. Thanks again...

LeDoux
08-08-2011, 09:32 PM
Thanks for the feedback. It is not possible to do what you're proposing; though you put some thought into this, which I always appreciate, even if this were possible, I would not be in favor of implementing it because it inhibits discussion rather than promotes it. You're always going to have a handful of people that disagree with the rules or enforcement of them, but I don't see anything subjective about them. I do agree with your point about the small, repeated rude behavior and that's probably something we need to look into more carefully and frequently to the extent that the moderators' free times allows. Thanks again...

Thanks for the reply. It was something that popped into my head after posting to the RZ and mowing the grass. The idea may not work for this site, but it did not take much of my time. Psychology is my field and social interaction is what I think about much of the time.

May Redzone become an empire of Redleg discussion.

Todd Gack
07-25-2012, 12:05 AM
Is there a reason I can't post on the Politics forum?

Boss-Hog
07-25-2012, 12:06 AM
Is there a reason I can't post on the Politics forum?
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97217

RBA
07-25-2012, 12:09 AM
You need to opt in. Some folks found it a distraction to reds discussion.

Todd Gack
07-25-2012, 12:10 AM
Thanks. I was trying to find the threads to the changes but never went to that forum.

RedFanAlways1966
07-25-2012, 02:55 PM
To request access to the sub-forum, please go to your User CP (located here) and click "Group Memberships". This only must be done one time; once approved by an administrator or moderator, you will have access to this sub-forum until if and when you change your mind and contact one of us.

Will people be denied access to this sub-forum from the get-go since it requires the approval of an administrator or moderator?

Boss-Hog
07-25-2012, 05:18 PM
Will people be denied access to this sub-forum from the get-go since it requires the approval of an administrator or moderator?
Yes, but any of the admins/moderators can approve it, so it shouldn't take long at all. Currently, we don't have anyone in the queue.

jojo
07-25-2012, 05:20 PM
Yes, but any of the admins/moderators can approve it, so it shouldn't take long at all. Currently, we don't have anyone in the queue.

I think he's asking if its possible that someone might try to opt-in but be told no.....

Boss-Hog
07-25-2012, 05:29 PM
I think he's asking if its possible that someone might try to opt-in but be told no.....
Oh...if that's the case, unless the user was previously banned from that sub-forum, then no, they wouldn't be rejected.

RedFanAlways1966
07-26-2012, 06:18 AM
Thanks, guys!

boiseheidleberg
08-24-2012, 08:51 AM
Haven't been posting long and my profile shows a total of five posts. It should be 22. Not that big of a deal but I'm interested in gaining ORG access in the future so I want to keep and accurate count. Can I get this corrected?

Redsfan320
08-24-2012, 09:42 AM
Haven't been posting long and my profile shows a total of five posts. It should be 22. Not that big of a deal but I'm interested in gaining ORG access in the future so I want to keep and accurate count. Can I get this corrected?


Boise, game thread posts are not included in total post count. Looking at your past posts, this seems to be your issue.

320

boiseheidleberg
08-24-2012, 10:34 AM
Boise, game thread posts are not included in total post count. Looking at your past posts, this seems to be your issue.

320

Ok thanks. Did not realize that.

Screwball
08-28-2012, 09:35 AM
I've never understood why game thread posts don't count. Can somebody explain that to me?

Boss-Hog
08-28-2012, 05:20 PM
I've never understood why game thread posts don't count. Can somebody explain that to me?
Post count is one of two requirements to apply for ORG posting access and we feel posts in the game threads along the lines of "Bruce!" (following a HR) should not count towards that total.

Screwball
08-28-2012, 10:27 PM
Post count is one of two requirements to apply for ORG posting access and we feel posts in the game threads along the lines of "Bruce!" (following a HR) should not count towards that total.

Alright, fair enough, but what about those already in the ORG? Why not let their posts count?

BTW, I'm not as concerned about this as I probably seem -- I'm just curious is all.

Boss-Hog
08-29-2012, 06:35 AM
I suppose we figured the same should apply across the board - especially if we ever need to do something similar with ORG people's post counts (I certainly don't anticipate that, but I suppose it's possible).

Brutus
12-11-2012, 09:41 PM
Boss, has there been any decision on the board's format and will there be a change in the next month or two?

Boss-Hog
12-11-2012, 10:10 PM
Boss, has there been any decision on the board's format and will there be a change in the next month or two?
Yes. We've taken care of a couple of minor, behind the scenes moves, but real life stuff has prevented GIK and I from completely implementing the plan we agreed to late in the summer.

