PDA

View Full Version : New Game Thread Policy



Heath
05-09-2008, 09:57 AM
All,

Please read the following regarding new policies and procedures for game threads. Boss, GIK, and the rest of the moderator staff have worked hard to set this policy and have agreed to the below.

Game Threads can be an important part of a baseball or any sports-related message board. In the past, RZ game threads were a source of information and opinion through thoughtful posting, game play-by-play, solid writing, and general camaraderie through the posters. Game Threads of late, however, have been a stew of bile towards players, managers, & posters, which violate the general guidelines and principles of what the basis of Redszone was founded on in 2000. So, in an effort to improve the quality of the game threads, the moderation staff has collaborated on a set of guidelines for Game Thread Etiquette.

First of all, the resumption of game threads will be Monday, May 12. The Reds begin a home stand with the Florida Marlins.

Second – in addition to the regular moderator staff, there are game thread moderators that have agreed to monitor the threads. The “Game Thread” moderators are RedlegJake, Tommyjohn25, Red In Chicago, Caveat Emperor, & Tom Servo. Those posters have the same abilities as the other moderators to enforce the regulations and potentially remove posts and posters alike.

Here are the new guidelines to follow –

1 – All game threads will be started by a moderator 15 minutes or so before every game. If starting lineups are posted prior to the 15 minutes, the thread will be locked and be re-opened. Be patient. We'll let you in the gates before the game starts.

2 – All seven general redszone.com guidelines are in force with special attention to the following instances. All instances are left to the discretion of the moderation staff whose decision is final.
- Excessive criticism of players, staff, management with regards to all baseball-type plays, lineups, management styles, etc. Say it once and forget it.
- Personal attacks and inflammatory statements to entice personal attacks (a.k.a. “baiting”) against other posters, and moderator staff.
- Topics that have been discussed ad-nauseum with no end in sight. (Beating a subject to death.)
- Profanity masked or intentional. You know the words, you don’t have to look cool and type them out. Say it out loud at home and type something else.

3 – All infractions levied are at the discretion of the moderation staff. Each moderator is a unique human being. Some moderate differently than others and each has his or her moderating style. Do not complain publicly about a certain moderator’s decision. You may PM a moderator to voice an opinion.

4 – Infractions are given out as follows. There will be no more warnings issued. We have warned and warned until we have been Tommy Lasorda-like blue in the face. Consider the past April as your warning.

1st Infraction – Immediate removal from the game thread. We’ll see you tomorrow.
2nd Infraction – Immediate removal from the game thread and a 24-hour ban from all of redszone.com (including game threads).
3rd Infraction – Immediate removal from the game thread, permanent season-removal from game threads, and a one-week ban from all of redszone.com

These infractions accumulate and will not reset until the end of the season. Also, the moderator staff, at any time reserves the right to go over the guidelines for egregious offenses.

A few general suggestions from your friendly neighborhood moderation staff –

First - When you post – ask yourself the following questions -
- Have I said this before?
- What am I adding to this discussion that is new or relevant to the thread or to my point?
- Am I being excessive?
- Is my agenda showing through?

Raw emotion is ok, but posts of “Awwwwww crap” or “Dunn Sucks” or “WOW” or other one-to-two word posts add nothing to the substance to the thread if you don’t describe what happened to deserve your emotion. Take the time to think first than type. You aren’t getting paid to scoop other posters. Make a thoughtful, reasonable post. If you think that what you are going to type might get you an infraction, chances are that it probably will. If you see something that you think might be an infraction, alert a moderator by using the "Report A Post" feature. Be a part of the solution, not the problem. There is, however, a fine line between tattle tailing and letting us know.

This is an opportunity to increase the quality of this site. This is not a trial-basis. This is the real deal. If game threads hold to the higher cause, the board and its posters are better for it. Don't blow it. This is NOT an attempt to limit participation, but to regulate it. Basically, if you all can’t play nice, you give the moderators reasons to talk about this again.

Bottom line, most of us are Reds fans and want to see the team do well. Try to get along, ok?

Any questions, please PM a moderator with any questions or you can post them below.

RedlegJake
05-09-2008, 11:27 AM
Guys we want to hear from y'all. This is your chance to vent, just to let us know we're knuckleheads or that you're on board. We've spent alot of time discussing this, hashing and re-hashing to come up with a plan that brings back game threads yet keeps them from becoming page after page of bickering so they can be enjoyable to all and an asset to the board.

I've been all over the internet for Reds discussion and news and this is easily the best community of fans out there. GIK and Boss, and the moderators do a lot to keep RedsZone operating. More than I thought, actually before I saw the amount of thought and work they put in behind the scenes. But it's you guys who make this board special and we do want your input and thoughts.

Don't be shy. Let er rip.

TRF
05-09-2008, 11:32 AM
OK, I'll weigh in. I don't like the "ban" on one word posts. The game thread for me is something i generally read the next day. I don't get to see a lot of Reds games. Four or 5 posts at the end of an AB of "crap", "damn" etc. convey the importance of the situation and imbue a sense of emotion. I agree I don't want to see ten posts of "BP just sux in the 4 hole", but there has to be some middle ground.

