PDA

View Full Version : Site Feedback/Questions



Pages : [1] 2 3

Boss-Hog
05-21-2007, 12:22 AM
All,

Please use this forum for any questions or concerns you may have about the changes that were implemented. Thanks.

oneupper
05-21-2007, 08:03 AM
Boss.
Nice job on the quick turnaround.
Where can we find a list of ORG members?

Boss-Hog
05-21-2007, 08:13 AM
Good question - on the main forum listing page, click on "View Forum Leaders (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showgroups.php)".

WMR
05-21-2007, 08:15 AM
Is an ORG member an ORG member for life? In other words, can a member be demoted by any process?

GIK
05-21-2007, 08:38 AM
ORG members follow the same board rules and policies as everyone else. And, yes, they can lose access to The Old Red Guard forum.

KronoRed
05-21-2007, 08:42 AM
Nice work Boss, GIK.

TeamCasey
05-21-2007, 08:46 AM
You have someone named Spazzrico viewing threads who isn't even on the RZ member list. Just an FYI .... unless it's one of you ..... then ooops.

MrCinatit
05-21-2007, 08:56 AM
From a first look, this looks rather well-done. Some things will take getting used to - actually only took me a quick glance around to find The Future forum, which answered my "how do we know when votes are being presented" question.
Very cool.

HumnHilghtFreel
05-21-2007, 09:11 AM
Clearly you guys have no consideration for the fact that I have a hard time dealing with change! ;)

Looks good though.

So, if you happen to be one of the "chosen few" to be voted on for induction into ORG, will you know?

RedsBaron
05-21-2007, 09:44 AM
Looks good Boss. :thumbup:

919191
05-21-2007, 09:44 AM
I see Old Red Guard is listed as a member on ORG. I like that.

Roy Tucker
05-21-2007, 10:04 AM
I see Old Red Guard is listed as a member on ORG. I like that.

I saw that too. A nice touch.

Oh, and good job Boss and GIK.

Boss-Hog
05-21-2007, 10:37 AM
You have someone named Spazzrico viewing threads who isn't even on the RZ member list. Just an FYI .... unless it's one of you ..... then ooops.
There's a requirement that a user must have at least one post before appearing on the member list - that user has not posted.

Boss-Hog
05-21-2007, 10:39 AM
Clearly you guys have no consideration for the fact that I have a hard time dealing with change! ;)

Looks good though.

So, if you happen to be one of the "chosen few" to be voted on for induction into ORG, will you know?
Good question...if a member is voted in, he or she will likely be contacted via PM. Additionally, they will no longer be able to post in The Sun Deck, so that will let them know they've been voted in.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 10:41 AM
I'm not sure how many posts I have (almost 2 thousand I think), been here for years, and had over 300 rep points in the old system, but not on the old red guard list... whats up with that? Cause I haven't posted yet in the new system? Guess I'll have to go check after this.....

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 10:42 AM
Still not letting me. Do I seriously have to go through more obstacles made to keep away "trolls"? I've been here forever

Heath
05-21-2007, 11:27 AM
Nice work Boss & GIK - brown-nosing notwithstanding.

Hard job, but someone had to do it and it was done thoughtfully. Good work.

Now, post here more, dagnabit!

rotnoid
05-21-2007, 11:28 AM
Quick question on avatars. I went to update mine this morning and could only choose a pre-defined image. Are custom avatars reserved for those with ORG privileges now? If so, I'll get over it, just checking.

GIK
05-21-2007, 11:30 AM
rot, avatars are for those with ORG access only.

rotnoid
05-21-2007, 11:32 AM
Thanks GIK. That kind of clears things up. I had ORG privileges before and was able to use a custom avatar. After your reply (and I'm guessing removal of the pre-defined avatar I selected- not complaining, just trying to make sure you have all the facts) I'm still able to update an avatar in my User CP. Does this mean I'm special? :)

GIK
05-21-2007, 11:37 AM
You are special, rot, but it was my programming mistake. :) Avatars are now only enabled for those with ORG access.

justincredible
05-21-2007, 11:38 AM
Of course you change the format when I was just a few rep points away from 200. :)

rotnoid
05-21-2007, 11:46 AM
Thanks again. Sorry for ruining it for the rest of us guys. :)

Unassisted
05-21-2007, 12:28 PM
Looks like some posts got deleted somewhere along the way. My post count was at around 10,080 before the change.

Mind you, I'm not complaining. I'm just offering the observation in case that was an unintended consequence of the changes.

reds44
05-21-2007, 12:35 PM
So is there any negatives to joining through group memberships then being voted into the ORG?

GIK
05-21-2007, 12:38 PM
If nominated, you'll probably have an advocate who will be asking for your inclusion. If you apply through the User CP your request passes through Boss and I first (it does in both scenarios, actually). I wouldn't say there is an extreme advantage/disadvantage either way, but again, if a current ORG member nominates you then at least you know you have one vote. :)

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 12:47 PM
Why not let whoever was in ORG stay in ORG?

EDIT: I feel like EdE :(

KittyDuran
05-21-2007, 12:49 PM
I haven't tried but can ORG members communicate via PM with the Sun Deck members and vice versa? Thanks!

Boss-Hog
05-21-2007, 01:26 PM
I haven't tried but can ORG members communicate via PM with the Sun Deck members and vice versa? Thanks!
Yes

RBA
05-21-2007, 01:28 PM
Suggestion on RedsZone Gathering....

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1354980&postcount=242

Boss-Hog
05-21-2007, 01:29 PM
One member was kind and honest enough to point out that there was a flaw that was allowing anyone who was requesting ORG access to join the group directly and immediately begin posting. This is not how the system is supposed to work - a user is able to put in a request to join (i.e. an application) via their user CP and then GIK or I will ensure the user meets all the minimum criteria before creating a poll in the appropriate forum. As a result, I have temporarily disabled the ability to request membership until I have a bit of time to ensure that part of the system is working 100% correctly and removed any users who were able to take advantage of this flaw.

TeamCasey
05-21-2007, 01:31 PM
Suggestion on RedsZone Gathering....

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1354980&postcount=242

Thanks, RBA. I probably should have posted that here. Didn't think at the time.

Will M
05-21-2007, 01:36 PM
Still not letting me. Do I seriously have to go through more obstacles made to keep away "trolls"? I've been here forever

I agree 100% with you.

I've been reading and posting for ~1.5 years and usually stick to the
'Old Red Guard' forum. Now I've been kicked out.

Screw it. If I'm not good enough to post on the Old Reds Guard forum I'll just quit posting at all. I put up with lots of B.S. at work. I don't need it in my hobbies which are supposed to be fun.

Caseyfan21
05-21-2007, 01:50 PM
Still not letting me. Do I seriously have to go through more obstacles made to keep away "trolls"? I've been here forever

Not to complain but I have to agree with what TS said. There are probably quite a few people that gained ORG status in the old format who, I would think, deserve ORG posting privileges in the new set up.

I think, like TS, I am a prime example. I have been a member since May 2001, just over 300 rep points in the old system, over 1100 posts. However I am not a frequent poster because I am busy with school and other things. I am more of a reader who gives a comment only when I feel strongly about a subject.

I do think the new system will be beneficial to keep better discussion and less of the "he sucks" type threads that seemed to be happening more and more often.

kaldaniels
05-21-2007, 02:03 PM
What does it mean that ORG members are restricted from the Sundeck....i read that as they are not allowed to post there....don't get me wrong I want ORG guys in there (I think I've seen them in there), but I'm just trying to figure out what it means.

Caveman Techie
05-21-2007, 02:03 PM
Just a question but was there a problem with the old system? I wasn't in the ORG (yet), but I was getting close. I've been a member here for a long time but I don't post often and am more of a lurker anyway, but I thought the rep system worked quite well. Was the rep getting out of hand? Or being abused by some to "game" the system? Was the mixing of Red's Live with ORG posters causing a lowest common denominator? Or were you just borred this weekend and needed something else to take flak for. :)

Please don't take this as criticism I'm just curious as to what led to the decision. The announcement only stated what was changed it didn't really address the why it changed.

RichRed
05-21-2007, 02:06 PM
I am another of those who was demoted (700-some posts, ~360 rep points). Sure I'm disappointed but like EdE, I plan to tear it up in AAA, aka the Sun Deck, and be back up with the Big Club before too long.

kaldaniels
05-21-2007, 02:07 PM
I have no problem with having to "pay my dues" to get back into the ORG...however, it'd be nice if all ORG old members had been allowed in the new ORG, with a strict swift no tolerance of flame/trolling. We could clean house easy and quick in that way if you ask me...otherwise yes, some valuable posters will slip thru the cracks.

That said, not my site, not my rules...but this is just my opinion on the issue on a thread meant for that.

savafan
05-21-2007, 02:09 PM
I am another of those who was demoted (700-some posts, ~360 rep points). Sure I'm disappointed but like EdE, I plan to tear it up in AAA, aka the Sun Deck, and be back up with the Big Club before too long.

I like your attitude Rich! :thumbup:

acredsfan
05-21-2007, 02:11 PM
As mentioned above, I clicked the join ORG option and it let me right in too. I did not post or anything, since I figured something was up. I was also in ORG before the changes. I see how some people are upset about it, but I for one welcome these changes. Honestly I don't think the rep system was the best way to seperate everybody, I received negative rep on one occasion where it was just because the person was tired of hearing jokes about a past GM. It wasn't inappropriate or anything. Anyway, my point is, hopefully this method doesn't give too much power to people who will abuse it. If you are like me and are now not allowed into ORG, just keep your head up and keep posting responsibly and be courteous. Lets just hope the system works.

rotnoid
05-21-2007, 02:13 PM
I am another of those who was demoted (700-some posts, ~360 rep points). Sure I'm disappointed but like EdE, I plan to tear it up in AAA, aka the Sun Deck, and be back up with the Big Club before too long.

Well said. At first I was shocked that ORG had been taken away from me, having just gained access to the club this month, but then I realized most of my posts were in Reds Live anyway. I still get to read the ORG and don't really miss too much. Maybe one day I can play with the big kids, but for now, I'll take the other side of the fence.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 02:27 PM
In a little over 2 months, I will have been here FIVE (5!) years. What kind of weird popularity contest did I lose to not get picked for ORG? I know I'm probably coming off as "whining" (because I am ;)) but jeez, what component did I miss out on to not make it?

Sorry about all of my cry baby posts, but Redszone is one of the sites I regularly visit and follow. For a little constructive criticism, "double posts" are going to be a big problem now, with one thread needed on each forum. Seems like that would be a big waste of space for those paying for bandwidth.

TC81190
05-21-2007, 02:29 PM
I agree 100% with you.

I've been reading and posting for ~1.5 years and usually stick to the
'Old Red Guard' forum. Now I've been kicked out.

Screw it. If I'm not good enough to post on the Old Reds Guard forum I'll just quit posting at all. I put up with lots of B.S. at work. I don't need it in my hobbies which are supposed to be fun.


Word.

Tom Servo
05-21-2007, 02:30 PM
I am another of those who was demoted (700-some posts, ~360 rep points). Sure I'm disappointed but like EdE, I plan to tear it up in AAA, aka the Sun Deck, and be back up with the Big Club before too long.
I'd rather mope and complain like Ears.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 02:32 PM
I am another of those who was demoted (700-some posts, ~360 rep points). Sure I'm disappointed but like EdE, I plan to tear it up in AAA, aka the Sun Deck, and be back up with the Big Club before too long.

Too bad Boss or GIK will try to move you to 1st base or maybe even Leftfield. Better watch your errors.

Sucks to be you.

;)

GIK
05-21-2007, 02:39 PM
Guys (and gals)...

Boss and I compiled the 'start-up' ORG member list over a week of deliberation. It wasn't an easy task, that's for sure. However, the ORG is not a concrete group. You can apply (temporarily disabled until we fix this function) or be nominated and then possibly be voted in. You can still read The Old Red Guard - and every other public forum here at RedsZone. We both knew this decision wouldn't be popular, but it was a decision we both felt needed to be made. In time we believe this will prove to be the right choice.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 02:46 PM
How does the voting work?

EDIT- It says 75% of voters... so every ORG member has to vote (or the highest amount vote yes to where the remaining wouldn't be over 25%)

Newman4
05-21-2007, 02:52 PM
What happened to avatars?

zombie-a-go-go
05-21-2007, 02:53 PM
How does the voting work?

Details are in the announcement that shows at the top of every forum:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/announcement.php?f=31&a=2

Natty Redlocks
05-21-2007, 02:54 PM
Just a question but was there a problem with the old system? I wasn't in the ORG (yet), but I was getting close. I've been a member here for a long time but I don't post often and am more of a lurker anyway, but I thought the rep system worked quite well. Was the rep getting out of hand? Or being abused by some to "game" the system? Was the mixing of Red's Live with ORG posters causing a lowest common denominator? Or were you just borred this weekend and needed something else to take flak for. :)

Please don't take this as criticism I'm just curious as to what led to the decision. The announcement only stated what was changed it didn't really address the why it changed.