So while I can't give you an exact time table, I would imagine after the holidays you can expect to see more significant movement in this area. It's certainly unintentional that it hasn't moved nearly as fast as I'd have liked, but it's not as simple as flipping a proverbial switch, either.

LeDoux
04-04-2013, 03:41 PM
Many of us have notice some server lag/errors over the past few days. My keen scientific mind had identified the problem as too much Reds-flavored positive psychic energy for the server. Is it possible to add a power crystal or two to boost the Redslove energy flow?

texasdave
04-04-2013, 04:47 PM
Many of us have notice some server lag/errors over the past few days. My keen scientific mind had identified the problem as too much Reds-flavored positive psychic energy for the server. Is it possible to add a power crystal or two to boost the Redslove energy flow?

If you stand by an open window and hold one of those silver things that you found on the table way out high, I find that improves computer performance, especially if there are dark clouds and lightning bolts in the area. :)

LeDoux
04-04-2013, 05:03 PM
If you stand by an open window and hold one of those silver things that you found on the table way out high, I find that improves computer performance, especially if there are dark clouds and lightning bolts in the area. :)

I did as you suggested. I saw a flash and now air tastes like a battery. Did an angel just visit me?

texasdave
04-04-2013, 05:16 PM
I did as you suggested. I saw a flash and now air tastes like a battery. Did an angel just visit me?

A harp (halo?) of Angels. But do not despair, we took two out of three from them.

Raisor
04-04-2013, 05:38 PM
I did as you suggested. I saw a flash and now air tastes like a battery. Did an angel just visit me?

I could just "like" this, but I'm not going to do that.

I'm going to take the time to write: I like you, you're silly.

Boss-Hog
04-04-2013, 05:57 PM
We're aware we are still experiencing server issues, and we're working very hard with our host to resolve them. Everything was OK until the traffic (expectedly) increased once the season started, but we had no way of knowing exactly how much it would increase or if our current configuration could accommodate that number of users visiting the site. As a result, there wasn't a whole lot we could have done before now to prevent this from happening. As always, we appreciate your patience while we work to get the issue(s) resolved once and for all.

I will update this thread with new developments as they come.

LeDoux
04-04-2013, 08:03 PM
I could just "like" this, but I'm not going to do that.

I'm going to take the time to write: I like you, you're silly.

You are making me blush.

LeDoux
04-04-2013, 08:05 PM
We're aware we are still experiencing server issues, and we're working very hard with our host to resolve them. Everything was OK until the traffic (expectedly) increased once the season started, but we had no way of knowing exactly how much it would increase or if our current configuration could accommodate that number of users visiting the site. As a result, there wasn't a whole lot we could have done before now to prevent this from happening. As always, we appreciate your patience while we work to get the issue(s) resolved once and for all.

I will update this thread with new developments as they come.

Thanks for the update. Too much traffic is a good problem to have.

sonny
05-02-2013, 06:19 PM
How can I get on the politics/ religious section. Says I don't have access. Thanks.

Boss-Hog
05-02-2013, 07:17 PM
How can I get on the politics/ religious section. Says I don't have access. Thanks.
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97217

Plus Plus
06-04-2013, 10:02 AM
Boss,

Recently I have noticed that I am unable to see a few of the flash functionalities on my computer:

-I don't see a number of users viewing a specific forum
-Threads don't update while I read them as they had previously as "live threads."

Here are my computer and browser numbers:

Macbook Pro 2.5GHz Intel Core i5
4GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Mac OS X 10.8.3

Google Chrome
Version 27.0.1453.93

It might be something on my end, but this is pretty recent and may have coincided with another change or something. The fact that I just noticed it in the last week doesn't necessarily mean that it happened today- I might have just not been paying attention.

Thanks!

Edit- I just cleared all browsing data including cookies and cache, and the problem is still there.

Boss-Hog
06-04-2013, 11:01 AM
Please refer to the "Site Sluggishness" thread (toward the end) in this forum. I know the live topic functionality was disabled because it was causing massive performance-related problems during games, and the other functionality may have been disabled for performance reasons, too.

Plus Plus
06-04-2013, 12:51 PM
Thanks!

BABIP
06-12-2013, 01:51 AM
The Sundeck seems dead. It will take months to get the required posts. Without spamming of course.

redsfandan
06-12-2013, 03:06 AM
The Sundeck seems dead. It will take months to get the required posts. Without spamming of course.

That might be a good reason why the requirements for admission to the ORG should be revisited.