Or else all you have is George Grande like commentary. Thanks, but I'll have to pass on that.

Benihana
05-09-2008, 11:37 AM
OK, I'll weigh in. I don't like the "ban" on one word posts. The game thread for me is something i generally read the next day. I don't get to see a lot of Reds games. Four or 5 posts at the end of an AB of "crap", "damn" etc. convey the importance of the situation and imbue a sense of emotion. I agree I don't want to see ten posts of "BP just sux in the 4 hole", but there has to be some middle ground.

Or else all you have is George Grande like commentary. Thanks, but I'll have to pass on that.

Agreed.

GIK
05-09-2008, 11:38 AM
I don't see it as a ban, but to reinforce via the above message to think a little bit before posting. No one expects anyone to write a dissertation, I think the main point is often times (since it's a message board) it's hard to read into a person's context when there is little supporting info...which can at times lead to some of the problems we've seen.

But, again, I don't expect nor have I asked the mods to ban users or give them infractions for posting one word responses.

The main takeaway that everyone should get from this is #2, which I have quoted below:

2 – All seven general redszone.com guidelines are in force with special attention to the following instances. All instances are left to the discretion of the moderation staff whose decision is final.
- Excessive criticism of players, staff, management with regards to all baseball-type plays, lineups, management styles, etc. Say it once and forget it.
- Personal attacks and inflammatory statements to entice personal attacks (a.k.a. “baiting”) against other posters, and moderator staff.
- Topics that have been discussed ad-nauseum with no end in sight. (Beating a subject to death.)
- Profanity masked or intentional. You know the words, you don’t have to look cool and type them out. Say it out loud at home and type something else.

Joseph
05-09-2008, 11:42 AM
Do you honestly want a thread of say 300 posts where 250 of them are essentially one of the following....

"Wow!"

"OMG Dunn!!!"

"Trade him!"

Or other variations of course. Particularly when there are 6, 8, 10 of them in a row? Does it serve to make Redszone a better place at all? Chat is best served for emotion, the game thread is supposed to be, and should be a log of the events that happened in a game. If its during an emotional moment during the game, that can be conveyed in longer posts discussing the situation. Most people seem, and let me emphasize the word seem, to want to be the first one to post a reaction or that a player homered [or other outcome].

We aren't all members of the media out to scoop one another, the game threads should be about the games, not folks sitting around at the corner bar grunting at the TV.

RedlegJake
05-09-2008, 11:43 AM
OK, I'll weigh in. I don't like the "ban" on one word posts. The game thread for me is something i generally read the next day. I don't get to see a lot of Reds games. Four or 5 posts at the end of an AB of "crap", "damn" etc. convey the importance of the situation and imbue a sense of emotion. I agree I don't want to see ten posts of "BP just sux in the 4 hole", but there has to be some middle ground.

Or else all you have is George Grande like commentary. Thanks, but I'll have to pass on that.

Re-read the post. There is no ban on one word posts -we're just encouraging you to add something about the play. When a guy reads the GT to get an idea what's going on "Shoot" or "Dang" doesn't tell me what just happened. Okay?

I'm not slamming someone because they posted "Grrrrrr!" after a bad play or strikeout. Personally, I'd just like to see a description of the play - not 11 posts like Grrrrr. After I read what happened I may Grrr with you.

Chip R
05-09-2008, 11:44 AM
It's more of a guideline than a rule

REDREAD
05-09-2008, 12:05 PM
OK, I'll weigh in. I don't like the "ban" on one word posts. The game thread for me is something i generally read the next day. I don't get to see a lot of Reds games. Four or 5 posts at the end of an AB of "crap", "damn" etc. convey the importance of the situation and imbue a sense of emotion. I agree I don't want to see ten posts of "BP just sux in the 4 hole", but there has to be some middle ground.

Or else all you have is George Grande like commentary. Thanks, but I'll have to pass on that.


I hope the moderators aren't too strict on the one word posts either..
Now, if someone makes 200 of them in one thread, that's one thing. But if a big play happens, it would be nice to just react. If someone wants to put 15-20 or so "Wows" or smilies over the course of the game, personally, I don't think that's so bad.. I agree that it's part of the flavor of the game thread, although I guess it annoys some.. But then again, I'm a big believer in using the ingore button to tailor Redszone to your liking..

I don't want people to be overinhibited on what they post. Spamming the game thread is one thing, but genuine emotion should be allowed (as long as it doesn't turn violent/attacking).

Unassisted
05-09-2008, 12:11 PM
If one-word posts are a problem, rather than forcing the mods to make judgment calls, maybe the board's minimum-character setting for posts should be increased?

REDREAD
05-09-2008, 12:12 PM
Do you honestly want a thread of say 300 posts where 250 of them are essentially one of the following....

"Wow!"

"OMG Dunn!!!"

Or other variations of course. Particularly when there are 6, 8, 10 of them in a row?.