About Us (http://www.redszone.com/aboutus.html) mentions why they changed it. Although I didn't make the cut, I have to say I agree my posts usually added little in the way of intelligent baseball conversation, as I am frequently focused on joking around and insulting players I don't like. I felt a lot more comfortable in Reds Live anyway, and plan to stay at the kiddie table for as long as possible. I confess I went through a few minutes of surprise and disappointment, but I've already gotten over it. Thanks to the powers that be for not booting us entirely off the site; it really does rock.

zombie-a-go-go
05-21-2007, 02:58 PM
Avatars are disabled for non-ORG members, just as they were previous to the split.

jimbo
05-21-2007, 03:00 PM
Not sure I understand the reasoning why those of us who earned the right to post in ORG and the game threads must do so again?

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 03:05 PM
I read the announcement, didn't exactly answer my question though. In order to be promoted to the ORG, the forum leaders have to vote until at least 75% of the members vote yes??? Some of the ORG members average as low as .018 posts per day, sounds like it might take a very long time for 3/4ths of the list to vote (assuming they all vote yes)

jimbo
05-21-2007, 03:06 PM
I agree 100% with you.

I've been reading and posting for ~1.5 years and usually stick to the
'Old Red Guard' forum. Now I've been kicked out.

Screw it. If I'm not good enough to post on the Old Reds Guard forum I'll just quit posting at all. I put up with lots of B.S. at work. I don't need it in my hobbies which are supposed to be fun.

Totally agree. How can you kick out members who hard to earned their access to ORG. I've also started contributing in the game threads and now that has been taken away.

Now for me to participate in a game thread I have to go back to cincinnati.com and deal with esaskywhirl. :thumbdown

paintmered
05-21-2007, 03:07 PM
I read the announcement, didn't exactly answer my question though. In order to be promoted to the ORG, the forum leaders have to vote until at least 75% of the members vote yes??? Some of the ORG members average as low as .018 posts per day, sounds like it might take a very long time for 3/4ths of the list to vote (assuming they all vote yes)

Minimum of 50 ORG members must vote. The polls stay open for at least 72 hours.

paintmered
05-21-2007, 03:07 PM
Totally agree. How can you kick out members who hard to earned their access to ORG. I've also started contributing in the game threads and now that has been taken away.

Now for me to participate in a game thread I have to go back to cincinnati.com and deal with esaskywhirl. :thumbdown

http://www.redszone.com/forums/FlashChat/flashchat.php

Try it, you might like it.

HumnHilghtFreel
05-21-2007, 03:10 PM
Details are in the announcement that shows at the top of every forum:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/announcement.php?f=31&a=2

I don't think that necessarily answered his question though, because I was wondering the same thing. It says a user must get 75% of a vote on his eligibility, but it doesn't say how many voters are required.

If there are 100 ORG posters, you'd need 75 of them on your side.

But if only 10 of them vote, you'd need 8. So, does everyone in ORG have to vote before you get in?

Joseph
05-21-2007, 03:13 PM
I don't think that necessarily answered his question though, because I was wondering the same thing. It says a user must get 75% of a vote on his eligibility, but it doesn't say how many voters are required.

If there are 100 ORG posters, you'd need 75 of them on your side.

But if only 10 of them vote, you'd need 8. So, does everyone in ORG have to vote before you get in?

50 are supposed to vote and it will stay open for a minimum of 72 hours first.

Additionally it's not likely you'll know you are being voted on, so worrying about how long it will take or who votes is fruitless.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 03:14 PM
No kidding.

I seriously don't see what was so hard about letting ORG members stay ORG members.

jimbo
05-21-2007, 03:14 PM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/FlashChat/flashchat.php

Try it, you might like it.

That's besides the point really. To play by the rules, get accepted and earn the right to post in ORG and the game threads and to have that taken away and forced to go through another process is just unreasonable.

I'm pretty upset right now and will just walk away from this site for a few days to decide if I even want to come back.

GIK
05-21-2007, 03:16 PM
I don't think that necessarily answered his question though, because I was wondering the same thing.

A minimum of 50 ORG members must vote and the "Yes" votes must equal at least 75%. For example, if 50 ORG members vote then there must be at least 38 "Yes" votes. If 88 ORG members vote, then there must be 66 "Yes" votes, etc.

HumnHilghtFreel
05-21-2007, 03:18 PM
Additionally it's not likely you'll know you are being voted on, so worrying about how long it will take or who votes is fruitless.

I'm not stressing about it, just curious about the new process. Things seem to be running smoothly so far.

Edit: and thanks for the quick answers all 4 of you ;)

GIK
05-21-2007, 03:19 PM
That's besides the point really. To play by the rules, get accepted and earn the right to post in ORG and the game threads and to have that taken away and forced to go through another process is just unreasonable.

I'm pretty upset right now and will just walk away from this site for a few days to decide if I even want to come back.

jimbo, I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm sure there are others with similar thoughts (and there will be more to come). Again, this wasn't an easy decision, but it was the right one. RedsZone is a privately owned site (it has been since its creation in April of 2000). This is a decision that Boss and I made - and it isn't changing. I hope you decide to stick around and enjoy reading ORG and participating in the SunDeck.

Danny Serafini
05-21-2007, 03:21 PM
Honestly, I don't think this new setup is a great idea. I don't understand why ORG members aren't allowed to post in the Sun Deck. We're supposed to be evaluating who should get moved into ORG, but it makes it harder to do when you're not allowed to have any interaction with anyone in the Sun Deck. Plus it's going to cause issues for those currently in the Sun Deck. People tend to find other members they feel comfortable chatting/debating/interacting with and form friendships with in the forums. The new members are going to do the same. What's going to be their reward when they get called up? They get cut off from the posters they enjoy interacting with and have to start from scratch. That just doesn't seem right.

I don't really understand cutting off the game threads from the Sun Deck either. I know there have been problems with the game threads and it's tricky to find the answer to them. I just personally don't see this as being the answer. I think it'll do nothing but fracture the community. Again, you're removing a chance to interact with the newer posters. When there were two separate game thread I usually hung out in the Reds Live thread, just so I could get to know some of the newer people and get a feel for them. I know I was in the minority on that, but I think it's worth mentioning.

I do think the change from the reputation system to the election one is a positive. It was getting to the point where a powerful member could almost single-handedly move someone up. So I think this change will prove to be more effective. I just worry that the other moves will wind up being a step back.

rotnoid
05-21-2007, 03:24 PM
Additionally it's not likely you'll know you are being voted on, so worrying about how long it will take or who votes is fruitless.

That's kind of cryptic. So it's a blind secret ballot? I would think at least being alerted that you're nominated would be nice. Then a person could prepare an acceptance speech and practice their fake smile in the case that Oprah wins the emmy again.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 03:24 PM
A maximum rep would have fixed those problems. Especially with groups just repping each other (resulting in rep in the 1000s,etc.).

paintmered
05-21-2007, 03:26 PM
A maximum rep would have fixed those problems. Especially with groups just repping each other (resulting in rep in the 1000s,etc.).

The message board software doesn't allow for that. We are constrained by the limitations of vBulletin, even though it is a very good platform.

GIK
05-21-2007, 03:32 PM
Good questions, Danny.

I would simply look at it this way...

The Old Red Guard is RedsZone.

We could have left it at that and closed the door, but we didn't. We wanted to allow existing and new members the opportunity to discuss the Reds in a more controlled, family-oriented format. I'm not concerned about duplicate topics. The Sun Deck also allows us to review a body of work by members who wish to apply to The Old Red Guard. Without this separate baseball forum, we would have to rely solely on written applications which provide little in the way of how someone would operate on a forum.

Razor Shines
05-21-2007, 03:32 PM
That's besides the point really. To play by the rules, get accepted and earn the right to post in ORG and the game threads and to have that taken away and forced to go through another process is just unreasonable.

I'm pretty upset right now and will just walk away from this site for a few days to decide if I even want to come back.
Come on jimbo, you're a good poster. I agree that you should probably should have been in the ORG, but again you're a good poster and you'll get back in. And it probably won't take very long.

texasdave
05-21-2007, 03:33 PM
I already wrote to the administration and expressed my opinions. I think it is wrong to change the rules in the middle of the game. If you received the rep points then it seems obvious that someone thought you were contributing. If they thought the 200 rep point entry point was too low simply raise it.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 03:37 PM
This is a message forum, not a job. It is kind of ridiculous that posters have to send in their application when they have proved to be able to discuss the Cincinnati Reds in an intelligent manner, without any personal attacks, etc. You're turning a fun message board into work. Work to get rep points, work to win an election. I am putting out a sign in my yard right now that reads

VOTE TEAMSELIG FOR ORG

I need a campaign manager.

paintmered
05-21-2007, 03:38 PM
This is a message forum, not a job.

It's also a privately owned and operated message board. Boss and GIK make the rules, it's up to you to play by them.

rotnoid
05-21-2007, 03:41 PM
This is a message forum, not a job. It is kind of ridiculous that posters have to send in their application when they have proved to be able to discuss the Cincinnati Reds in an intelligent manner, without any personal attacks, etc. You're turning a fun message board into work. Work to get rep points, work to win an election. I am putting out a sign in my yard right now that reads

VOTE TEAMSELIG FOR ORG

I need a campaign manager.

That's a little over the top. It's a privately owned and operated message board. I, for one, am thankful that the opportunity to read and post here wasn't taken away completely (as it could have been). In the end, it boils down to the cost. We aren't forced to pay to post here, so any belief that we have "rights" or are entitled to anything at all is unfounded. This service is still being provided free of charge. Make the most of it, things could be a lot worse.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 03:43 PM
What rule have I broken?

Also, I know they own the board and everything. I appreciate it all, but I think there have been too many changes to something that was great to begin with.

Heath
05-21-2007, 03:44 PM
I need a campaign manager.

I hear these guys are available........

http://www.dvdfuture.com/images/upload/napoleon_dynamite.jpg

jimbo
05-21-2007, 03:45 PM
Come on jimbo, you're a good poster. I agree that you should probably should have been in the ORG, but again you're a good poster and you'll get back in. And it probably won't take very long.

Thanks for the kind words, but a decision like this only makes people feel very unwelcome.

jimbo
05-21-2007, 03:47 PM
I hear these guys are available........

http://www.dvdfuture.com/images/upload/napoleon_dynamite.jpg

Actually, that's a picture of me and TeamSelig after getting kicked out of the ORG. :D

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 03:49 PM
Vote For Jimbo.

get your own freakin message board

Razor Shines
05-21-2007, 03:49 PM
Thanks for the kind words, but a decision like this only makes people feel very unwelcome.

I don't feel unwelcome.

zombie-a-go-go
05-21-2007, 03:50 PM
This is a message forum, not a job. It is kind of ridiculous that posters have to send in their application when they have proved to be able to discuss the Cincinnati Reds in an intelligent manner, without any personal attacks, etc. You're turning a fun message board into work. Work to get rep points, work to win an election. I am putting out a sign in my yard right now that reads

VOTE TEAMSELIG FOR ORG

I need a campaign manager.

No.

Ridiculous is watching you complain, over and over, that this message board, for which you pay nothing and perform no work to maintain, doesn't fit your needs. How terrible it must be for you to be trapped here by the cruel, heartless Redszone gaolers, unable to rop and frolic in the grassy meadows of the internets!

Well, TeamSelig, I checked our dungeons and made sure the door to your cell is unlocked. You can feel free to leave any time you like.

rotnoid
05-21-2007, 03:51 PM
What rule have I broken?

Also, I know they own the board and everything. I appreciate it all, but I think there have been too many changes to something that was great to begin with.

That's the nature of the beast. Their board, their whim. It's not for us to say how often changes can or should be made. We're just here for the ride. I'm sure compiling the list of the new ORG wasn't easy, but a line had to be drawn somewhere. Unfortunately for us, we're on this side. I'm over it.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 03:55 PM
Well, as long as I am loved here. I am just giving feedback and asking questions, just like the thread says.

I'm not aware of message boards that 'charge' to join.

Sorry to have riled up the mods, I'm just a little frustrated thats all.

GIK
05-21-2007, 03:57 PM
Sons of Sam Horn (a regulated Red Sox forum) *does* charge their members once they are given access to the main baseball forum, FWIW.

paintmered
05-21-2007, 03:57 PM
Well, as long as I am loved here. I am just giving feedback and asking questions, just like the thread says.

I'm not aware of message boards that 'charge' to join.

Sorry to have riled up the mods, I'm just a little frustrated thats all.

Sons of Sam Horn comes to mind immediately. And on top of it, they have to pay to be a member.

TeamSelig
05-21-2007, 03:59 PM
You guys have done a great job creating the site, and keeping out ******** people. I'm not taking that away from you. I'm not sure why anyone would ever pay to post on a message forum though.. lol Those stupid Sox fans, I guess...

SunDeck
05-21-2007, 04:03 PM
I'm feeling a little weird about my username right now.

Just sayin'.

pedro
05-21-2007, 04:05 PM
You guys have done a great job creating the site, and keeping out ******* people. I'm not taking that away from you. I'm not sure why anyone would ever pay to post on a message forum though.. lol Those stupid Sox fans, I guess...

Because someone has to pay for the hosting fees and it really ought not be the folks that are also donating their time to create/moderate/manage the site.

Screwball
05-21-2007, 04:05 PM
Personally, I'm shocked and appalled they didn't re-name the "Reds Live" forum as "Screwball", after the lovable and long-standing poster who bears that name.