Right now, it's 45 days and 50 posts right? Well, people had to wait longer and post more before. And I don't think THAT was really ever a problem. What people disagreed about was that SunDeck members had to be subjected to a vote to gain admission to the ORG. I don't remember why the time/post limit was made shorter. But, if the time/post limit was increased back to what it was then it might be easier to weed out the 'bad apples' AND new members like BABIP would have someone to exchange posts with besides the occasional post by an ORG member.

Again, it MIGHT be a good reason to revisit the requirements for the ORG. OR I MIGHT be missing something and have too much time on my hands. Dunno.

Raisor
06-12-2013, 07:43 AM
The Sundeck seems dead. It will take months to get the required posts. Without spamming of course.

You joined a year ago and have two posts.

I agree, it's going to take you awhile

westofyou
06-12-2013, 09:37 AM
The Sundeck seems dead. It will take months to get the required posts. Without spamming of course.

Got to swing to get on. This is a no walks league

jojo
06-12-2013, 12:46 PM
Got to swing to get on. This is a no walks league

There is no crying either.

RedEye
06-25-2013, 12:04 PM
The Sundeck seems dead. It will take months to get the required posts. Without spamming of course.

Post away! Love your handle. :)

kaldaniels
07-08-2013, 04:22 PM
What is the time limit that you can edit your post w/o getting the dreaded "edited by...." tag. I just fixed some grammar 2 minutes after a post and it shows up.

GIK
07-08-2013, 04:25 PM
2 minutes

_Sir_Charles_
07-18-2013, 08:08 AM
Ever since I got back from my florida vacation, Redszone adjusts my DST everytime I log in. I can't seem to find where the setting for it is. And even if I do find it...it shouldn't be checking every single time anyway, right?

GIK
07-18-2013, 08:33 AM
It should not be, no. Try going into your User CP, click on Edit Options, scroll to near the bottom and adjust your DST preferences.

_Sir_Charles_
07-18-2013, 09:37 AM
LOL. Nevermind GIK. My wife changed my laptop timezone when we were on vacation. When I'd log on through the laptop, RZ would change. Then change back when I'd log on via the desktop. Yep, I'm a doofus. :O) Thanks anyway.

thorn
07-26-2013, 12:36 PM
Just Curious, is there any way to hide a thread so it does not show up on your feed? So many threads, this would make it easier to focus on the ones I want to follow.

Boss-Hog
07-26-2013, 03:02 PM
Just Curious, is there any way to hide a thread so it does not show up on your feed? So many threads, this would make it easier to focus on the ones I want to follow.

Unfortunately, I do not believe there is, but you can always subscribe to the threads and forums of interest and view your subscriptions from within your user CP.

thorn
07-26-2013, 03:26 PM
Thanks for the info Boss

redsfandan
08-09-2013, 08:49 AM
There are a LOT more threads being created compared to in the past. It seems like at least some of the them are about the exact same thing as another thread that was created a week or two before. There's probably a few subjects that have more than a few threads about them from the last month.

Just an observation ...

Unassisted
08-09-2013, 09:25 PM
There are a LOT more threads being created compared to in the past. It seems like at least some of the them are about the exact same thing as another thread that was created a week or two before. There's probably a few subjects that have more than a few threads about them from the last month.

Just an observation ...

I prefer that to excessive aggregation. There was a time a year or two back where there was a tendency to gather ALL discussions about a player into a single thread for that player. I remember complaining about that and Boss replying that it wasn't something TPTB were trying to encourage.

mth123
08-25-2013, 02:01 AM
Not sure if this is the place for a technical question, but every time I click on the Baseball GIFs thread, I get bumped from my internet connection and have to reset my cable modem and wireless router. Anyone else have this problem or know why it happens? I have a feeling it's a setting on my end, but no idea what.

Sea Ray
09-09-2013, 02:20 PM
Several weeks ago I started this thread:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102945


It was closed after just a few posts and the following was posted regarding it:



I realize that moderation is pretty lax in this sub forum but I'm going to shut this one down until the other mods/admins can take a look and discuss.

Thanks for your patience.

So my question is has a decision been reached by the MODs concerning this thread and if it was decided that it will not be re-opened, why is that?

As the originator of that thread I felt it was a provocative current event being discussed locally in the news / talk radio and would make for compelling discussion in the political section. To this day no one has told me what the problem was.

dabvu2498
09-09-2013, 04:58 PM
Several weeks ago I started this thread:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102945


It was closed after just a few posts and the following was posted regarding it:




So my question is has a decision been reached by the MODs concerning this thread and if it was decided that it will not be re-opened, why is that?

As the originator of that thread I felt it was a provocative current event being discussed locally in the news / talk radio and would make for compelling discussion in the political section. To this day no one has told me what the problem was.