It doesn't bother me.. I like seeing the stream of 10-12 posts like that after something big happens.. Again, I would suggest putting the people on ignore that tend to make those type of posts. Also, it's fairly easy to skip them, since it's only 1-2 words.. I even don't mind a string of posts of frustration after Milton gives up a HR either. IMO, that's part of the environment.

Again, I think we have a fundamental problem that some people (not calling you out) want to change the gamethread into their idealist vision of what they think it should be. It's reasonable to ban profanity, personal attacks,etc but it's not realistic to expect to ban all the one or two word posts. (And I'm not sure the majority of people on the game thread want those banned).

paintmered
05-09-2008, 12:14 PM
If one-word posts are a problem, rather than forcing the mods to make judgment calls, maybe the board's minimum-character setting for posts should be increased?

To reiterate Chip, it's a guideline, not a rule.

Nobody is going to get in trouble for making short posts, unless they troll with them.

gm
05-09-2008, 12:15 PM
It's more of a guideline than a rule

This ain't a Pirate's game thread, matey

Heath
05-09-2008, 12:16 PM
It doesn't bother me.. I like seeing the stream of 10-12 posts like that after something big happens.. Again, I would suggest putting the people on ignore that tend to make those type of posts. Also, it's fairly easy to skip them, since it's only 1-2 words.. I even don't mind a string of posts of frustration after Milton gives up a HR either. IMO, that's part of the environment.

Again, I think we have a fundamental problem that some people (not calling you out) want to change the gamethread into their idealist vision of what they think it should be. It's reasonable to ban profanity, personal attacks,etc but it's not realistic to expect to ban all the one or two word posts. (And I'm not sure the majority of people on the game thread want those banned).

Re-read again - we aren't banning people, we are SUGGESTING that people lay off the one-to-two word posts. Anybody can post that, even my 6 year old.

We are hoping game threads become more informative rather than laced with internet lingo and smilies.

And, my apologies for being rude, but if you don't want to follow the policy, you don't have to post. (You being a "plural" use.)

REDREAD
05-09-2008, 12:27 PM
Re-read again - we aren't banning people, we are SUGGESTING that people lay off the one-to-two word posts. Anybody can post that, even my 6 year old.

We are hoping game threads become more informative rather than laced with internet lingo and smilies.

And, my apologies for being rude, but if you don't want to follow the policy, you don't have to post. (You being a "plural" use.)


Ok, I thought you could get an infraction from posting a one word post. That was my concern. Thanks for the clarification from you, Paint, and Chip.

And I was only giving the feedback that was requested. I understand completely that I can find somewhere else to post. If you don't want our feedback, you can always lock the thread :)

TeamCasey
05-09-2008, 12:37 PM
Do you honestly want a thread of say 300 posts where 250 of them are essentially one of the following....

"Wow!"

"OMG Dunn!!!"

"Trade him!"

Or other variations of course. Particularly when there are 6, 8, 10 of them in a row? Does it serve to make Redszone a better place at all? Chat is best served for emotion, the game thread is supposed to be, and should be a log of the events that happened in a game. If its during an emotional moment during the game, that can be conveyed in longer posts discussing the situation. Most people seem, and let me emphasize the word seem, to want to be the first one to post a reaction or that a player homered [or other outcome].

We aren't all members of the media out to scoop one another, the game threads should be about the games, not folks sitting around at the corner bar grunting at the TV.

Sure! Don't mind that at all. It's captures the moment although I like some play by play and discussion mixed in there as well.

It's discussion during a live event by many people. You're going to see multiple posts by multiple people on a single event.

RedlegJake
05-09-2008, 12:53 PM
Sure! Don't mind that at all. It's captures the moment although I like some play by play and discussion mixed in there as well.

It's discussion during a live event by many people. You're going to see multiple posts by multiple people on a single event.

That's what we're after with the one word post guideline. Just someone post a pbp for those who aren't watching the game live or listening live on radio. THEN we are getting a game thread that logs the events of the game along with everyone's reactions. Maybe we should have said 'Please post a pbp following your first reaction if someone else hasn't.'

Heath
05-09-2008, 12:56 PM
Sure! Don't mind that at all. It's captures the moment although I like some play by play and discussion mixed in there as well.

It's discussion during a live event by many people. You're going to see multiple posts by multiple people on a single event.

And to piggyback onto Jake's posts, we weren't getting the play-by-play or discussion recently. We were saddled with the other junk.

Again, we aren't here to minimize participation.

coachw513
05-09-2008, 01:42 PM
Guess I'd better come up with something a little more creative after Votto's 3rd HR tonight :D...

In all seriousness, I am not a regular gamethread person for the reasons that caused the temporary ban...but I'm hopeful this worked out as I truly missed it the other day, kindof' "jones-ing" for some comments about how Volquez was dealing and Votto was mashing while I was at work...

Finally, much appreciation to those who have given their time in advance and will continue to do so for this stuff to take place...I keep hoping the Reds themselves will raise themselves to the level of "play" that this site strives for...

Belisle and Arroyo this weekend...that's good, right?? ;)

Caveat Emperor
05-09-2008, 01:45 PM
The very nature of the game thread (50+ people all posting at the same time) makes it ineveitable that you'll have 5-10 people posting the same thing at the same time.