:evil:

Unassisted
05-21-2007, 04:06 PM
I'm not aware of message boards that 'charge' to join.

I have another example.

JJ Huddle (http://jjhuddle.com), a board which discusses Ohio high school sports is free to read, but charges $10 to register, and registration is required for posting. In addition, they require that registered members post at least once every 90 days to retain their membership. If you don't post during that 90 days, you have to pay $10 to register again.

Red Leader
05-21-2007, 04:07 PM
I'm feeling a little weird about my username right now.

Just sayin'.

I bet. The forum name decision came down to a final three of SunDeck, Javy Pornstache, and Boobhat.

Sorry about your luck.

RichRed
05-21-2007, 04:17 PM
I'm feeling a little weird about my username right now.

Just sayin'.

And you're not even allowed to post on the board bearing your name.

Oh the irony.

SunDeck
05-21-2007, 04:24 PM
I bet. The forum name decision came down to a final three of SunDeck, Javy Pornstache, and Boobhat.


Just a couple other things I'm called, too.

captainmorgan07
05-21-2007, 04:37 PM
i am alil angry to just learn that i can no longer post on the game forum i agree if you were already and ORG member why couldn't u all stay a member that is just intersting
so does this technically mean we can have game thread in the sun deck?

Strikes Out Looking
05-21-2007, 05:01 PM
Ok, so I'm on the bus down to AAA trying to figure out how to get back up to the Bigs--where I was for over a year. I would've asked the powers that be to cut someone else, but they disabled that function before I could put in my request. I guess I'll go work with EdE and Joey V. and wait for my call back up.

I'm most upset about not having access to my avatar. It goes with the name, like Peanut Butter and Jelly.

Joseph
05-21-2007, 05:17 PM
so does this technically mean we can have game thread in the sun deck?

No, you are allowed to use the chat

http://www.redszone.com/forums/FlashChat/flashchat.php

But no game threads on the Sun Deck.

FlightRick
05-21-2007, 05:19 PM
I have another example.

JJ Huddle (http://jjhuddle.com), a board which discusses Ohio high school sports is free to read, but charges $10 to register, and registration is required for posting. In addition, they require that registered members post at least once every 90 days to retain their membership. If you don't post during that 90 days, you have to pay $10 to register again.

To me, that's a faulty model. Any time you REQUIRE somebody to post X number of times to be a member in good standing, frankly, you are doing it ass-backwards. Although, in this one specific case, why somebody would be $10 to not post is kind of a mystery.... but still: the general point is that nothing is gained by encouraging people to post if they don't feel like they have something to contribute.

The Great White Lie of the internets is that it makes everybody equal. Bzzzt. The truth is that, just as in real life, there are many stupid people and many stupid things to be said by them. The internet just makes it easy for people to broadcast them out to a larger audience.

Setting posting requirements does NOT help "build a community" or whatever. It just sets the standard that "We don't care what you say, but please, dum dum, we'd like for you to say it here. We'll even give you dozens of ******** little gif files you can insert when your words fail you." I no likey.

That said: I'm not at all against the RedsZone Poobahs changing things up so that they can make their Secret Hang-out a little more fun and gratifying for them. I just think there are better methods for vetting potential new members than requiring them to spastically post on a daily basis just to get noticed.

Then again, this criticism comes from a guy who has made 50-something posts in 4 years of being registered here, and who had a 3-to-1 "rep points to posts" ratio before those got wiped. Under the old system, I might have made the ORG with just 4-5 more really good posts. Under the new system, at the rate I'm going, I won't even be considered until probably the All Star Break of 2009. ...

Maybe even longer, since this new system is only going to ensure that the parts of RedsZone I *can* post to are populated by people who will be motivated to post voluminously, whether they have something to say or not, thus gumming up the entire works and making it harder for me (and others like me, as I do not lay claim to being the only Damned Clever Semi-Hermit on these boards) to find spots to post our own selves.

See? Vicious circle.

Heath
05-21-2007, 05:21 PM
I'm feeling a little weird about my username right now.

Just sayin'.

Just go to the night version -

Have them call you MoonDeck.

reds1869
05-21-2007, 05:24 PM
Why don't we all just take a deep breath, step back, and see how this works out? I remember the "sky is falling" mood during the last big round of changes, but the negative were wrong--the board changed for the better. If you contribute and make intelligent posts, you'll be allowed to post on the ORG. Simple as that, and I don't have any problem with it.

GIK
05-21-2007, 05:28 PM
FR, while the basic structure will not change, we may make small modifications based upon performance of this plan. One change could very well be the minimum post requirement for access to ORG. Right now you're fine, time wise, but still need more posts. The main reason for this is to establish a body of work that can be reviewed. That being said, we may be able to judge content at numbers less than we now require. We'll see. You're absolutely right that quantity does not equal quality.

Thanks for you post.

TeamBoone
05-21-2007, 05:42 PM
I find it difficult to not be able to respond to posts in the Sun Deck. It's hard for me to read something that I disagree with and not have the right to refute it (in ANY forum).

I may have to give up reading the Sun Deck forum, as I know it's going to become frustrating.

I also think it's unfair to not allow the Sun Deck to have a game thread. Is it because of band width?

*I often participate on the game thread but RARELY go into chat because I find it distracting to keep up with the chat AND the game. The game thread allows me to watch the game and contribute (or not).

I know you've done all this for a reason, though I'm not sure what all the reasons are. IMHO, the board is more divided now than it was before.

* PS: I know I'm allowed to do both of these things as a member of the ORG... I'm just thinking how chat frustrated me and perhaps the same thing is true of some of the SD posters. If so, I can relate.

Ltlabner
05-21-2007, 05:57 PM
I find it difficult to not be able to respond to posts in the Sun Deck. It's hard for me to read something that I disagree with and not have the right to refute it (in ANY forum).

I may have to give up reading the Sun Deck forum, as I know it's going to become frustrating.

It is interesting that already on day 1 of the change that several new names have shown up in a bunch of threads now that the SD is devoid of any long time posters. Perhaps that will continue, perhaps not.

Seems to me the value of continuing to find and promote quality posters (with the extra kicker of providing an open forum for non-ORG members) out weighs the irritation of a few people of reading a post and not being able to respond. At least in the intrests of the long term health of RZ.

It will be interesting to see the tweaks that unfold over the comming weeks and months. But I applaud Boss and GIK for deciding a change was needed and acting quickly to implement it.

kaldaniels
05-21-2007, 06:00 PM
I find it difficult to not be able to respond to posts in the Sun Deck. It's hard for me to read something that I disagree with and not have the right to refute it (in ANY forum).

I may have to give up reading the Sun Deck forum, as I know it's going to become frustrating.

I also think it's unfair to not allow the Sun Deck to have a game thread. Is it because of band width?

*I often participate on the game thread but RARELY go into chat because I find it distracting to keep up with the chat AND the game. The game thread allows me to watch the game and contribute (or not).

I know you've done all this for a reason, though I'm not sure what all the reasons are. IMHO, the board is more divided now than it was before.

* PS: I know I'm allowed to do both of these things as a member of the ORG... I'm just thinking how chat frustrated me and perhaps the same thing is true of some of the SD posters. If so, I can relate.

Unfortunately for me, my Direct TV extra innings is a few seconds behind most people, so using the chat would spoil things for me. Not a big problem in the thread b/c you can just refresh as necessary. Thats the one drawback for Sundeckers.

GullyFoyle
05-21-2007, 06:01 PM
I'm a little disheartened. I don't post a lot, but in trying to gain rep I spent a fair amount of time doing research and writing interesting posts/ articles. Eventually I received the necessary rep to post in ORG.

Now those previous efforts are for not. With this new system I have to go through that effort again when I don't really have the time. In addition it doesn't sound like it can happen piecemeal because you have to stay in members memory to get in. So a well researched post and discussion in May followed by another in July will probably have no effect, because most people wont remember who brought up the May discussion.

This seems to reward high post counts (more likely to be remembered) as opposed to quality posts. It also seems to aim at only having members that can post all the time.

I enjoy RedsZone a lot. And I will probably read it regardless, but it does feel like a kick in the stomach at the moment. I'm not sure I'll apply, but I'll give it some time and see.

(of course I do not argue at all with your right to make these changes)

Rex Argos
05-21-2007, 06:08 PM
Agree with Gully. I don't post often, but I put thought into my posts. I got into the ORG with 200 posts over the past 2 years--now I have to start all over again. It's a little frustrating to make the effort to contribute something positive to the board, only to get "kicked out" after the fact.

Redsland
05-21-2007, 06:15 PM
Past contributions are still archived here. If you're nominated or apply for ORG, those contributions can and will be reviewed by the voting parties.

kbrake
05-21-2007, 06:57 PM
Feeling like Team Selig and jimbo. Over 1000 post and 300 points and I get the boot.

reds44
05-21-2007, 07:05 PM
Feeling like Team Selig and jimbo. Over 1000 post and 300 points and I get the boot.
Try 15,000 and 800 rep points.

Razor Shines
05-21-2007, 07:14 PM
Feeling like Team Selig and jimbo. Over 1000 post and 300 points and I get the boot.

You guys are far from the only ones. I don't see what good it does to complain about it.

OldRightHander
05-21-2007, 07:26 PM
I am another of those who was demoted (700-some posts, ~360 rep points). Sure I'm disappointed but like EdE, I plan to tear it up in AAA, aka the Sun Deck, and be back up with the Big Club before too long.

If we still had rep, I'd give you some for the good attitude.

Boss-Hog
05-21-2007, 07:48 PM
If we still had rep, I'd give you some for the good attitude.
Agreed. I know RichRed wasn't on the initial list, but I'll be the first to admit that he's a very good poster and attitudes like this one are the kind that I like to see. That doesn't mean you should be happy about it losing something you previously could access, but it's certainly not the end of the world, either. If ORG access, in its current format is what you want, there's a very viable solution.

OnBaseMachine
05-21-2007, 09:11 PM
I have a short temper when it comes to Reds baseball. Short temper + game threads don't match too well. I was doing better lately of avoiding the game threads but I was a little too late. I'm disappointed but I understand Boss's decision. No hard feelings from me. I love this board too much (I spend hours a day on here) and I would hate to think I am bringing this board down or anything like that.

reds44
05-21-2007, 09:14 PM
I have a short temper when it comes to Reds baseball. Short temper + game threads don't match too well. I was doing better lately of avoiding the game threads but I was a little too late. I'm disappointed but I understand Boss's decision. No hard feelings from me. I love this board too much (I spend hours a day on here) and I would hate to think I am bringing this board down or anything like that.
Pretty much how I feel OBM. I'm more hurt then anything. To see Boss doesn't think I am in the top 240 posters on the board hurts. I'm not mad, but I take alot of pride in my posts and being a Reds fan. So to see that was definatley dissapointing.

GullyFoyle
05-21-2007, 09:16 PM
Past contributions are still archived here. If you're nominated or apply for ORG, those contributions can and will be reviewed by the voting parties.

They can be hard to find when mixed in with Game Thread minutia :)

After thinking about it a little more, I'm up for giving it another go, but it will have to wait a bit. This summer is going to be busy for work related reasons.

I sure some might think it is strange that people might have to work at posting, but my personal knowledge of baseball is limited (particularly when compared to many here) and I have to use my curiosity to go find interesting items in order to add to the boards. To learn more about the Reds and baseball is why I visit the RedsZone to begin with, but it helps when you can be part of the discussion rather than just lurker.

Boss-Hog
05-21-2007, 09:51 PM
Pretty much how I feel OBM. I'm more hurt then anything. To see Boss doesn't think I am in the top 240 posters on the board hurts. I'm not mad, but I take alot of pride in my posts and being a Reds fan. So to see that was definatley dissapointing.
I certainly had input, but it was not solely my decision - GIK and I had the final call, with input from the moderators. But I'm not here to debate why certain people are in and certain people are not.

rotnoid
05-21-2007, 10:54 PM
OK, one more question. I know I've had a few. Without the rep system and with the separation. What type of policing can we expect in the Sundeck? While the ORG will be free from the trolls (and I think we all know who they are), they're now free to run around and pollute the Sundeck seemingly at will. Will suspension and bans be handed out more freely, or will those of us in the Sundeck just be better off ignoring those that are constant offenders?

Reds Freak
05-21-2007, 11:36 PM
Boss and GIK -

I think I have read through all the questions about the changes but if mine has already been asked please excuse it...

I am skeptical of how the changes will affect the board, but I am willing to give it time and see how it works for the long term. I know that you two have the best interests of the board and quality Reds discussion in mind and I certainly appreciate that.

Here's my question: If users before were reluctant to give out negative reputation points, do you believe that users will now be more likely to "vote against" someone coming up to ORG? If not, then I don't see much difference between the reputation and voting systems.

Thanks also for being upfront with all the different questions, complaints, praise, etc..

Boss-Hog
05-21-2007, 11:41 PM
Here's my question: If users before were reluctant to give out negative reputation points, do you believe that users will now be more likely to "vote against" someone coming up to ORG? If not, then I don't see much difference between the reputation and voting systems.