And you were told, in another thread, that if you had any questions you could ask them via PM and that myself or another moderator would gladly answer your questions.

I was the moderator who closed the thread and got feedback from the other mods, so it would have been the best course of action, if you actually wanted answers, to PM me.

That has not happened.

redsfandan
09-10-2013, 06:12 AM
And you were told, in another thread, that if you had any questions you could ask them via PM and that myself or another moderator would gladly answer your questions.

I was the moderator who closed the thread and got feedback from the other mods, so it would have been the best course of action, if you actually wanted answers, to PM me.

That has not happened.

Wow, instead of being a mod that just TALKS to a member you decided to just be you. Nice job.

Sea Ray
09-10-2013, 08:29 AM
And you were told, in another thread, that if you had any questions you could ask them via PM and that myself or another moderator would gladly answer your questions.

I was the moderator who closed the thread and got feedback from the other mods, so it would have been the best course of action, if you actually wanted answers, to PM me.

That has not happened.

I would think it'd be a courtesy for a MOD to at the very least inform the thread starter if a thread is closed after 5 posts. You don't need an invitation to PM a member. I wouldn't think this would be a private matter. Why shouldn't everyone be educated on what threads are legal and which ones aren't?

redsfandan
09-10-2013, 08:39 AM
I would think it'd be a courtesy for a MOD to at the very least inform the thread starter if a thread is closed after 5 posts. You don't need an invitation to PM a member. I wouldn't think this would be a private matter. Why shouldn't everyone be educated on what threads are legal and which ones aren't?

That's the other thing that I don't get. Couldn't he have just added a post to that thread with an explantion? That way it educates everyone that frequents that forum and only those people. But, no, he didn't want to do that and he didn't want to send you a friendly pm with an explanation either. He WAS the one that closed the thead. An explanation should be automatic. Instead just attitude. Lovely.

jojo
09-10-2013, 08:49 AM
I would think it'd be a courtesy for a MOD to at the very least inform the thread starter if a thread is closed after 5 posts. You don't need an invitation to PM a member. I wouldn't think this would be a private matter. Why shouldn't everyone be educated on what threads are legal and which ones aren't?

The dude has told you twice to address the issue via PM and he'd be happy to explain things privately.

There are apparently reasons the mod would prefer it to be a private matter.

I would actually think if you were truly curious you'd actually spend the few seconds it took to author the post above to author a PM instead.

Mods have a craptastic job. They deserve a little benefit of the doubt when it comes to second guessing how they'd prefer to discuss the rational for moderation-they might just know something that you don't appreciate yet.

Sea Ray
09-10-2013, 09:02 AM
The dude has told you twice to address the issue via PM and he'd be happy to explain things privately.

There are apparently reasons the mod would prefer it to be a private matter.

I would actually think if you were truly curious you'd actually spend the few seconds it took to author the post above to author a PM instead.

Mods have a craptastic job. They deserve a little benefit of the doubt when it comes to second guessing how they'd prefer to discuss the rational for moderation-they might just know something that you don't appreciate yet.

Newsflash: kissing the butts of the MODs will get you nowhere. They're on to you

redsfandan
09-10-2013, 09:06 AM
I'm only addressing only this part since the rest was directed specifically at Sea Ray.



Mods have a craptastic job. They deserve a little benefit of the doubt when it comes to second guessing how they'd prefer to discuss the rational for moderation-they might just know something that you don't appreciate yet.

Maybe you're right and there IS a reason why dabvu2498 can't post an explanation in that forum so everyone that frequents that (private) forum has a better understanding of what is, and isn't, acceptable. I can't think of one but, who knows, maybe there is one.

I understand firsthand that being a mod is a thankless job where you have to deal with people that either don't, or can't, be civil. That shouldn't mean you should sink to their level. Jojo, I can understand if you think Sea Ray was out of line. I just don't think dabvu2498 really handled the situation any better.

jojo
09-10-2013, 09:33 AM
I'm only addressing only this part since the rest was directed specifically at Sea Ray.



Maybe you're right and there IS a reason why dabvu2498 can't post an explanation in that forum so everyone that frequents that (private) forum has a better understanding of what is, and isn't, acceptable. I can't think of one but, who knows, maybe there is one.

I understand firsthand that being a mod is a thankless job where you have to deal with people that either don't, or can't, be civil. That shouldn't mean you should sink to their level. Jojo, I can understand if you think Sea Ray was out of line. I just don't think dabvu2498 really handled the situation any better.

He's a mod and gave a very straightforward mechanism for finding out the answer. Refusing to discuss the matter via PM in lieu of trying to rehash things in an open forum kind of indicates this is less about wanting to understand why the thread was closed and more about something else, whatever that something else might be.