That isn't the problem.

Nor is it a problem when someone homers and everyone posts their excited reactions. Everyone understands that -- that's why its a judgment call and not some hardline rule for determining when excitement or anger jumps the line from solid participation to annoying and useless noise.

Be respectful, have fun, and the game threads will have no problems as far as I'm concerned.

Team Clark
05-09-2008, 01:50 PM
This ain't a Pirate's game thread, matey

Seriously...stop watching Pirate movies! :D

I like the new rules and look forward to returning to a civil game day thread. :thumbup:

HumnHilghtFreel
05-09-2008, 03:03 PM
Crap!


Is that the type of thing you're trying to avoid?

:)

KronoRed
05-09-2008, 03:13 PM
Looks good mod kings :)

smith288
05-09-2008, 03:23 PM
I probably wont be attending very many game threads for fear of upsetting the delicate balance that is the mod's mood.

cumberlandreds
05-09-2008, 03:27 PM
Actually the rules set are really no different than for the rest of board and what they always have been. It's just there will be mods during the games watching over us. Which is not a bad thing at all and was something needed all along.

LoganBuck
05-09-2008, 03:43 PM
So.......

Example of not ok?: Dusty Baker stinks!

Example of ok?: Dusty Baker stinks for leaving Volquez in so long.
or
The manager should not have left Volquez in so long.

Where is the line for commentary on a bad decision? If a manager(Dusty) makes what is perceived to be a bone headed tactical maneuver(likely). What would be the appropriate measured response?

I only have limited activity in game threads, mostly drive by criticism or praise, or discussion of a specific play or decision relating to the game at hand.

Thanks for bringing the game threads back!

Tommyjohn25
05-09-2008, 04:29 PM
Actually the rules set are really no different than for the rest of board and what they always have been. It's just there will be mods during the games watching over us. Which is not a bad thing at all and was something needed all along.

Exactly. I'm not sure why the fuss over something that we set as a "guideline" for better conversation. I'm not going to ban anyone for using the one word posts (unless it's profanity or baiting) but we worked very hard on working towards a better game thread, and made suggestions accordingly. That's all there is to it, I think some are looking too much into this.

Unassisted
05-09-2008, 04:40 PM
Exactly. I'm not sure why the fuss over something that we set as a "guideline" for better conversation.
If you read the policy as it's written, it sounds like corrective action will be taken for one-word posts.

"one-to-two word posts add nothing to the substance to the thread if you don’t describe what happened to deserve your emotion. Take the time to think first than type. You aren’t getting paid to scoop other posters. Make a thoughtful, reasonable post. If you think that what you are going to type might get you an infraction, chances are that it probably will."

The proximity of the mention of "one-to-two word posts" to the warning about being careful to avoid an "infraction" makes the issue seem larger than was apparently intended.

Ltlabner
05-09-2008, 04:59 PM
Sounds like a simple and straighforward policy. Not sure where there'd be any confusion.

Thanks for all the hard work Boss/GIK & mods.

WVRedsFan
05-09-2008, 05:07 PM
NO problems here at all. I think it's reasonable. My problem has been the rudeness and arrogance, as well as something happening nd not knowing what went on several minutes later--especially when I'm away from radio or TV.

But, all in all, not bad.

Chip R
05-09-2008, 05:15 PM
Hopefully some of the folks who have not been participating on the game threads because of the problems will look at this as a new beginning and contribute to a better game thread.

MikeS21
05-09-2008, 05:43 PM
The new rules/guidelines look good.

I especially like the idea that the mods will be watching out for "beating dead horses" and those who intentionally "bait" controversy. My biggest complaint was that every thread pretty much had become predictable.

Kudos to the Admins and Mods for their work on this!

37red
05-09-2008, 07:37 PM
I think the moderators should have distinct lines for scrutinizing infractions. I recently had a harsh judgment on me which I found to be excessive. I had no warning even though that was policy. On top of that I DID write a polite letter to the mod but they didn't allow the respect to respond. Letting moderators make judgment calls without distinct lines of infraction is too open ended. On one hand it's said the single word statements will be accepted, then on the other hand they may not. That leaves certain mods that have grievances the power to do as they wish, not within solid guide lines. I think a single warning should be issued and once is enough, but taking someone out of the thread without a single word of why is as bad as the one word rule. If a mod has time to throw someone out they have time to throw a warning out first.

No, I don't think an individual moderator should make their own ruling on an open ended judgment call. It's not a sportscaster thread, it's redszoners reacting to what's happening in the game. There should be a clear line of how many one word responses can be made, and a warning so no one over steps their authority.

Patrick Bateman
05-09-2008, 08:16 PM
1 thing the mods missed is that the word "KABLAMO" is a more than acceptable 1 word response, and needs no further explanation.

RedlegJake
05-09-2008, 08:21 PM
I think the rules for the board ARE distinct 37Red. Several mods have already stated they will not be banning people for non-obscene one word posts. There is no way we can catalogue every specific instance or sentence that is allowed or not. ANY moderation on any board is a judgement call.