Yes, I do, because it's done anonymously. Additionally, the fact that >= 75% of the total votes must approve a user, that alone makes it more difficult to receive access than the reputation system that, toward the end, allowed several users with high reputation the ability to leave upwards of 30 points for a poster. That's certainly not their fault that they had high reputation scores - it's just a system that needed to be replaced with a better long term alternative.

RedsMan3203
05-22-2007, 12:07 AM
good work guys...

While, I still think the org could/would/should be able to post in the Sun Deck... I don't know the reason behind why they cannot.

Dracodave
05-22-2007, 12:09 AM
good work guys...

While, I still think the org could/would/should be able to post in the Sun Deck... I don't know the reason behind why they cannot.

The low and decandant may spread back into the ORG and ruin the forum yet again...We strike like ninjas..

Betterread
05-22-2007, 12:29 AM
I think it should be noted that no reading access has been affected, only certain posting privileges. How else can the moderators modify negative behavior if they don't occasionally withdraw or bestow privileges?
Lets think of the overall good of the board, rather than our own specific situation.

Dracodave
05-22-2007, 12:31 AM
I think it should be noted that no reading access has been affected, only certain posting privileges. How else can the moderators modify negative behavior if they don't occasionally withdraw or bestow privileges?
Lets think of the overall good of the board, rather than our own specific situation.

Nothing quite like reading something I can no longer post my opinion too. Not like that mattered to begin with anyway. I think I might file my resignment from the board by the end of the night as well.

Mutaman
05-22-2007, 12:40 AM
Well at least the game thread has been improved. Here is some of tonight's "quality discussion":

"That was...interesting"

"Dunn - error"

"Wow...just wow"

"Ehem"

"Why?"

"I missed that..."

George Foster
05-22-2007, 12:52 AM
Well at least the game thread has been improved. Here is some of tonight's "quality discussion":

"That was...interesting"

"Dunn - error"

"Wow...just wow"

"Ehem"

"Why?"

"I missed that..."

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

If you know anything about elections, getting 60% of the vote is a mandate. Getting 75% of the vote is unheard of. Getting 75% of people to agree on anything is almost impossible. I would like to know the number of people who actually will receive 75% of the vote to get into ORG.

If the people on the ORG cannot post in the Sundeck, they will not read it, so how will they know who is posting "good" posts or not??

Heck, all I want is a game thread.

coachw513
05-22-2007, 12:53 AM
well I just thought a quick stroll through RZ lane would enlighten me on the game and the day's happenings...silly me...

Time to work on my tan, I guess :cool:...have you been watching me change clothes??? :scared:

paintmered
05-22-2007, 12:57 AM
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

If you know anything about elections, getting 60% of the vote is a mandate. Getting 75% of the vote is unheard of. Getting 75% of people to agree on anything is almost impossible. I would like to know the number of people who actually will receive 75% of the vote to get into ORG.

If the people on the ORG cannot post in the Sundeck, they will not read it, so how will they know who is posting "good" posts or not??

Heck, all I want is a game thread.

It's very easy to search for all posts made by a specific poster.

Mutaman
05-22-2007, 12:58 AM
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

.


I finally write a post that somebody likes and now I can't get any reputation points.

Caveat Emperor
05-22-2007, 01:10 AM
Getting 75% of people to agree on anything is almost impossible.

227 guys with little plaques in Cooperstown, NY disagree with you.

Just sayin' :evil:

jmac
05-22-2007, 01:32 AM
That's besides the point really. To play by the rules, get accepted and earn the right to post in ORG and the game threads and to have that taken away and forced to go through another process is just unreasonable.

I'm pretty upset right now and will just walk away from this site for a few days to decide if I even want to come back.
This is pretty much the way I feel.
The reds are playing pretty stinky right now and this zone was a fun place to talk in the different aspects such as Redslive and Gamethreads.I enjoyed the dialogue and mostly my posts were in Redslive and Gamethreads with an occassional post in ORG.
However ....why get used to something or get to enjoying something when the rules will change in a while and you will lose the right all over again.
People "earned" by your system the right to ORG and the same people lose it again and lose other rights as well....
To me ....it is almost like the "in" crowd and the "out" crowd. It is easy to see the people that still make up the "in" and apparently , it was getting to crowded so the weeding out process has to take place.
I am not saying that to be harsh but rather because that is the way it appears from a poster who tried to be fun and objective while never incinuating vulgarity or even a "thumbs down" to anyone.
Well....maybe as the poster above said....it is time to step back, take some time off and see if I want to go thru this stuff all over again.
To all who repped me...thank you very much and I hoped you enjoyed my comments as I did so many of yours.
I didnt always agree but...hey...that's what made debating fun, wasnt it?
Besides, I am sure some of you guys didnt agree with me always anyway.
Some may say...."hey do like EE" and hit well and you will make it back up to the bigs.
That is one way to look at it , but also like this which is my personal viewpoint:
This isnt the big leagues or the Hall-of-Fame..it is supposedly a fan-friendly forum for the reds fans to gather and talk. A place to get away from the worries of the everyday life:things such as job,school,financial worries etc.
Oh well,if I post again later....okay, if not, adios and Go Reds !

TeamSelig
05-22-2007, 01:38 AM
I am going to venture and say that a good bunch of the ORG snubs are more interesting and entertaining posters than over half of the actual ORG posters

mth123
05-22-2007, 01:41 AM
IMO there are many posters who weren't chosen for ORG who deserve to be there and others who were chosen that are curious choices as well. I don't know why I made it and some others didn't. I can't say I like the changes so far.

I hope we can all talk baseball again.

George Foster
05-22-2007, 01:55 AM
227 guys with little plaques in Cooperstown, NY disagree with you.

Just sayin' :evil:

and how many guys have been eligible over the last 75 years?

to quote a former Vice President candidate, I know a Hall of Famer, I've met several Hall of Famers, and you all sir are no Hall of Famers...:devil::laugh:

TeamBoone
05-22-2007, 03:34 AM
No, you are allowed to use the chat

http://www.redszone.com/forums/FlashChat/flashchat.php

But no game threads on the Sun Deck.


Are ORG people allowed to chat (mingle) during the game or are they forced to use only the game thread?

TeamBoone
05-22-2007, 03:36 AM
If the people on the ORG cannot post in the Sundeck, they will not read it, so how will they know who is posting "good" posts or not??

Heck, all I want is a game thread.

I will read it! I've always posted more on Reds Live than ORG. I don't like that I can no longer do that.

And I'm really sorry that you can't have a game thread; I hate that too.

Ga_Red
05-22-2007, 05:54 AM
Some ruminations on this thread:

1) All rational Redszoners must conclude
that Boss and GIK have the best interest
of Redszone at heart after having read the
agonizing interaction in the *Help Save Redszone*
threads.
2) I'm certain Boss, GIK and the current ORG
members do NOT believe that Sun Deck members
are incapable of making excellent posts. In fact,
my guess is that most ORGers believe the opposite.
I'd wager a guess that *consistency* of post quality
kept more than a few from making it into ORG.
Example, awareness of your 10 superb posts may have been seriously eroded by your 2 *xxx sucks*rants and participation in the game thread inanity.
If this is the case, those deciding who made the cut
into ORG were NOT making a statement about anyone's ability to make a great post, rather were insisting that
everyone ( ORG members and Sun Deck members, alike)
focus on making every post, a quality post.
3) It is NOT an insult to be a menber of the Sun Deck.
ORG is for those able to generate quality content, regularly. Those who comment infrequently, or simply prefer to spend their time reading, should be happy and welcome to remain proud Sun Deck members for life.
I can read every Redszone post from the Sun Deck,
and if I wish to comment on an ORG post I can still
pm my thoughts to any participant on an ORG thread.
It takes time to make quality posts. I'm lazy, these days,
and I'm considering if I shouldn't ask to be sent down
to the Sun Deck.
4) Hats off to Matt and Boss! Hard stuff, is HARD!
But you made the right decision, imo.

Ga_Red

savafan
05-22-2007, 06:38 AM
Well, as long as I am loved here. I am just giving feedback and asking questions, just like the thread says.

I'm not aware of message boards that 'charge' to join.


There are several "insider" message boards on the scout.com forums that charge you to join also.

TeamCasey
05-22-2007, 06:45 AM
Are ORG people allowed to chat (mingle) during the game or are they forced to use only the game thread?


Everyone can chat.

WMR
05-22-2007, 10:13 AM
.

Caveman Techie
05-22-2007, 11:41 AM
Well I still don't understand the purpose of removing a game thread. What does it hurt to allow the SunDeck to have a game thread? Is it bandwith? If you don't want to allow the riff raff in to the offical game thread then fine. But I still don't see why you would stop a game thread from being created in the Sun Deck.

I also don't understand the "no ORG can post in the Sundeck" rule. Because after a while of getting to know everyone on the Sundeck and creating relationships and not knowing a thing about the posters in the ORG, if you offered an ORG promotion to me, I'd tell you "thanks, but no thanks" and maybe thats what you guys are going for I don't know.

I really hope you reconsider SOME of these changes you have instituted, because there are alot of smart and entertaining posters that I would hate not being able to interact with anymore.

Ltlabner
05-22-2007, 11:49 AM
I also don't understand the "no ORG can post in the Sundeck" rule. Because after a while of getting to know everyone on the Sundeck and creating relationships and not knowing a thing about the posters in the ORG, if you offered an ORG promotion to me, I'd tell you "thanks, but no thanks" and maybe thats what you guys are going for I don't know. .

Don't forget that everybody is allowed to post on the minor league forum and off topic forums. Also, everybody is also allowed in the chat room during the games. I know not everybody likes chat, but it is an excellent way to meet and discuss the game with various folks. So there are a couple of avenues for interaction. Lastly, you are able to read the ORG forum.

Hope I'm not stepping on the mods toes by throwing this out there, however, we can all interact in various places on RZ.

Sea Ray
05-22-2007, 12:20 PM
Additionally it's not likely you'll know you are being voted on, so worrying about how long it will take or who votes is fruitless.

Are non ORG members blocked from viewing the Future forum?

Red Leader
05-22-2007, 12:24 PM
Are non ORG members blocked from viewing the Future forum?

Yes. Obviously.

RichRed
05-22-2007, 03:53 PM
Agreed. I know RichRed wasn't on the initial list, but I'll be the first to admit that he's a very good poster and attitudes like this one are the kind that I like to see.

It just occurred to me, I got demoted because I wouldn't wear the Hello Kitty backpack.

Rats!

:)

Mutaman
05-22-2007, 03:55 PM
Does this mean we can go back to having religious and political discussions here? The peanut gallery just ain't the same.

paintmered
05-22-2007, 04:07 PM
Does this mean we can go back to having religious and political discussions here? The peanut gallery just ain't the same.

No.

MrsHammer
05-22-2007, 06:40 PM
I understand that the creators/moderators of this board have the right to run the board in any way they see fit, but it all does seem very high school-ish to me. This is the type of structure I would expect in a girls high school gossip board. Or maybe I should say the 'old gentleman's club' feel (are us girls still allowed in?....insert sarcasm here).

I'll still continue to read and post my occassional quip as it really doesn't matter to me which forum I can post in, but I do think the whole 'you must prove yourself worthy of socializing with the chosen ones' thing is rather immature.

It makes more sense to me to have one moderated forum in which anyone can submit a post, but then the post will not appear until a moderator reviews it and deems it acceptable. This is still somewhat subjective of course, but at least all topics are grouped in the same forum, which alleviates the problem of multiple threads in different forums pertaining to the same topic, and also allows everyone the opportunity to converse with all other members equally. Many other forums utilize this format and seem to run smoothly.

Razor Shines
05-22-2007, 06:43 PM
It makes more sense to me to have one moderated forum in which anyone can submit a post, but then the post will not appear until a moderator reviews it and deems it acceptable. This is still somewhat subjective of course, but at least all topics are grouped in the same forum, which alleviates the problem of multiple threads in different forums pertaining to the same topic, and also allows everyone the opportunity to converse with all other members equally. Many other forums utilize this format and seem to run smoothly.

I have no idea of how to run a message board, but that seems like it would be an awful lot of work with # of posts this website gets. Maybe I'm wrong though.

MrsHammer
05-22-2007, 06:51 PM
I have no idea of how to run a message board, but that seems like it would be an awful lot of work with # of posts this website gets. Maybe I'm wrong though.


Yes, I would agree that you are probably correct. But there are hundreds, if not thousands of message boards out there that use that method.

Boss-Hog
05-22-2007, 06:53 PM
I have no idea of how to run a message board, but that seems like it would be an awful lot of work with # of posts this website gets. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Yes, that's an option with the system we use, but with a site this size, it would be a logitical nightmare for those that have to review every single post. Plus, I don't particularly like the idea of a select few deciding which individual posts are, or aren't, good ones.

paintmered
05-22-2007, 06:54 PM
Yes, I would agree that you are probably correct. But there are hundreds, if not thousands of message boards out there that use that method.

If you want to pay me for the trouble, then I'm all for it. That engineering degree won't make me cheap though.