But jeeps, just send a PM. Dabs will tell a poster the score, it's not like he rules with an iron fist and stone war hammer.

Plus Plus
09-10-2013, 10:00 AM
The discussion about the thread in question basically started and stopped with this:


This is a damn shame. Here we have an example of gays screwing with traditional marriage. A generation ago this sort of thing would have gone on without incident and 13 couples would have had the memories of a lifetime.

This is from post 1 in the thread, and already the discussion is little more than baiting. The discussion that followed consisted of posts that can be summarized as:

-pointing out a flaw in the article's premise
-historical context for why the article may be flawed
-a personal attack (in a polite manner)
-a personal attack (that has been deleted)
-thread closed, with moderator statement

...and the first two responses were hardly stated in a way that read as "oh, wow, this article brings up a very good discussion about local issues. Let's provide counterpoint!"

A thread was started that had no future or ability to be discussed without becoming a flamefest.

And yes, there are reasons to PM moderators when you have an issue rather than taking it to this sub-forum. Furthermore, PMing every poster who has a thread closed after 5 posts is ridiculous when 99.999999% of threads that are closed are shut down for very obvious reasons, such as flaming, being a duplicate, reaching 1000 posts, or inappropriate content. I thought that was pretty clear in this case too, that the thread needed to be shut down when it did because it had no potential for intelligent discussion following a first post about "gays screwing with traditional marriage" [sic].

So, the moral of the story (and this can be for everybody) is that if you want threads to remain open for discussion, don't start them with harshly worded and extremely controversial statements. This is true for all forums and sub-forums. For example, if you posted this link:

http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/9/5/4696784/chris-heisey-bunt-two-outs-reds

...with the title or opening statement "proof that Dusty Baker and Chris Heisey are morons who love to bunt like a fat kid loves cake!" then the thread probably won't last long. However, posting it with the title of the article and a snippet, and then asking for input or saying what you might have discerned from the article that could be a good discussion point, then it might be a good source of discussion.

This also seems like a good time to necro this thread:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70973

And allow people to start discussing it once again. What constitutes a healthy or good thread/post, and what doesn't? I am aware that we don't have the voting system in place any longer, but this is still a valuable resource for posters, new and old, to look through.

redsfandan
09-10-2013, 10:34 AM
He's a mod and gave a very straightforward mechanism for finding out the answer. Refusing to discuss the matter via PM in lieu of trying to rehash things in an open forum kind of indicates this is less about wanting to understand why the thread was closed and more about something else, whatever that something else might be.

But jeeps, just send a PM. Dabs will tell a poster the score, it's not like he rules with an iron fist and stone war hammer.

Most of this post sounds like it's either directed to Sea Ray or just about his actions. So, I don't know if I should've even responded to this. lol

Sea Ray
09-10-2013, 10:43 AM
The discussion about the thread in question basically started and stopped with this:



This is from post 1 in the thread, and already the discussion is little more than baiting. The discussion that followed consisted of posts that can be summarized as:

-pointing out a flaw in the article's premise
-historical context for why the article may be flawed
-a personal attack (in a polite manner)
-a personal attack (that has been deleted)
-thread closed, with moderator statement

...and the first two responses were hardly stated in a way that read as "oh, wow, this article brings up a very good discussion about local issues. Let's provide counterpoint!"

A thread was started that had no future or ability to be discussed without becoming a flamefest.



What you consider baiting, I consider stating an opinion. Are we not allowed to have those in the Political section anymore? It's not like other threads haven't been started with a strong opinion:


The Party of No! was praised by some for their selfish obstructionism but the reality is looking more and more like their screams of No! wasn't so much about blocking legislation and really more about an endemic laziness. They don't want to pay taxes. They don't want to work. Jeeps what an attractive political brand-for pot heads.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102385


Anyone want to defend this? I think the Tea Party Chickens are coming home to roost. Time to draw back a bit, eh?

As I said in the other thread, this is scary-crazy. Bachmanish, even. But it's real.

My guess would be these numbers would be greater in the South than elsewhere. Not that I think race plays into it....

I think it was Scalia that asked during recent arguments whether the lawyer thought that the south was more racist than other parts of the country, as if this were an absurd question. I'm not sure it would be proper to answer a Supreme Court justice, "Well, duh!"

Anyway, this is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know if any of the Republicans on this board would defend it; I don't see a lot of radicalism. If so, go ahead. http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101800

I didn't notice any of those threads being closed nor would I want that. I'd much rather have someone introduce a subject and give their "take" rather than simply saying "discuss".