Without seeming too rude, I'd remind you that you don't have to post in the GTs. If the moderation here seems too draconian, please feel free to post at Cincy.com.

GAC
05-09-2008, 09:05 PM
3 Ė All infractions levied are at the discretion of the moderation staff. Each moderator is a unique human being. Some moderate differently than others and each has his or her moderating style. Do not complain publicly about a certain moderatorís decision. You may PM a moderator to voice an opinion

The rules overall look reasonable and fair. But I would like to add, in reference to the above rule, that just as posters shouldn't publicly call out or complain about a mod's decision..... mod's should also not publicly do the same to a poster(s).

You guys have a tough job. I (we) all understand that. But just as you expect the members to use discretion and be respectful. So should mods. If they have a "problem" with a poster, then deal with it privately.

37red
05-09-2008, 09:09 PM
I went back to get information from your first post but I lost my reply when I did, twice. I'll write you a letter and PM it to you so you and I can get a better perspective of how we each feel. It's obvious we, er I, can't express what I think about the one rule.

Good night

37red
05-09-2008, 09:21 PM
Thank you Gac, I appreciate and respect your response.

TeamCasey
05-09-2008, 09:29 PM
Without seeming too rude, I'd remind you that you don't have to post in the GTs. If the moderation here seems too draconian, please feel free to post at Cincy.com.


Long standing member, long time friend.

Is this an example of the new attitude?

WVRedsFan
05-09-2008, 09:37 PM
Long standing member, long time friend.

Is this an example of the new attitude?


You posted what I was thinking, TC.

Those kind of responses is what starts a fight in the GT. And yet, we see it here.

I don't think there is any hope. I really don't. Two games and we'll be back to nothing again. And I was really thinking this could work.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-09-2008, 09:42 PM
Guys we want to hear from y'all. This is your chance to vent, just to let us know we're knuckleheads or that you're on board.

Jake, you asked for input and for vents. I think your response to 37red is a bit harsh.

WMR
05-09-2008, 09:50 PM
Without seeming too rude, I'd remind you that you don't have to post in the GTs. If the moderation here seems too draconian, please feel free to post at Cincy.com.

That really does sound rude, however, especially when posited towards a member who has been here since the year 2000. Just sayin'.

Tommyjohn25
05-09-2008, 09:56 PM
You posted what I was thinking, TC.

Those kind of responses is what starts a fight in the GT. And yet, we see it here.

I don't think there is any hope. I really don't. Two games and we'll be back to nothing again. And I was really thinking this could work.

It can work, if people treat others with respect and stop instigating fights with one another. That's really the only reason we're here, I don't feel we're asking much of anyone. We've stated the new policies, and really they are not much different than what you agree to when you sign up for redszone. The bottom line is the game threads weren't working, and need extra moderation. I understand the emotion of a game thread is going to lead to some "less than stellar" responses, I've been guilty of it in the past myself, I'm personally not going to punish people for "one word" reponses unless they are profane or people start complaining about them.

I think what we are trying to get across, is that the rules have now been clearly stated and are not hard to follow. If you don't understand something, feel free to ask one of us, as it is near impossible to cover EVERYTHING in the grey areas. Now here comes the part that people seem to be struggling with, and I can see how it comes across as rude, is that the game threads were closed for a reason, they were a mess and people were warned. Now the warnings are over, so those that feel they cannot abide by the rules may be better off not posting in there at all, for their own sake if nothing else. I am here to be part of the solution, and am honored to do so, so if ANY of you need anything, please don't hesitate to ask me.

WV...there is hope. Just give it/us a chance.

RedlegJake
05-09-2008, 10:07 PM
I am sorry if that seemed rude, or harsh, but we cannot outline every possible scenario good or bad that we might have. I snapped a response after I asked for vents or responses and that WAS unfair. I apologize 37Red if you took that personally - it does read that way but that wasn't my intent.

Caveat Emperor
05-09-2008, 10:11 PM
Long standing member, long time friend.

Is this an example of the new attitude?

I certainly hope there will be respect on both sides of the equation for this.

The game threads are a part of RZ that many people enjoy (myself included). There simply will be zero tolerance for people who ruin the experience for others and/or post content to the board that is not in keeping with Boss & GIK's vision and mission statement for the website. As such, there are rules and guidelines that we should all be expected to follow.

99% of the people who post to the game threads do a great job and have fun with it. The new rules are only in place to keep the 1% from derailing the experience with baiting posts, excessive attacks on players, personal attacks on other posters and the like. The stuff we're all talking about is basic stuff that anyone on here can figure out -- if you need to be warned to not go insult other posters, troll for arguments, or start running players and coaches into the ground with multiple posts then I really don't know what to tell you. Like I said, though, the vast majority of people won't notice any difference in the moderation of the game threads because they're already doing the right thing.

The game threads are there to have fun while watching the Reds, and we (I) want to make sure they're a place where everyone can do just that. Hopefully we can all work together to make that happen.