We do this on a strictly volunteer basis and receive nothing in return.

texasdave
05-22-2007, 08:22 PM
Here is a suggestion. I think it has merit but who knows. Why not have a mod-for-a-week program? Let the people who are new, but not too new, get a chance to see how the other half lives. Maybe if everyone at some point in their Redszone life gets to experience the headaches and sleep deprivation that go along with being a mod there will be less griping? Maybe that is not possibly logistically. I don't know. If that is a dumb suggestion then just know that my evil twin sometimes trolls this board. =)~

Dracodave
05-22-2007, 08:31 PM
Here is a suggestion. I think it has merit but who knows. Why not have a mod-for-a-week program? Let the people who are new, but not too new, get a chance to see how the other half lives. Maybe if everyone at some point in their Redszone life gets to experience the headaches and sleep deprivation that go along with being a mod there will be less griping? Maybe that is not possibly logistically. I don't know. If that is a dumb suggestion then just know that my evil twin sometimes trolls this board. =)~

Its not a dumb suggestion, but you have loose cannons when it comes to power as well as everyone who would be trusted.

A person makes a post, nonoffense and good hearted in nature and just out of spite for past agruements etc..its deleted, closed etc. Realize I am not speaking about anyone in general. However, it happens.

I've modded a site of 2,500 people or more. I was a "manager" of the community and I knew how short-tempered peoeple were even among friends. Things get said, power gets abused. It happens.

OnBaseMachine
05-22-2007, 11:05 PM
In reading through the game thread tonight, it doesn't appear to have changed much. I've seen a couple "Jon Coutlangus sucks" posts.

reds44
05-22-2007, 11:14 PM
In reading through the game thread tonight, it doesn't appear to have changed much. I've seen a couple "Jon Coutlangus sucks" posts.
"Coutlangus sucks"
"Lopez sucks"
"Stanton sucks"

Saw all 3 of those.

paintmered
05-22-2007, 11:21 PM
"Coutlangus sucks"
"Lopez sucks"
"Stanton sucks"

Saw all 3 of those.

Can you provide links to each of those posts? I'd like to take a look for myself.

reds44
05-22-2007, 11:23 PM
Can you provide links to each of those posts? I'd like to take a look for myself.
2 of them in the same post.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1358097&postcount=337

paintmered
05-22-2007, 11:26 PM
2 of them in the same post.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1358097&postcount=337

Thanks.

And the third?

reds44
05-22-2007, 11:29 PM
Thanks.

And the third?
I couldn't find one that said Stanton sucks, I guess I was mistaken.

My bad.

Caveat Emperor
05-22-2007, 11:29 PM
2 of them in the same post.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1358097&postcount=337

Coming from FCB, hearing that a player merely "sucks" is damn near close to an endorsement of his talent. :D

zombie-a-go-go
05-23-2007, 07:19 AM
If you want to pay me for the trouble, then I'm all for it. That engineering degree won't make me cheap though.

We do this on a strictly volunteer basis and receive nothing in return.

I'll do it for 85% of paint's bid - but don't be surprised when we run over budget.

joshnky
05-23-2007, 09:13 PM
I may be one of the few but I like the changes. It seems to make sense and to be a much better way of regulating the site than the flawed rep system. Granted I didn't have ORG status to lose but I was pretty close. Anyone I appreciate the bold move made by Boss and GIK.

RedEye
05-23-2007, 09:24 PM
And you're not even allowed to post on the board bearing your name.

Oh the irony.

Wait... if SunDeck can't post on the ORG, then why does he still have his avatar? Just sayin'...

SunDeck
05-23-2007, 09:40 PM
Wait... if SunDeck can't post on the ORG, then why does he still have his avatar? Just sayin'...

Uh, no. I can't post in the Sun Deck.

RedEye
05-23-2007, 09:45 PM
Uh, no. I can't post in the Sun Deck.

Yes, I am an idiot. Sorry, misunderstood the conversation. No wonder I'm still in the SunDeck! ;)

Puffy
05-23-2007, 10:25 PM
Yes, I am an idiot. Sorry, misunderstood the conversation. No wonder I'm still in the SunDeck! ;)

Yeah, and don't you forget it!!

:mooner:

camisadelgolf
06-03-2007, 05:16 PM
Personally, I prefer the reputation system to the current format. Granted, it had its flaws, but I love that the privilege of posting in The Old Red Guard was decided by every existing member of TORG, as opposed to select individuals (though let it be said that I have nothing against said individuals).

Instead of what was done, I would have changed the reputation system. Here are a few things I would have considered:

1. Each person may give reputation points to only one post per day. This way, you must be very selective about who receives your reputation points.

2. Find a way to award people with a high points-per-post ratio. For example, if I post 100 times per day, there's a good chance some people will like a few of my posts. However, the 95-or-so other posts would just pollute the forums. If there were a way a repuation points-per-post ratio could be factored, I would be much more selective about the posts I make.

3. This is my most simple idea: Just decrease the value of a reputation point. Either raise the number of points you need to post in The Old Red Guard or decrease the number of reputation points people can give.

All things said, I think the RedsZone is great, but I do feel it were a little unfair that the changes were made after my donation. I felt like my donation, albeit not huge, was made to help maintain RedsZone--not change it.

HumnHilghtFreel
06-03-2007, 05:24 PM
3. This is my most simple idea: Just decrease the value of a reputation point. Either raise the number of points you need to post in The Old Red Guard or decrease the number of reputation points people can give.


I think that would have been the best. Instead of some people's rep being worth 3 and others upwards of 20, make everyone's worth only 1. Not only would it even things out, it would also take longer to get in.

reds44
06-03-2007, 05:45 PM
I think that would have been the best. Instead of some people's rep being worth 3 and others upwards of 20, make everyone's worth only 1. Not only would it even things out, it would also take longer to get in.
And it would take more quality posts. You could also raise the level for those who can give reputation. Instead of it being all ORG could give it, maybe you restrict it.

However, it doesn't really matter now. What's done is done, lets move forward.

redsfanmia
06-06-2007, 09:22 PM
Just a quick question, not sure if it will get read or answered, but I was wondering about the traffic on the site since the switch? It seems to me that not only the quality of posts have suffered but also the number of posts and the number of people viewing the site has gone way down. Just wondering.

Boss-Hog
06-06-2007, 09:35 PM
Just a quick question, not sure if it will get read or answered, but I was wondering about the traffic on the site since the switch? It seems to me that not only the quality of posts have suffered but also the number of posts and the number of people viewing the site has gone way down. Just wondering.
It's about the same - not a significant change either way.

AmarilloRed
06-11-2007, 02:40 AM
I will not miss the reputation system. I made over 170 quality posts and never saw my reputation go up, while a new poster made one post and saw their reputation go up 120. There is something wrong with a system like that. I hope the new system is more fair to new posters.

yab1112
04-30-2008, 03:11 PM
Quick question, is there a way to look over old chat transcripts/text?

Boss-Hog
04-30-2008, 04:50 PM
Quick question, is there a way to look over old chat transcripts/text?
No, the chat logs are not archived.

WMR
04-30-2008, 05:38 PM
A real shame. A lot of gems in those chats. :D

Highlifeman21
04-30-2008, 09:55 PM
A real shame. A lot of gems in those chats. :D

Gems is one word for it...

bgwilly31
05-13-2008, 01:42 PM
username "JESSIE"

spammed me via PM.

Something to check into. User had zero posts.

Boss-Hog
05-13-2008, 05:38 PM
username "JESSIE"

spammed me via PM.

Something to check into. User had zero posts.
Already addressed - thanks. Please let me know if you receive any other future PM's like this.

Hondo
05-31-2008, 10:32 AM
The low and decandant may spread back into the ORG and ruin the forum yet again...We strike like ninjas..

I just read this...

Strike like ninjas...

That was Will Ferrell Funny

Anyway... I just LOVE talking REDS Baseball...

AFalcon10
07-17-2008, 04:34 PM
Just joined the thread - what is the minimum posts/registration time for becoming a ORG member and how do you get voted in?

AmarilloRed
07-26-2008, 12:37 AM
Just joined the thread - what is the minimum posts/registration time for becoming a ORG member and how do you get voted in?

6 months as a member, 200 posts. You submit your application, and a minimum of 75% of members vote you in to the ORG.

Mr.RedStripe
07-31-2008, 01:51 AM
Hello fellow Reds fans ! :beerme:

I just registered for the site.

I am still trying to figure everything out.


I have a couple of questions.

Can we use images in our sigs ? The one I have is pretty small. I had someone make it for me.

And how do I upload an avatar ?

AmarilloRed
07-31-2008, 02:05 AM
Hello fellow Reds fans ! :beerme:

I just registered for the site.

I am still trying to figure everything out.


I have a couple of questions.

Can we use images in our sigs ? The one I have is pretty small. I had someone make it for me.

And how do I upload an avatar ?

You cannot upload images in your signature(you might be able to make your own, however), and you cannot upload an avatar until you are a member of ORG.

Mr.RedStripe
07-31-2008, 02:14 AM
You cannot upload images in your signature(you might be able to make your own, however), and you cannot upload an avatar until you are a member of ORG.

Ohh. I see.

Ok then.

In the bold, What exactly does that allow me to do ?

Member of ORG ?
How would I go about doing that ?

Sorry to sound so lost. I am just wondering.
I know, I know. Im a noob. :p:

AmarilloRed
07-31-2008, 02:45 AM
Ohh. I see.

Ok then.

In the bold, What exactly does that allow me to do ?

Member of ORG ?
How would I go about doing that ?

Sorry to sound so lost. I am just wondering.
I know, I know. Im a noob. :p:

Go to User CP, look under Edit your Signature, and create the signature you want. As to membership in ORG, you post on the Sun Deck for 6 months and have 200 posts. You then apply to join ORG under User CP, Join Members Group. If a minimum of 75% of ORG members vote you in , you are a member of ORG. Soon after that you can make your own avatar, or use one of the ones already available.

Mr.RedStripe
07-31-2008, 02:51 AM
Go to User CP, look under Edit your Signature, and create the signature you want. As to membership in ORG, you post on the Sun Deck for 6 months and have 200 posts. You then apply to join ORG under User CP, Join Members Group. If a minimum of 75% of ORG members vote you in , you are a member of ORG. Soon after that you can make your own avatar, or use one of the ones already available.

Oh, ok. I see now.

I just added a link to the image instead. What do you think ? :D

Are they thinking of adding that ability ?
I understand the bandwith thing, etc. I wouldnt want it to be very big at all.
Any way to limit size ?

Thank you for all your help and info AmarilloRed. :thumbup:
If I could give you Rep, I would. I appreciate it.

Nice to meet you. :cool:
Look forward to discussing our RedLegs with you in the future.
Im going to work toward that now.

Boss-Hog
07-31-2008, 07:45 AM
Images within signatures are specifically prohibited for bandwidth reasons. Thousands of members using signature images in thousands of threads tends to eat up a lot of bandwidth, so we leave that option disabled.

camisadelgolf
08-01-2008, 03:21 AM
Images within signatures are specifically prohibited for bandwidth reasons. Thousands of members using signature images in thousands of threads tends to eat up a lot of bandwidth, so we leave that option disabled.

Your avatar is showing, so does that mean it's okay for us to put our avatars back up?

camisadelgolf
08-01-2008, 05:32 AM
Your avatar is showing, so does that mean it's okay for us to put our avatars back up?

Per post in another thread, it's okay to turn avatars back on.

Boss-Hog
08-01-2008, 09:21 AM
Your avatar is showing, so does that mean it's okay for us to put our avatars back up?
Yes

nysupport
08-05-2008, 04:02 PM
Just checking with everyone - How's the performance of the site after the change over?

Thanks

Joe - web host

Bob Borkowski
08-05-2008, 07:32 PM
Just checking with everyone - How's the performance of the site after the change over?

Thanks

Joe - web host


Fine -- seems faster.

Bob Borkowski
08-20-2008, 10:43 PM
Hey, I just got here about 5 minutes ago and the board was down.

Back up now but we might have been down for some time, judging by the Gamethread.

What happened?

Boss-Hog
08-20-2008, 10:47 PM
Hey, I just got here about 5 minutes ago and the board was down.

Back up now but we might have been down for some time, judging by the Gamethread.

What happened?
I made a slight change to a file that inadvertantly made the site inaccessible until I realized what had happened. I'm working with our host to see why this occurred, as I'm not sure why the change resulted in the down time, but in the meantime, I have removed the offending file. Sorry for any inconvenience.

nysupport
09-04-2008, 01:49 AM
Site speed still good for everyone? Hopefully you're noticing much better performance and response times.

Boss - I still have your request - working with a couple people to see what's up. Is it still an issue?

camisadelgolf
09-04-2008, 03:58 AM
So far, so good. A couple weeks ago or so, there was a one-day period when things were going slowly for me, but since then, everything's been great.

Boss-Hog
09-04-2008, 07:47 AM
Site speed still good for everyone? Hopefully you're noticing much better performance and response times.

Boss - I still have your request - working with a couple people to see what's up. Is it still an issue?
Yes, everytime I upload that file, the same error appears.

*BaseClogger*
02-08-2009, 03:03 AM
Does rule #4 apply to youtube videos for the youtube video thread?

WMR
02-08-2009, 09:56 AM
Typing for myself, I've always tried to include a warning if a link or video contains "adult language." The Christian Bale link is a prime example.

Boss-Hog
02-08-2009, 09:59 AM
Does rule #4 apply to youtube videos for the youtube video thread?
Yes. If there are posts that violate this rule, please report them accordingly. Thank you.