In this case I introduced this subject of the gay lobby managing to shut down an innocent event at a family friendly amusement park along with my disgust. If someone can't handle that w/o a personal attack then that's on him. I posted the subject because I thought this is ridiculous that the gay marriage issue had this result at a non political venue. It was not my intention to bait anyone. I don't care about whoever "anyone" is. I care about discussing openly, provocative topics

redsfandan
09-10-2013, 10:53 AM
The discussion about the thread in question basically started and stopped with this:



This is from post 1 in the thread, and already the discussion is little more than baiting. The discussion that followed consisted of posts that can be summarized as:

-pointing out a flaw in the article's premise
-historical context for why the article may be flawed
-a personal attack (in a polite manner)
-a personal attack (that has been deleted)
-thread closed, with moderator statement

...and the first two responses were hardly stated in a way that read as "oh, wow, this article brings up a very good discussion about local issues. Let's provide counterpoint!"

A thread was started that had no future or ability to be discussed without becoming a flamefest.

And yes, there are reasons to PM moderators when you have an issue rather than taking it to this sub-forum. Furthermore, PMing every poster who has a thread closed after 5 posts is ridiculous when 99.999999% of threads that are closed are shut down for very obvious reasons, such as flaming, being a duplicate, reaching 1000 posts, or inappropriate content. I thought that was pretty clear in this case too, that the thread needed to be shut down when it did because it had no potential for intelligent discussion following a first post about "gays screwing with traditional marriage" [sic].

So, the moral of the story (and this can be for everybody) is that if you want threads to remain open for discussion, don't start them with harshly worded and extremely controversial statements. This is true for all forums and sub-forums. For example, if you posted this link:

http://www.baseballnation.com/2013/9/5/4696784/chris-heisey-bunt-two-outs-reds

...with the title or opening statement "proof that Dusty Baker and Chris Heisey are morons who love to bunt like a fat kid loves cake!" then the thread probably won't last long. However, posting it with the title of the article and a snippet, and then asking for input or saying what you might have discerned from the article that could be a good discussion point, then it might be a good source of discussion.

This also seems like a good time to necro this thread:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70973

And allow people to start discussing it once again. What constitutes a healthy or good thread/post, and what doesn't? I am aware that we don't have the voting system in place any longer, but this is still a valuable resource for posters, new and old, to look through.


That sure sounds like you're oversimplifying the situation to me.

Again, this is what dabvu2498 posted when he closed that thread:


I realize that moderation is pretty lax in this sub forum but I'm going to shut this one down until the other mods/admins can take a look and discuss.

Thanks for your patience.

That sounds to me like he intended to make another post in the thread after discussing it with other mods/admin. Doesn't it sound like that to you? He left the impression that he would get back to the thread. He didn't. That's on him.

As far as the rest of your points go it also seems to me that you were exaggerating a little. Maybe that's just my impression. But, I just don't think that thread was THAT different than what I've seen in other threads (that have remained open) in that forum. If you don't believe me take another look. But, if you look at the first page of threads in that forum that's the ONLY thread that is closed.

Plus Plus
09-10-2013, 11:06 AM
Then my advice would be to report the threads in question instead of comparing situations.

The entire moderating team agreed that the post in question was baiting, so the thread got closed before another "discussion" on one of the testiest topics in American culture got out of hand.

Maybe the post was an oversight, you would have to ask dabvu about that. I'm trying to express that posting threads with inflammatory beginnings generally don't foster productive discussion.

Sea Ray
09-10-2013, 11:40 AM
Then my advice would be to report the threads in question instead of comparing situations.

The entire moderating team agreed that the post in question was baiting, so the thread got closed before another "discussion" on one of the testiest topics in American culture got out of hand.

Maybe the post was an oversight, you would have to ask dabvu about that. I'm trying to express that posting threads with inflammatory beginnings generally don't foster productive discussion.

I made it clear that I didn't think those other threads should be closed. Knowing that, why would I report them?

There's a disconnect between the moderators and those of us being moderated. I don't understand why the MODs unanimously considered my post to be baiting yet did nothing about the other threads I mentioned earlier...:confused:

dabvu2498
09-10-2013, 12:00 PM
That's the other thing that I don't get. Couldn't he have just added a post to that thread with an explantion?

I would agree that I probably should have posted some sort of explanation when the mod staff decided that the post should remain closed. I've told this to SeaRay this morning when he and I had our discussion via PM.


I'm only addressing only this part since the rest was directed specifically at Sea Ray.