Your Friendly Game Thread Mod,
- Caveat

WMR
05-09-2008, 10:14 PM
Does this mean we'll get MORE CE PBP? (My favorite part of GTs, btw) ;)

paintmered
05-09-2008, 10:17 PM
Does this mean we'll get MORE CE PBP? (My favorite part of GTs, btw) ;)

If his answer isn't yes, he's fired. ;)

WVRedsFan
05-09-2008, 10:22 PM
It can work, if people treat others with respect and stop instigating fights with one another. That's really the only reason we're here, I don't feel we're asking much of anyone. We've stated the new policies, and really they are not much different than what you agree to when you sign up for redszone. The bottom line is the game threads weren't working, and need extra moderation. I understand the emotion of a game thread is going to lead to some "less than stellar" responses, I've been guilty of it in the past myself, I'm personally not going to punish people for "one word" reponses unless they are profane or people start complaining about them.

I think what we are trying to get across, is that the rules have now been clearly stated and are not hard to follow. If you don't understand something, feel free to ask one of us, as it is near impossible to cover EVERYTHING in the grey areas. Now here comes the part that people seem to be struggling with, and I can see how it comes across as rude, is that the game threads were closed for a reason, they were a mess and people were warned. Now the warnings are over, so those that feel they cannot abide by the rules may be better off not posting in there at all, for their own sake if nothing else. I am here to be part of the solution, and am honored to do so, so if ANY of you need anything, please don't hesitate to ask me.

WV...there is hope. Just give it/us a chance.

TJ, I was referring to the rude snipy comment to 37 Red from Redleg Jake. Others agree with me. It's comments like that I was hoping to get rid of.

GAC
05-09-2008, 10:23 PM
I'm personally not going to punish people for "one word" reponses unless they are profane or people start complaining about them.

No one should be punished for them just because other posters on the GT might not like it and thus complain about them. Respectfully, that is not included in the stated rules, and is not a sound guideline. You can't have some mods saying they have no problem with one word posts and won't take action as long as they don't directly violate forum policy... and then on the other hand say you'll issue out punishment if enough complain about them.

That, IMHO, is way to arbitrary and conflicting.

One doesn't issue punishment based on complaints; but only on stated rules violations.

The rules have been properly and openly stated. And IMHO, seem very reasonable and fair.

Again, you mods have a very tough job to do with this HUGE diverse crowd of MPDs. :lol:

The GTs needed more frequent and better moderation. And when I say "better moderation", please, don't any of the other mods think that is being said as a slight on your job performance. It wasn't. Only that you were too few for too many. You have lives outside of this forum and needed to increase your numbers.

Also.... are these guys going to have mod powers in chat also? Because I don't want to get booted for calling TommyJohn or RedlegJake pinheads in chat! :lol:

Spring~Fields
05-09-2008, 10:25 PM
We've spent alot of time discussing this, hashing and re-hashing to come up with a plan that brings back game threads yet keeps them from becoming page after page of bickering so they can be enjoyable to all and an asset to the board.



Guys we want to hear from y'all. This is your chance to vent, just to let us know we're knuckleheads or that you're on board.


we do want your input and thoughts.

Don't be shy. Let er rip.


Without seeming too rude, I'd remind you that you don't have to post in the GTs. If the moderation here seems too draconian, please feel free to post at Cincy.com.



ANY moderation on any board is a judgement call.

Obvisously it can still use some work

Caveat Emperor
05-09-2008, 10:29 PM
You can't have some mods saying they have no problem with one word posts and won't take action as long as they don't directly violate forum policy... and then on the other hand say you'll issue out punishment if enough complain about them.

One word posts aren't technically against any of the rules.

When one-word posts (e.g. "Pathetic!" or "Ridiculous!" etc.) are repeated excessively, they begin to violate Rule #5: Trolling and General Nuisance posting.

Part of what makes something a "nuisance" is when it drives people to complain about it. I'm not saying that's the sole criterion for determining when a poster is warned or bounced from the GT, but if someone is causing general nuisance to the GT forum and other people are complaining, I'm not going to sit back and just let things happen.

And seriously, are we really fighting about this? How many one-word posts does ANYONE make in a given day/game thread? Let's all back up and have a tad bit of perspective here. ;)

Spring~Fields
05-09-2008, 10:30 PM
TJ, I was referring to the rude snipy comment to 37 Red from Redleg Jake. Others agree with me. It's comments like that I was hoping to get rid of.

I have noticed some of what you are expressing here WV, careless comments, imflammatory with provocative intent, or just plain poor communication skills.

Spring~Fields
05-09-2008, 10:33 PM
No one should be punished for them just because other posters on the GT might not like it and thus complain about them. Respectfully, that is not included in the stated rules, and is not a sound guideline.

You're correct Greg, there are far too many personal biases belonging to the micro factions within the aggregate of the Redszone members.

RedlegJake
05-09-2008, 10:37 PM
Well, you asked for concrete examples of what we don't want to see. I supplied a textbook example of posting before thinking.:(

Had I taken a moment to extract my foot from my mouth I might have made a better job of explaining it - like CE and Tommyjohn did. They said what I meant.