WMR
02-08-2009, 10:02 AM
Yes. If there are posts that violate this rule, please report them accordingly. Thank you.

What about the Bale link? It was left alone so I assume it was okay?

You had to click another link to hear the audio after clicking MY link, is that why?

Boss-Hog
02-08-2009, 10:30 AM
What about the Bale link? It was left alone so I assume it was okay?

You had to click another link to hear the audio after clicking MY link, is that why?
I never clicked the link, but assuming it violates the rules of the site as you said, moving forward, links like that should not be posted here (disclaimer or not).

WMR
02-08-2009, 10:34 AM
I never clicked the link, but assuming it violates the rules of the site as you said, moving forward, links like that should not be posted here (disclaimer or not).

Okay, gotcha!

Thanks for the edification. :thumbup:

Ga_Red
03-09-2009, 02:06 AM
If this has been discussed, previously, just ignore.

I just read what I considered to be a fine thread in the Minor League Forum ( re the Reds 2 latest Latin signees
doing well in ST). Upon completition I wanted to give
"rep" to the thread content, some constructive, divergent
povs regarding base-running, etc.

In the old system rep had unintended consequences
when focused on thread authorship.
If rep were given to and accumulated on the threads themselves, independent of the thread author, and not given on replys, would it not be useful in evaluating
thread content, style, interaction, etc?

tx.

Boss-Hog
03-09-2009, 08:22 AM
If this has been discussed, previously, just ignore.

I just read what I considered to be a fine thread in the Minor League Forum ( re the Reds 2 latest Latin signees
doing well in ST). Upon completition I wanted to give
"rep" to the thread content, some constructive, divergent
povs regarding base-running, etc.

In the old system rep had unintended consequences
when focused on thread authorship.
If rep were given to and accumulated on the threads themselves, independent of the thread author, and not given on replys, would it not be useful in evaluating
thread content, style, interaction, etc?

tx.
The reputation system has been disabled for the reasons you mentioned, but one possibility I initially considered is the ability to give individual posts "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" without having any actual consequences on an individual's ability to post. Its purpose it to provide positive (or negative) reinforcement for user's posts. If implemented, would that provide what you're looking for?

Ga_Red
03-09-2009, 12:50 PM
If the thumbs-up or thumbs-down could be accumulated on the thread title in the index, somehow, that would
be great!:bowrofl::bowrofl:

Boss-Hog
03-09-2009, 02:08 PM
If the thumbs-up or thumbs-down could be accumulated on the thread title in the index, somehow, that would
be great!:bowrofl::bowrofl:
No, I believe it's just something that is (discretely) provided to the post author. What it sounds like you're asking for is a thread rating system, which is displayed in the thread listing before clicking on a thread, and that's another potential option.

Ga_Red
03-09-2009, 03:03 PM
Thread rating system sounds just right!

Ga_Red
03-13-2009, 07:43 PM
Boss,

Each thread has a *Thread Tools* section, currently, with
three tools. Would it be possible to include a 4th tool, a rating tool, in said section? If so where would the accumulated results appear on the thread index page?

tx

Boss-Hog
03-13-2009, 09:59 PM
Boss,

Each thread has a *Thread Tools* section, currently, with
three tools. Would it be possible to include a 4th tool, a rating tool, in said section? If so where would the accumulated results appear on the thread index page?

tx
Hi,

As a group, the admins and moderators discussed implementing this option and decided, based on experience on other boards where it's used, it was not really something particularly helpful, so we won't be enabling that feature.

*BaseClogger*
03-22-2009, 09:32 PM
At what point will I again be allowed to discuss my favorite baseball player, Adam Dunn?

Thanks

KittyDuran
03-22-2009, 10:09 PM
At what point will I again be allowed to discuss my favorite baseball player, Adam Dunn?

ThanksMaybe RZ needs to have a separate forum for topics on the rest of major league baseball - including former Reds. The description for ORG is "The premier discussion forum for Reds baseball." (bold and italics added for emphasis) OTOH, the description under The Sun Deck is " General baseball discussion for those without Old Red Guard posting access." where I would assume talk of ex-Reds players and others would be OK.

Thoughts?

KittyDuran
03-22-2009, 10:35 PM
OK - I checked other baseball sites (three) and here is what they have:

SOSH (Red Sox):
MLB Discussion - Yankees Discussion
(The one thing that Sox and Yankees fans can agree on: Suzyn Waldman is a man)
Subforums: Yankees Game Threads
Adopt-a-Team
(SoSH's MLB foster parent program)
Radomski Lounge
(Sit down, put your feet up and enjoy a nice, cold glass of Primobolan crushed up and mixed with water.)

Motown Sports (Tigers):
Major League Baseball
(Talk about Major League Baseball!)

CardsClubhouse (Cardinals):
The Game of Baseball
(The rest of the Major Leagues and the game of baseball in general. Discuss the players, teams, rivalries, even the rules of the game itself.)

remdog
03-22-2009, 11:44 PM
Maybe RZ needs to have a separate forum for topics on the rest of major league baseball - including former Reds. The description for ORG is "The premier discussion forum for Reds baseball." (bold and italics added for emphasis).

Thoughts?

I don't see a need for a seperate forum. (This board is too splintered as it is.)

Was not Adam Dunn a part of Reds history? Just as were Rose, Morgan, Perez, O'neil and many other players that left Cincinnati. The current rules don't prohibit us from discussing those players----why prohibit discussing AD in ORG?

I'm certain that there will be people that want to talk about Adam over the course of the year; whether he's successful or has a poor season. He's both part of Reds history and he's part of a discussion that some want him back and it will be interesting to see what kind of season he has.

If the Dunn threads bore someone, then don't read them. But, don't inhibit those that do want to talk about the subject from enjoying that discourse. That's what a BB is all about---and, when you cut it down to size, Redszone is simply a BB where people go to talk about their favorite baseball team. They shouldn't be inhibited by arbitrary rules. This is, as much as some of us would like to believe otherwise, simply a small blipp on the internet where the participants try to talk about the Cincinnati Reds.

Personally, I've moved on from Adam Dunn. I enjoyed his time here, I wish he were still a Red but I'm focused on where this team is going in '09 and '10. If someone wants to discuss AD's '09 season, I may read it---or I may not. Just depends. But I think that the reader should be the one to make that decision, not the mods.

JMO.

Rem

*BaseClogger*
03-23-2009, 01:46 AM
I don't see a need for a seperate forum. (This board is too splintered as it is.)

Was not Adam Dunn a part of Reds history? Just as were Rose, Morgan, Perez, O'neil and many other players that left Cincinnati. The current rules don't prohibit us from discussing those players----why prohibit discussing AD in ORG?

I'm certain that there will be people that want to talk about Adam over the course of the year; whether he's successful or has a poor season. He's both part of Reds history and he's part of a discussion that some want him back and it will be interesting to see what kind of season he has.

If the Dunn threads bore someone, then don't read them. But, don't inhibit those that do want to talk about the subject from enjoying that discourse. That's what a BB is all about---and, when you cut it down to size, Redszone is simply a BB where people go to talk about their favorite baseball team. They shouldn't be inhibited by arbitrary rules. This is, as much as some of us would like to believe otherwise, simply a small blipp on the internet where the participants try to talk about the Cincinnati Reds.

Personally, I've moved on from Adam Dunn. I enjoyed his time here, I wish he were still a Red but I'm focused on where this team is going in '09 and '10. If someone wants to discuss AD's '09 season, I may read it---or I may not. Just depends. But I think that the reader should be the one to make that decision, not the mods.

JMO.

Rem

:clap: :thumbup:

KittyDuran
03-23-2009, 07:00 AM
Was not Adam Dunn a part of Reds history? Just as were Rose, Morgan, Perez, O'neil and many other players that left Cincinnati. The current rules don't prohibit us from discussing those players----why prohibit discussing AD in ORG?Rose, Morgan, Perez, and O'Neill are not ACTIVE players who the Reds play against. To me, Dunn is now a foe. I wasn't all that fond of the "BENder" updates in the past but they were tolerated because there was no other place to put them.

I'm just offering a possible solution to the problem
[famous shrug]

- AND it will be a problem once the season starts, IMHO - old Dunner was and still is a lighting rod on RZ. :p:

TeamCasey
03-23-2009, 08:39 AM
The latest drama piqued my interest so I took a look at Old Red Guard. There are tons of threads about baseball players who are not current Reds. It makes no sense.

I just have one thing to say. Ban me if you will.

Sean Casey is still babelicious! :)

KittyDuran
03-23-2009, 09:40 AM
The latest drama piqued my interest so I took a look at Old Red Guard. There are tons of threads about baseball players who are not current Reds. It makes no sense.

I just have one thing to say. Ban me if you will.

Sean Casey is still babelicious! :)Sean's not an active player is he now? ;)

TeamCasey
03-23-2009, 12:34 PM
Sean's not an active player is he now? ;)


:) Is the rule ..... no discussion of active players from other teams?

So Pete Rose is in, Albert Pujols is out and I can resume my imaginary Sean Casey affairs as long as he remains in retirement?

KittyDuran
03-23-2009, 01:31 PM
:) Is the rule ..... no discussion of active players from other teams?

So Pete Rose is in, Albert Pujols is out and I can resume my imaginary Sean Casey affairs as long as he remains in retirement?Seriously, I don't have a problem of discussing other active players on other teams on ORG because as of right now there is no other way to discuss them - I just offered a alternative that other baseball forums use.

I gave my 2 cents suggestion so I'm done. But thanks for letting me play...

TeamCasey
03-23-2009, 03:01 PM
I'm just playing around, Kitty. I haven't been following the discussion. I just saw an opportunity for Sean-lust. ;)

camisadelgolf
03-23-2009, 03:08 PM
Imho, we should be allowed to talk about Adam Dunn as long as it's a topic we haven't specifically talked about before. For example, we've had a million discussions about his production as a Red, so I wouldn't want to see those threads here, but what's so bad if someone starts a thread containing an interview with Dunn in which he mentions the Reds' management or something? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Scott Hatteberg were to be interviewed and have praise/criticism of the Reds, the thread probably wouldn't be locked. I know people want to move on past Dunn, but I don't like the double standard. Dunn was a Red for several years, so I think it's going to take people a while to move on, and part of that moving on involves discussing him.

KittyDuran
03-23-2009, 03:43 PM
Imho, we should be allowed to talk about Adam Dunn as long as it's a topic we haven't specifically talked about before. For example, we've had a million discussions about his production as a Red, so I wouldn't want to see those threads here, but what's so bad if someone starts a thread containing an interview with Dunn in which he mentions the Reds' management or something? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Scott Hatteberg were to be interviewed and have praise/criticism of the Reds, the thread probably wouldn't be locked. I know people want to move on past Dunn, but I don't like the double standard. Dunn was a Red for several years, so I think it's going to take people a while to move on, and part of that moving on involves discussing him.Dunner is a double-standard because the guy is/was a lighting rod :doh: I predict that things are going to get UGLY on RZ if he puts up good numbers or beats up on the Reds when they play the Nationals. I feel for Chip and the other mods when that happens.:(


I'm just playing around, Kitty. I haven't been following the discussion. I just saw an opportunity for Sean-lust.I know, I'm just backing Chip and being a regular brown-noser...;)

BTW... how many kids are Sean and Mandi (and her fertile eggs) up to now? Four??? :D

KittyDuran
03-23-2009, 03:45 PM
Dunn was a Red for several years, so I think it's going to take people a while to move on, and part of that moving on involves discussing him. I prefer the cold turkey method myself... ;)

westofyou
03-23-2009, 04:01 PM
I know people want to move on past Dunn, but I don't like the double standard.

Yep


I predict that things are going to get UGLY on RZ if he puts up good numbers or beats up on the Reds when they play the Nationals.

Nature of the beast


I feel for Chip and the other mods when that happens.
If we couldn't discuss it then they'll end up fielding all the other issues involved in it. Questions why, locking threads that start to talk about him etc... either way they'll still be moderating.

Boss-Hog
03-24-2009, 04:22 PM
At what point will I again be allowed to discuss my favorite baseball player, Adam Dunn?

Thanks
To answer your question, if that is the, or a major, reason you come to the site, I doubt you ever will be able to do so here again since Adam Dunn is no longer a member of the team that this site exists to discuss. That absolutely does not mean that all discussion here must be Reds-related, but I know that I, and all the moderators, spent a lot of time unnecessarily moderating in Adam Dunn-related threads because they nearly always turned nasty in short order. I was willing to let some of that slide while he was a member of the team, but given the amount of time and threads that have already been spent discussing said player, and the fact that the topic is no longer related to the team, I do not think it's fair to continue to ask the moderators to donate their free time to deal with threads that were rarely good for the board in the first place. To many, it's such a black or white issue (he's either really good or he's not) and, too often, anyone in the other camp was automatically wrong. If it's legitimately new information regarding a topic, that's one thing, but if a thread is started with information that essentially leads to rehasing the same debates that have already taken place numerous times, that's not in the board's best interests.

Kitty, thanks for pointing that out re: the forum descriptions; I've since fixed that.

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

savafan
03-25-2009, 07:39 PM
If it's legitimately new information regarding a topic, that's one thing, but if a thread is started with information that essentially leads to rehasing the same debates that have already taken place numerous times, that's not in the board's best interests.