Maybe you're right and there IS a reason why dabvu2498 can't post an explanation in that forum so everyone that frequents that (private) forum has a better understanding of what is, and isn't, acceptable. I can't think of one but, who knows, maybe there is one.

I understand firsthand that being a mod is a thankless job where you have to deal with people that either don't, or can't, be civil. That shouldn't mean you should sink to their level. Jojo, I can understand if you think Sea Ray was out of line. I just don't think dabvu2498 really handled the situation any better.

To the bolded portion -- there was.

As I said in the thread in question, I shut it down so that the mods could review it. We did and decided it should remain closed. I should have done so in the thread in question, but really didn't think to do so until it was too late and was being discussed in another thread.

dabvu2498
09-10-2013, 12:09 PM
There's a disconnect between the moderators and those of us being moderated.

Then feel free to ask questions and get clarification via PM. Seriously. The mods (with the exception of myself) are all really nice decent folks. They'll answer your questions and try to explain things as best they can. But sometimes you have to take the initiative.

Plus Plus
09-10-2013, 12:15 PM
I made it clear that I didn't think those other threads should be closed. Knowing that, why would I report them?

There's a disconnect between the moderators and those of us being moderated. I don't understand why the MODs unanimously considered my post to be baiting yet did nothing about the other threads I mentioned earlier...:confused:

Your thread was reported. The others were not. The moderators generally don't sweep through the politics sub-forum as they do the ORG and SD and MLT forums, as the members of the politics forum have been made aware. Ergo, we are only made aware of what we see, and then we evaluate based on that. We decided that the thread wasn't a productive one and closed it.

I don't know how to make it more clear. It's a pretty linear process.

Furthermore, what a poster deems to be acceptable or not acceptable has very little bearing on the rules of the site. I'm sure that there are posters here who use profanity on a regular basis in their homes, or maybe even their workplaces. Profanity in posting might be acceptable to them. However, it isn't within the scope of this website, and therefore those threads and posts get closed or deleted. This case isn't so different, as we have a rule against baiting and the thread was viewed as baiting.

Boss-Hog
09-10-2013, 12:51 PM
Your thread was reported. The others were not. The moderators generally don't sweep through the politics sub-forum as they do the ORG and SD and MLT forums, as the members of the politics forum have been made aware. Ergo, we are only made aware of what we see, and then we evaluate based on that. We decided that the thread wasn't a productive one and closed it.

I don't know how to make it more clear. It's a pretty linear process.

Furthermore, what a poster deems to be acceptable or not acceptable has very little bearing on the rules of the site. I'm sure that there are posters here who use profanity on a regular basis in their homes, or maybe even their workplaces. Profanity in posting might be acceptable to them. However, it isn't within the scope of this website, and therefore those threads and posts get closed or deleted. This case isn't so different, as we have a rule against baiting and the thread was viewed as baiting.

To add to this, don't take the above to mean Sea Ray's thread was closed solely because it was reported to us. We have plenty of reported posts (in all forums - not just that sub-forum) that have no business being reported (meaning they clearly do not violate any site rules).

Larry Schuler
09-10-2013, 02:02 PM
Can't we all just get along?

Sea Ray
09-10-2013, 02:45 PM
Your thread was reported. The others were not. The moderators generally don't sweep through the politics sub-forum as they do the ORG and SD and MLT forums, as the members of the politics forum have been made aware. Ergo, we are only made aware of what we see, and then we evaluate based on that. We decided that the thread wasn't a productive one and closed it.

I don't know how to make it more clear. It's a pretty linear process.



OK, fair enough. I just brought two threads to your attention this morning. Take your time and please answer this: Are those also examples of baiting in your opinion?

jojo
09-10-2013, 03:10 PM
OK, fair enough. I just brought two threads to your attention this morning. Take your time and please answer this: Are those also examples of baiting in your opinion?

Neither led with "the gays" so if nothing else, they have that going for them.

Red in Chicago
09-17-2013, 08:11 PM
For the record, this rainbow flag wearing poster was not the person that reported the thread.

kaldaniels
09-18-2013, 02:41 PM
Spiritofstlouis came in chirping about the Cards today and how we shouldn't be planning for the playoffs just yet.

Were his posts and subsequent replies deleted? I can't find them.

Boss-Hog
09-18-2013, 08:45 PM
Spiritofstlouis came in chirping about the Cards today and how we shouldn't be planning for the playoffs just yet.

Were his posts and subsequent replies deleted? I can't find them.

Yes they were.

kaldaniels
10-07-2013, 02:13 PM
The site is running great the past 24 hours or so.

But did anyone else have some sluggishness on page loading on Friday and Saturday?