Y'all were right to call me on it. I stand chastened. Well, I sit chastened. And yes, I still want to hear the vents and concerns.

Jake

Tommyjohn25
05-09-2008, 10:37 PM
No one should be punished for them just because other posters on the GT might not like it and thus complain about them. Respectfully, that is not included in the stated rules, and is not a sound guideline. You can't have some mods saying they have no problem with one word posts and won't take action as long as they don't directly violate forum policy... and then on the other hand say you'll issue out punishment if enough complain about them.

That, IMHO, is way to arbitrary and conflicting.


I get where you're coming from GAC. I guess my assumption is that people won't complain about them unless they are in violation of a rule is some way, such as excessive bashing or offensive etc...obviously if someone complains it will be reviewed, meaning there won't be a "knee jerk" reaction so to speak. The complaint must be a valid one, I think it just may seem conflicting to some since everyones definintion of "excessive" may be different. That's why we have a team here, to determine what is valid, it is the cross we have chosen to bear. :)

I appreciate the feedback GAC and others, please continue to express your concerns/questions and we'll do our best to address them.

GAC
05-09-2008, 10:42 PM
P.S. ...... OK. Everyone, IMHO, needs to take the night off and chill out. We all need our beauty sleep because we have a double header tomorrow of Dusty Baker lineups. :lol:

All the moderator's attempts here were good and well intentioned. So lets not any of us try to misconstrue that, and try to "read between the lines".

The bottomline is (and we all agree)..... the GTs needed more moderation. And Moderation is good. Unless you're in chat! :beerme:

Can we at least wait till the GTs are re-instituted and see what problems may arise before we all start complaining? It will be a period of trial and error.

Just remember one thing.....

These moderators had nothing to do with the hiring of Dusty Baker.

Tommyjohn25
05-09-2008, 10:43 PM
Also.... are these guys going to have mod powers in chat also? Because I don't want to get booted for calling TommyJohn or RedlegJake pinheads in chat! :lol:


:cool: I may ban you for not coming up with something better than "pinhead". :D

I kiiiid...I kiiiddd.

RedlegJake
05-09-2008, 10:47 PM
Pinhead would be an improvement on some of the things I've been called:cool: But then my wife has certain latitude.

Spring~Fields
05-09-2008, 10:48 PM
Well, you asked for concrete examples of what we don't want to see. I supplied a textbook example of posting before thinking.:(

Had I taken a moment to extract my foot from my mouth I might have made a better job of explaining it - like CE and Tommyjohn did. They said what I meant.

Y'all were right to call me on it. I stand chastened. Well, I sit chastened. And yes, I still want to hear the vents and concerns.

Jake

No, no, it was good that it found it's way into the discussion as a help aid, I think.

Honestly, I was thinking the same as you are expressing above, it was like we were role playing an example in real time. To me it was like a bit of a case study and we learn from it that we are all human.

I don't see that as a negative.

Spring~Fields
05-09-2008, 10:50 PM
Just remember one thing.....

These moderators had nothing to do with the hiring of Dusty Baker.

Are you sure? Do you have empircal facts to support that? ;)

Okay then I will go back into hybernation and shut up.

GAC
05-09-2008, 10:53 PM
One word posts aren't technically against any of the rules.

When one-word posts (e.g. "Pathetic!" or "Ridiculous!" etc.) are repeated excessively, they begin to violate Rule #5: Trolling and General Nuisance posting.

Part of what makes something a "nuisance" is when it drives people to complain about it. I'm not saying that's the sole criterion for determining when a poster is warned or bounced from the GT, but if someone is causing general nuisance to the GT forum and other people are complaining, I'm not going to sit back and just let things happen.

And seriously, are we really fighting about this? How many one-word posts does ANYONE make in a given day/game thread? Let's all back up and have a tad bit of perspective here. ;)

You're right Caveat. The only reason I brought it up was because others may construe "if enough people complain about it" as being too much of a generality and arbitrary in reference with dealing with regular board members who know each other well and interact on the GTs daily. I really don't participate on the GTs much at all. But if I did, I could care less if a member I see daily on there says one worded responses like "pathetic" or "ridiculous" a lot on the GTs.

If Corey Patterson gets five ABs, is five "pathetics" and "ridiculous'" too much and considered trolling? :lol:

Spring~Fields
05-09-2008, 10:57 PM
If Corey Patterson gets five ABs, is five "pathetics" and "ridiculous'" too much and considered trolling? :lol:

I don't think PM's count GAC if they do I am DOA. :cool:

GAC
05-09-2008, 11:25 PM
Time for me to go to bed :lol:

"Everybody's talking 'bout Dusty Baker, lineups bad, will he get it, Bronson Arroyo, he's been had, good ol' Griffey, Patterson iffy, Adam Dunn, walks, no runs, bullpen arms, down on the farm, defense poor, WHY CAN'T WE SCORE!

But all we are saaaaaaying.....

SteelSD
05-10-2008, 02:30 AM
After reviewing this thread, I'm pretty confident that the "issue" hasn't been fixed. It's interesting that the announcement about the "Infractions System" has now been removed. It was a solid system that, if properly utilized, would have actually made this whole discussion (and closing the game thread forum) moot.