Legitimate new information isn't even getting a chance to develop anymore. As soon as Dunn's name comes up, the lock goes on the thread.

I love the Reds, and I love baseball. I love the history of the team and the future of the team. I also love the history of the sport, as do many others that post here. We still talk about Austin Kearns. We still talk about Dmitri Young. We still talk about Josh Hamilton. I love discussing all of these guys, and others do as well. I know I'm just one fish in this great big sea, but one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore is the splintering of the board has made the existence of intelligent or entertaining discussion virtually null and void. What started with banning political and religious speech has continued on down a slippery slope. I know the internet is a global community, and not governed by the laws of the country, but we have freedom of speech here, no one has the freedom to not be offended. Obviously, others want to discuss the player in question as well, otherwise, the threads wouldn't have been so popular. He's among the Reds' all-time home run leaders after all, and may someday be among the MLB all time home run leaders as well. We're talking about words. Discussion. Ideas. These things have never hurt anyone, so I fail to see the problem. Why is it just because someone has the tag "moderator" that gives them the right to decide when discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? We're all on the same level here, at least we used to be, fans of a baseball team. I thought the creation of the Old Red Guard was initially for the moderators to have to do less moderating, but it's turned into the opposite, and now the part of the board where the best discussion used to take place is now the most heavily moderated, and dare I say, censored. Once you start censoring discussion, where do you stop? At what point do we come to a board where we can only discuss the current year's team?

Geez...I'm not one to ruffle feathers, or cause problems, but that tirade has been building up in me for a while. I'm not saying I'm a better fan or better poster than anyone else here, I don't think you can put rankings on those type of things, but I do feel that there isn't always common sense being taken into account on decisions, and rushes to judgment are made, and we sit by quietly and say, "Welp, that's the way things are." This is still the best Cincinnati Reds' fan message board on the internet, but at the pace we're going, will it still be in 5 years? Many of us came here from cincinnati.com because it was too liberally ran, but we're going toward the opposite extreme.

I never thought I'd agree with Rem on anything. I probably won't sleep for at least a week now.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle

*BaseClogger*
03-25-2009, 09:11 PM
http://www.homotron.net/images/homotron/v-for-vendetta-logo-wallpaper.thumbnail.jpg

Boss-Hog
03-25-2009, 11:21 PM
Legitimate new information isn't even getting a chance to develop anymore. As soon as Dunn's name comes up, the lock goes on the thread.

As I stated above, Adam Dunn is a touchy subject because we've sat and watched the very mention of his name elicit nastiness from both camps. Rarely did it promote intelligent, civil discussion - more often than not, it was 'I'm right you're wrong'. Now that he's no longer truly relevant to the team this site exists to discuss, I do not see a continued need to rehash these arguments in otherwise unrelated threads.


I love the Reds, and I love baseball. I love the history of the team and the future of the team. I also love the history of the sport, as do many others that post here. We still talk about Austin Kearns. We still talk about Dmitri Young. We still talk about Josh Hamilton. I love discussing all of these guys, and others do as well.

You could total all the threads in this site's history that discussed Austin Kearns, Dmitri Young and Josh Hamilton and it wouldn't scratch the surface on the number of the same Adam Dunn debates we've already had that soon turned nasty. This is not an issue because he's an ex-Red - it's an issue because the topic has been sufficiently beaten to death and it's in the best interests of the site to move on now that he no longer plays for the Reds.


I know I'm just one fish in this great big sea, but one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore is the splintering of the board has made the existence of intelligent or entertaining discussion virtually null and void. What started with banning political and religious speech has continued on down a slippery slope. I know the internet is a global community, and not governed by the laws of the country, but we have freedom of speech here, no one has the freedom to not be offended.

Compare this site to any other of its size and I can pretty much guarantee you we have equal or lesser moderation - relatively speaking. That being said, if you want to go somewhere where you can say whatever it is you want to say, regardless of the rules of the site, this is not the place for you.


Obviously, others want to discuss the player in question as well, otherwise, the threads wouldn't have been so popular. He's among the Reds' all-time home run leaders after all, and may someday be among the MLB all time home run leaders as well. We're talking about words. Discussion. Ideas. These things have never hurt anyone, so I fail to see the problem.

What is there to discuss that hasn't already been said since he became a Red in 2001? Since this site's inception, the very topic has easily been the most divisive subject because people feel so passionately (in a positive or negative way) about his game that it often leads towards not being respectful of others that don't share the same opinions. I distinctly got the impression that some people came here more to argue with others that they don't agree with more so than they do to civilly discuss the game of baseball and those days are over.


Why is it just because someone has the tag "moderator" that gives them the right to decide when discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? We're all on the same level here, at least we used to be, fans of a baseball team.

Because these people have voluntarily agreed to offer their free time to help enforce the rules of the board and keep the site running? That seems like a pretty good reason to me.


I thought the creation of the Old Red Guard was initially for the moderators to have to do less moderating, but it's turned into the opposite, and now the part of the board where the best discussion used to take place is now the most heavily moderated, and dare I say, censored. Once you start censoring discussion, where do you stop? At what point do we come to a board where we can only discuss the current year's team?

That's not why this is an issue. Look, if you want to go somewhere to discuss political or religious threads or to say whatever's on your mind without any repercussions, we have a link to such a site in the forum listing. But this site was not founded upon those ideals - it was, however, founded upon being respectful to others, and this topic has caused far more problems than it's solved. I do not see the value in continuing to allow that to happen now that the topic is no longer relevant to the Reds.


Geez...I'm not one to ruffle feathers, or cause problems, but that tirade has been building up in me for a while. I'm not saying I'm a better fan or better poster than anyone else here, I don't think you can put rankings on those type of things, but I do feel that there isn't always common sense being taken into account on decisions, and rushes to judgment are made, and we sit by quietly and say, "Welp, that's the way things are." This is still the best Cincinnati Reds' fan message board on the internet, but at the pace we're going, will it still be in 5 years? Many of us came here from cincinnati.com because it was too liberally ran, but we're going toward the opposite extreme.

See my responses above. Unfortunately, sites with 2,300 active members need some form of moderation or you have a different problem altogether.


I never thought I'd agree with Rem on anything. I probably won't sleep for at least a week now.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle

If the past Adam Dunn discussions were examples of what you quoted, we'd have no problem allowing them. Unfortunately, that's not been the case.

AtomicDumpling
03-26-2009, 01:14 AM
I don't see a need for a seperate forum. (This board is too splintered as it is.)

Was not Adam Dunn a part of Reds history? Just as were Rose, Morgan, Perez, O'neil and many other players that left Cincinnati. The current rules don't prohibit us from discussing those players----why prohibit discussing AD in ORG?

I'm certain that there will be people that want to talk about Adam over the course of the year; whether he's successful or has a poor season. He's both part of Reds history and he's part of a discussion that some want him back and it will be interesting to see what kind of season he has.

If the Dunn threads bore someone, then don't read them. But, don't inhibit those that do want to talk about the subject from enjoying that discourse. That's what a BB is all about---and, when you cut it down to size, Redszone is simply a BB where people go to talk about their favorite baseball team. They shouldn't be inhibited by arbitrary rules. This is, as much as some of us would like to believe otherwise, simply a small blipp on the internet where the participants try to talk about the Cincinnati Reds.

Personally, I've moved on from Adam Dunn. I enjoyed his time here, I wish he were still a Red but I'm focused on where this team is going in '09 and '10. If someone wants to discuss AD's '09 season, I may read it---or I may not. Just depends. But I think that the reader should be the one to make that decision, not the mods.

JMO.

Rem

:clap: :beerme:

I agree 100%.

The new censorship policy really cheapens the website. How is anyone supposed to take a Reds fansite seriously if you can't discuss the team's best player of the last decade?

If there is a problem with people being rude and nasty then those people should be censored -- not the entire topic.

I think the draconian policy has really stifled conversation on the ORG. Interesting threads have been few and far between for a long time now.

savafan
03-26-2009, 01:55 AM
As I stated above, Adam Dunn is a touchy subject because we've sat and watched the very mention of his name elicit nastiness from both camps. Rarely did it promote intelligent, civil discussion - more often than not, it was 'I'm right you're wrong'. Now that he's no longer truly relevant to the team this site exists to discuss, I do not see a continued need to rehash these arguments in otherwise unrelated threads.


We went through the same thing with SABR vs. traditional stats, The Trade, steroids, etc., yet we never put the kibosh on those discussions.



You could total all the threads in this site's history that discussed Austin Kearns, Dmitri Young and Josh Hamilton and it wouldn't scratch the surface on the number of the same Adam Dunn debates we've already had that soon turned nasty. This is not an issue because he's an ex-Red - it's an issue because the topic has been sufficiently beaten to death and it's in the best interests of the site to move on now that he no longer plays for the Reds.



You're talking about Reds fans here, these people don't know how to move on. We're still living in 1975-1976 and 1990, with passionate adoration for Pete Rose.



Compare this site to any other of its size and I can pretty much guarantee you we have equal or lesser moderation - relatively speaking. That being said, if you want to go somewhere where you can say whatever it is you want to say, regardless of the rules of the site, this is not the place for you.



We have one more moderator and many more locked threads than nyyfans.com, and they have 18,000 more members than us...and a political discussion forum.



What is there to discuss that hasn't already been said since he became a Red in 2001? Since this site's inception, the very topic has easily been the most divisive subject because people feel so passionately (in a positive or negative way) about his game that it often leads towards not being respectful of others that don't share the same opinions. I distinctly got the impression that some people came here more to argue with others that they don't agree with more so than they do to civilly discuss the game of baseball and those days are over.


Then wouldn't the act of the moderators be to deal with those specific posters that get out of hand? Locking everything before, and in case, it goes down a nasty road isn't moderation, it's censorship of people's ideas and passions, and passion is something that's been sorely lacking around this team for far too long. It's akin to forbidding a man to have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.



Because these people have voluntarily agreed to offer their free time to help enforce the rules of the board and keep the site running? That seems like a pretty good reason to me.


I know moderating and administrating an internet message board is a thankless task, but the rest of us also give of our free time to make the board what it is with the discussion we provide. I understand that this is Boss and GIK's board, but if no one came to it to post, it would still be Boss and GIK's board. We are a community, respectful of one another, free to debate one another, and if that gets out of control then we take care of it from there. Look, I know I'm just one poster, but 7 years and 14,000+ posts, presenting the name of the Old Red Guard forum, sharing my thoughts on baseball and a variety of other subjects with people who've shared with me as well...I feel that I also have an investment of my time and loyalty here, which is why I feel so passionate.

I'm not trying to cause problems, or attack any one person or body of people by bringing this subject up, I'm just sharing how I feel...and I know I'm not the only one. I'm trying to present the argument without being argumentative. This sub-forum is for feedback, and that's what I'm providing. I'm not going to let my feelings about this carry over into the other areas of the board.

Caveat Emperor
03-26-2009, 02:27 AM
How is anyone supposed to take a Reds fansite seriously if you can't discuss the team's best player of the last decade?

How do you figure that? No one has said anything about Juan Castro threads.

camisadelgolf
03-26-2009, 03:28 AM
I agree that the individuals responsible should be held accountable for beating dead horses. Unfortunately, that requires more moderation, but on the bright side, I think the current moderators could handle it. When it comes to Adam Dunn, for example, I think we should be allowed to discuss him as long as it's objective.

Ron Madden
03-26-2009, 03:48 AM
Legitimate new information isn't even getting a chance to develop anymore. As soon as Dunn's name comes up, the lock goes on the thread.

I love the Reds, and I love baseball. I love the history of the team and the future of the team. I also love the history of the sport, as do many others that post here. We still talk about Austin Kearns. We still talk about Dmitri Young. We still talk about Josh Hamilton. I love discussing all of these guys, and others do as well. I know I'm just one fish in this great big sea, but one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore is the splintering of the board has made the existence of intelligent or entertaining discussion virtually null and void. What started with banning political and religious speech has continued on down a slippery slope. I know the internet is a global community, and not governed by the laws of the country, but we have freedom of speech here, no one has the freedom to not be offended. Obviously, others want to discuss the player in question as well, otherwise, the threads wouldn't have been so popular. He's among the Reds' all-time home run leaders after all, and may someday be among the MLB all time home run leaders as well. We're talking about words. Discussion. Ideas. These things have never hurt anyone, so I fail to see the problem. Why is it just because someone has the tag "moderator" that gives them the right to decide when discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? We're all on the same level here, at least we used to be, fans of a baseball team. I thought the creation of the Old Red Guard was initially for the moderators to have to do less moderating, but it's turned into the opposite, and now the part of the board where the best discussion used to take place is now the most heavily moderated, and dare I say, censored. Once you start censoring discussion, where do you stop? At what point do we come to a board where we can only discuss the current year's team?

Geez...I'm not one to ruffle feathers, or cause problems, but that tirade has been building up in me for a while. I'm not saying I'm a better fan or better poster than anyone else here, I don't think you can put rankings on those type of things, but I do feel that there isn't always common sense being taken into account on decisions, and rushes to judgment are made, and we sit by quietly and say, "Welp, that's the way things are." This is still the best Cincinnati Reds' fan message board on the internet, but at the pace we're going, will it still be in 5 years? Many of us came here from cincinnati.com because it was too liberally ran, but we're going toward the opposite extreme.