Boss-Hog
10-07-2013, 05:09 PM
The site is running great the past 24 hours or so.

But did anyone else have some sluggishness on page loading on Friday and Saturday?

I'm sure that was due to a spike in traffic caused by Dusty getting fired. The site runs perfectly fine 95%+ of the team, but on days like last Tuesday (Wild Card game) and last Friday, it's not equipped for that traffic. The problem is that it'll be quite a bit more to upgrade to hardware that will support that traffic, and it's hard to justify doing so for a few days out of the year. With that being said, as a reader of the site myself, I certainly understand the frustration this causes.

kaldaniels
10-07-2013, 05:24 PM
I'm sure that was due to a spike in traffic caused by Dusty getting fired. The site runs perfectly fine 95%+ of the team, but on days like last Tuesday (Wild Card game) and last Friday, it's not equipped for that traffic. The problem is that it'll be quite a bit more to upgrade to hardware that will support that traffic, and it's hard to justify doing so for a few days out of the year. With that being said, as a reader of the site myself, I certainly understand the frustration this causes.

Dusty strikes again.

No problem at all Boss.

919191
10-08-2013, 02:12 AM
May I be the first to utter the words "I blame Dusty Baker."

WMR
12-10-2013, 02:25 PM
Hey Boss: Are you ever going to turn on the how many are viewing each forum and who is presently viewing a thread features? No biggie, obviously, but they were cool conveniences, IMO.

Boss-Hog
12-10-2013, 05:22 PM
Hey Boss: Are you ever going to turn on the how many are viewing each forum and who is presently viewing a thread features? No biggie, obviously, but they were cool conveniences, IMO.

Unfortunately not, at least for the foreseeable future, as I believe that was one of several factors contributing to an excessive server load. As is, we'll still have issues from time to time when traffic is unusually high (generally during a minority of Reds' games that we can not foresee in advance), but I'd like to do everything I can to not exacerbate this problem during non-peak times.

reds44
12-12-2013, 09:22 AM
Do you really need the animated chick and her bouncing juggs as an advertisement on the site?

Not a good look when browsing at work.

Gallen5862
12-12-2013, 10:51 AM
For some reason I can't start a thread on O'Brien in minor league section. Can someone start his thread .

RedFanAlways1966
12-12-2013, 11:12 AM
Do you really need the animated chick and her bouncing juggs as an advertisement on the site?

Not a good look when browsing at work.

League of Angels video game. I noticed it this morning as well. Not good for the family thing. Also has her taking off her clothes and showering in the skimpy bikini that is way too revealing (for this site, not necessarily for me lol).

Boss-Hog
12-12-2013, 12:02 PM
Thanks for letting me know - that's certainly not intentional, as it's up to Google what to display after we exclude certain categories of ads. I'd thought we'd removed any category remotely objectionable, but obviously not, so I'll take another look at our settings. Are these all ads for video games?

reds44
12-12-2013, 12:10 PM
Yeah, there were a couple different ones for the same game I'm pretty sure.

Boss-Hog
12-12-2013, 04:19 PM
I've disabled the video game category. Please let me know if you continue to see these ads or anything objectionable for a family friendly site.

Chip R
12-13-2013, 04:19 PM
Do you really need the animated chick and her bouncing juggs as an advertisement on the site?

Speak for yourself! :D

CincyStuff
12-14-2013, 10:50 AM
Trying to post for my first time. Tried in another thread but it looks like I just busted my cherry.

Are all threads open?

Boss-Hog
12-14-2013, 10:51 AM
Please refer to the "About Us" section, and let me know if you have any questions.

AtomicDumpling
01-23-2014, 02:59 PM
I have been trying to post a new thread in the Fantasy Island sub-forum for the last two days but the site is not allowing it. I keep getting this error message:

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@redszone.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Boss-Hog
01-23-2014, 05:14 PM
Can you please send me a PM on the device you're using when you receive that error, and let me know the IP address?

kaldaniels
02-28-2014, 03:22 PM
Site Feedback -

Nice job shutting down the "Cards are on TV today" thread Boss. :thumbup:

reds44
04-28-2014, 04:59 PM
The big breasted Thai ladies add, while enjoyable...is not very safe for work lol.

Boss-Hog
04-28-2014, 05:05 PM
The big breasted Thai ladies add, while enjoyable...is not very safe for work lol.

What is it an advertisement for? Hopefully it's a category I can disable from appearing.

Sea Ray
04-29-2014, 09:37 AM
What is it an advertisement for? Hopefully it's a category I can disable from appearing.

All I can recall is that it was an ad for a call in chat line. Do they still have 900 numbers? It was something like that