I never thought I'd agree with Rem on anything. I probably won't sleep for at least a week now.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle


One hell of a post.


:clap::clap::clap:

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2009, 03:59 AM
Yeah, savafan, I just think you should know that I am tremendously thankful for how you have responded in this thread. I think I can speak for several others who believe you represented our beliefs in an intelligent and respectful manner and what you have said is exactly how I feel. Well done! :thumbup:

:usa:

Screwball
03-26-2009, 08:13 AM
What is there to discuss that hasn't already been said since he became a Red in 2001?


AtomicDumpling's HR thread for Dunn for one. Each new HR for Dunn was new, unchartered territory and he (Dumpling) provided us with a background and perspective for just what Dunn was accomplishing. Cheated is the wrong word, but I feel I've been deprived of a certain appreciation for what an (now) ex-Red has done in his career.

IMO, closing it was a mistake, and it should be reopened as of Opening Day. Will it cause a little more moderation? Maybe. Check that - probably. But that's what they signed up for. While I appreciate all that the mods and the admins do for this site, I honestly don't feel bad to ask them to make sure one of the best threads the ORG had going can stay alive. Basically all it asks is for Atomic Dumpling to keep doing a freakin phenomenal job, keeping the rest of us well informed of the history - and the present effect - of the game.

GIK
03-26-2009, 09:58 AM
I'd like to thank everyone who has made a respectful post regarding this issue. We'll let you all know as soon as possible.

macro
03-26-2009, 10:37 AM
Since some are seemingly so oblivious to what was wrong, I'll hold up this thread as an example:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74136

It took all of three posts for one side of the Dunn/SABR discussion to begin baiting the other side and taking shots. The six posts that followed were nothing of substance, just more of the same jabs. Is this what we're so anxious to get back to?

Although I can't speak to the original poster's intent in that thread, it was apparent that the comments that followed served no other purpose than to promote an agenda.

Boss-Hog
03-26-2009, 11:59 AM
Since some are seemingly so oblivious to what was wrong, I'll hold up this thread as an example:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74136

It took all of three posts for one side of the Dunn/SABR discussion to begin baiting the other side and taking shots. The six posts that followed were nothing of substance, just more of the same jabs. Is this what we're so anxious to get back to?

Although I can't speak to the original poster's intent in that thread, it was apparent that the comments that followed served no other purpose than to promote an agenda.
Well said.

*BaseClogger*
03-26-2009, 12:36 PM
Since some are seemingly so oblivious to what was wrong, I'll hold up this thread as an example:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74136

It took all of three posts for one side of the Dunn/SABR discussion to begin baiting the other side and taking shots. The six posts that followed were nothing of substance, just more of the same jabs. Is this what we're so anxious to get back to?

Although I can't speak to the original poster's intent in that thread, it was apparent that the comments that followed served no other purpose than to promote an agenda.

Well, that is a violation of rule #5 and those posters should should have been dealt with accordingly. All you need to do is set a precedent for how these things get handled and people will shape up. If they understand that there are consequences then I highly doubt the activity will continue...

camisadelgolf
03-26-2009, 12:41 PM
Since some are seemingly so oblivious to what was wrong, I'll hold up this thread as an example:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74136

It took all of three posts for one side of the Dunn/SABR discussion to begin baiting the other side and taking shots. The six posts that followed were nothing of substance, just more of the same jabs. Is this what we're so anxious to get back to?

Although I can't speak to the original poster's intent in that thread, it was apparent that the comments that followed served no other purpose than to promote an agenda.
I actually agree with locking that thread, but it's not so much for the baiting involved. If you ask me, it would have been a good post in an official Adam Dunn thread, but I don't think the information called for a new thread.

AtomicDumpling
03-26-2009, 06:36 PM
AtomicDumpling's HR thread for Dunn for one. Each new HR for Dunn was new, unchartered territory and he (Dumpling) provided us with a background and perspective for just what Dunn was accomplishing. Cheated is the wrong word, but I feel I've been deprived of a certain appreciation for what an (now) ex-Red has done in his career.

IMO, closing it was a mistake, and it should be reopened as of Opening Day. Will it cause a little more moderation? Maybe. Check that - probably. But that's what they signed up for. While I appreciate all that the mods and the admins do for this site, I honestly don't feel bad to ask them to make sure one of the best threads the ORG had going can stay alive. Basically all it asks is for Atomic Dumpling to keep doing a freakin phenomenal job, keeping the rest of us well informed of the history - and the present effect - of the game.

Thanks for your supportive comments Screwball. I appreciate it. I was extremely discouraged when the thread was locked.

I have received many encouraging PMs and posts over the past two years about the home run tracker threads. Those messages really inspired me to continue putting in the hundreds of hours of research and writing that went into that project. There were several other posters (especially Big Klu) that made valuable contributions to the thread as well. One of the things I was most proud of about that thread was that it never devolved into a debate.

If anybody has never viewed the thread you can see it here:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68235
Unfortunately many of the photos have expired. It gets better as it goes along.

A couple people have suggested I continue the Dunn Home Run Tracker project on a blog since it is no longer welcome on Redszone. I thought that was a great idea and I am strongly leaning towards doing it. The blog would also make a nice home for some other projects I am considering.

jojo
03-26-2009, 07:30 PM
Legitimate new information isn't even getting a chance to develop anymore. As soon as Dunn's name comes up, the lock goes on the thread.

I love the Reds, and I love baseball. I love the history of the team and the future of the team. I also love the history of the sport, as do many others that post here. We still talk about Austin Kearns. We still talk about Dmitri Young. We still talk about Josh Hamilton. I love discussing all of these guys, and others do as well. I know I'm just one fish in this great big sea, but one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore is the splintering of the board has made the existence of intelligent or entertaining discussion virtually null and void. What started with banning political and religious speech has continued on down a slippery slope. I know the internet is a global community, and not governed by the laws of the country, but we have freedom of speech here, no one has the freedom to not be offended. Obviously, others want to discuss the player in question as well, otherwise, the threads wouldn't have been so popular. He's among the Reds' all-time home run leaders after all, and may someday be among the MLB all time home run leaders as well. We're talking about words. Discussion. Ideas. These things have never hurt anyone, so I fail to see the problem. Why is it just because someone has the tag "moderator" that gives them the right to decide when discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? We're all on the same level here, at least we used to be, fans of a baseball team. I thought the creation of the Old Red Guard was initially for the moderators to have to do less moderating, but it's turned into the opposite, and now the part of the board where the best discussion used to take place is now the most heavily moderated, and dare I say, censored. Once you start censoring discussion, where do you stop? At what point do we come to a board where we can only discuss the current year's team?

Geez...I'm not one to ruffle feathers, or cause problems, but that tirade has been building up in me for a while. I'm not saying I'm a better fan or better poster than anyone else here, I don't think you can put rankings on those type of things, but I do feel that there isn't always common sense being taken into account on decisions, and rushes to judgment are made, and we sit by quietly and say, "Welp, that's the way things are." This is still the best Cincinnati Reds' fan message board on the internet, but at the pace we're going, will it still be in 5 years? Many of us came here from cincinnati.com because it was too liberally ran, but we're going toward the opposite extreme.

I never thought I'd agree with Rem on anything. I probably won't sleep for at least a week now.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle

I think the mods made their decision about Dunn threads for a couple of reasons: 1) what is left to be said about Dunn really?, 2) Often the latest Dunn accomplishment or blunder was increasing getting turned into an "advocacy thread" that was borderline baiting.

Finally, while it could probably be argued that it really was a relatively few members on each pole of the "Dunn" issue, the mods hands were forced in my view because of a larger problem-it wasn't just Dunn-specific content....tangent discussions such as the value of defense, player valuation in general, impact of strikeouts, hitting approach-basically you name it-were increasingly becoming poisoned by the introduction of Dunn.

savafan
03-26-2009, 07:32 PM
Finally, while it could probably be argued that it really was a relatively few members on each pole of the "Dunn" issue, the mods hands were forced in my view because of a larger problem-it wasn't just Dunn-specific content....tangent discussions such as the value of defense, player valuation in general, impact of strikeouts, hitting approach, you name it were increasing becoming increasingly poisoned by the introduction of Dunn.

Isn't Dunn's play relevant to those type of discussions though...whether or not you or I get tired of seeing his name come up in them (and for the record, I did)?

jojo
03-26-2009, 07:45 PM
Isn't Dunn's play relevant to those type of discussions though...whether or not you or I get tired of seeing his name come up in them (and for the record, I did)?

The problem with Dunn though is that often such topics would be approached through a "Dunn prism" (i.e. a person's opinion of Dunn informed the validity of the metric/topic) rather than the more appropriate approach (i.e. other way around). As a result good discussion that advanced understanding was often impossible in my view as threads became essentially poisoned by less engaging rhetoric.

That's just my view and the mods might disagree in part or in whole but as someone who has been attacked as being both pro and anti Dunn depending upon the topic, I'm glad that Dunn discussion has been throttled a bit.

KittyDuran
03-26-2009, 08:40 PM
Sigh...somewhere my message got lost so I'll repeat it (and I still say MY way is a better way...)


Maybe RZ needs to have a separate forum for topics on the rest of major league baseball - including former Reds.
I will add that it be open to all, like the Minor League Talk/Introductions and Site Feedback/Non-Sports Chatter/The Tavern.

Ron Madden
03-27-2009, 04:07 AM
The problem with Dunn though is that often such topics would be approached through a "Dunn prism" (i.e. a person's opinion of Dunn informed the validity of the metric/topic) rather than the more appropriate approach (i.e. other way around). As a result good discussion that advanced understanding was often impossible in my view as threads became essentially poisoned by less engaging rhetoric.

The problem in a nut shell is the freedom of discussion. Discussion leads to better understanding on both sides of an issue.

It' wrong in so many ways to consider an opposing opinion as poisonous.
We are all Cincinnati Reds Fans here. Please give us the opportunity to learn from each other.

Ltlabner
03-27-2009, 08:18 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.

jojo
03-27-2009, 08:53 AM
The problem in a nut shell is the freedom of discussion. Discussion leads to better understanding on both sides of an issue.

It' wrong in so many ways to consider an opposing opinion as poisonous.
We are all Cincinnati Reds Fans here. Please give us the opportunity to learn from each other.

The comment you've quoted is in no way arguing that an opposing opinion should be considered poisonous.

Freedom of discussion is the ideal.

In the case it of Dunn it isn't "an opposing opinion" that poisons the discussion. It's that all too often, it is impossible to have a free discussion-about anything-once his name becomes associated with it.

There is a discussion about Strasburg in the minor league forum that is completely civil though both sides clearly disagree. Try finding a Dunn thread where that can be said. You have to look hard.

remdog
03-27-2009, 09:01 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, Sir, are now the proud recipient of 1M Remdog Rewards Points for that post! (Gets you a $.01 cent off coupon at Dairy Queen---Do Not Double).

:thumbup:

Rem

jojo
03-27-2009, 09:22 AM
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.

It takes a lot of work to write a post the espouses what is hopefully an engaging opinion or insight while also showing the argument behind it. The point of "showing your work" rather than just stating an answer is that it can hopefully stimulate people to in turn express their unique opinion or find flaws in the original argument and collectively everyone benefits (and has fun).

It's not that there aren't things left to discuss. A good game thread can provide literally tens of comments/observations that can trigger the "hmmmm... that's worth digging into deeper" response.

While I wouldn't have stated it exactly as you did above (and I agree with the mods decision to throttle Dunn topics), 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.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57849&highlight=livingston+homer

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58578&highlight=livingston+homer

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57416&highlight=jojo+leverage

redsfandan
03-27-2009, 09:28 AM
Sigh...somewhere my message got lost so I'll repeat it (and I still say MY way is a better way...)


Maybe RZ needs to have a separate forum for topics on the rest of major league baseball - including former Reds.

I will add that it be open to all, like the Minor League Talk/Introductions and Site Feedback/Non-Sports Chatter/The Tavern.

And I'll say it's not a bad idea to have non-public forums for somethings. But I think the problem is how to handle controversial posts/threads wherever they happen. Taking an "out of sight, out of mind" approach won't solve the problem. It just moves the problem to another part of the site.

At the top of every page it says this:

RedsZone
For Reds fans, by Reds fans

RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion


But baseball isn't the only thing discussed here. The Reds are the main reason most of us are here but in The Tavern you can discuss any sport. In Non-Sports Chatter you can discuss almost anything that isn't sports related. And if you want to talk about potential hot button stuff we have the Peanut Gallery for political and religion based stuff. Do we really need to have all Dunn related threads/posts made in the Peanut Gallery since he's "controversial"? Where do you draw the line?

It says
RedsZone
For Reds fans, by Reds fans

If someone wants to talk about Dunn, Jr, or any other former Red I have NO problem with it. I'm just curious how many people have become disrespectful in Dunn threads or if it's mostly just a few people. Everyone shouln't be penalized because a few people can't, or don't want to, discuss something in a civil respectful way. Disagreements will always happen. But there's no reason for things to get carried away.

Imo, if someone gets carried away with an argument the subject isn't the problem. The problem is the person and how they choose to respond.