There was simply no reason to close the game thread forum in the first place as there was already a system in place to properly moderate it. And now we've waited nearly a month to hear about a solution that appears to be far less tolerant than the system already in place but never used?

I'm not even a consistent game thread poster, but I'll be darned if I enter that venue to do anything but read it going forward.

WVRedsFan
05-10-2008, 03:12 AM
After reviewing this thread, I'm pretty confident that the "issue" hasn't been fixed. It's interesting that the announcement about the "Infractions System" has now been removed. It was a solid system that, if properly utilized, would have actually made this whole discussion (and closing the game thread forum) moot.

There was simply no reason to close the game thread forum in the first place as there was already a system in place to properly moderate it. And now we've waited nearly a month to hear about a solution that appears to be far less tolerant than the system already in place but never used?

I'm not even a consistent game thread poster, but I'll be darned if I enter that venue to do anything but read it going forward.

One more comment from me. I like that the administration has decided that there should be ground rules, even if they were the same ground rules that were in place anyway. The problem is, like Steel has said, the rules were never enforced per se. The little outburst in the final thread that closed the game threads could have been handled with a swift banning of the parties involved, but instead we closed the game threads and came up with the new rules, which are pretty much the old rules with a couple of zingers about one word posts and the like. Now we have a whole new group of guys who will operate as overseers of the game thread watching the every move, but I imagine ignoring the one thing that causes the conflict--arrogant and flippant posts made to prove someone is more intelligent that the other poster. About baseball and the Reds.

OK, so where does that put us? Back to square one IMHO with a new layer of administration that will, being human, use their own predudices to make decisions on banning or whatever. Redleg Jake made it all the more obvious with his flippant post to 37Red, which he has admitted was a little over board, but that is the crux of the problem. In a game thread, who has the descipline to think before posting? It's a game and things happen during the game that raises emotions. We all have our ideas and hopes for a game thread, and we all have our expectations of what it will be. Unfortunately, we don't all think the same and off the cuff remarks can spark flippant remarks which cause conflict. What is over the line is now up to the new mods (I do not envy you).

Some time ago, i complained publicly about the game threads being a little too nasty for my tastes because of rudeness and the arrogant attitudes I expressed earlier. One of the results of this was the forming of the membership ORG forum, which should have solved all our problems, but it did not. We forgot that a losing team breeds strong opinons and they will exist until the team starts winning again. So here we are with a new game thread to begin on Monday with the same people and more administration. Will it help. I seriously doubt it. Only when the fans on here respect opinions that might be the direct opposite of others will we get along. And I don't expect that anytime soon unfortunately. But if game threads do not exist, this is a pretty boring place, so have at it, but be careful and respect others whether you like them or not.

Caveat Emperor
05-10-2008, 04:01 AM
Now we have a whole new group of guys who will operate as overseers of the game thread watching the every move, but I imagine ignoring the one thing that causes the conflict--arrogant and flippant posts made to prove someone is more intelligent that the other poster. About baseball and the Reds.

It takes two to tango -- if you have a problem with people being arrogant, then just put them on ignore or don't respond to them. Arrogance isn't a crime, it isn't a violation of the board's rules until it gets into the realm of trolling, nuisance behavior or beating a subject to death. And yes, that has been and always will be a judgment call. I welcome your help on that subject -- please report posts that you think ARE nuisances and do cross the line from being merely arrogant to deliberate attempts to bait others into an argument.

Bottom line is, we're not talking Bushido stuff here; your honor as a Reds fan or a baseball fan is not at stake over anything that is said on the message board. Naturally, feel free to debate and go over the points, but simultaneously don't feel compelled to make the counter argument just because the point is sitting out there unrefuted.


In a game thread, who has the descipline to think before posting?

If people want to avoid extended vacations from the forum, they'd better figure out how to discipline themselves pretty quick.

"I was ticked off" doesn't fly as an excuse anywhere else, it shouldn't fly as an excuse here. If you (the general "you") cannot control your emotions enough to follow the forum rules while watching the game, then the game thread probably isn't the place for you.


It was a solid system that, if properly utilized, would have actually made this whole discussion (and closing the game thread forum) moot.

Part of the reason, according to my understanding, that the system wasn't properly utilized was due largely to the fact that moderators weren't always around in the game thread until after things had gotten out of hand. With the additional moderators, hopefully they'll always be at least one mod available to enforce the system that has always been in place.

And, I hope you do stop by Steel. Your insight is greatly appreciated and is one of the things that has kept me coming back to this site over the years.

redsrule2500
05-10-2008, 04:10 AM
Well here's my 2 cents: This is completely ridiculous....goes way above and beyond what a game thread should be. Regulation to this extent takes any and all enjoyment out of it.

Seriously, what the heck.... :rolleyes:

GAC
05-10-2008, 06:48 AM
How can some say it's not "fixed" when it hasn't even been given a chance yet?

To those that say the "problem" is not fixed....

1) what do you say the problem was? Do you acknowledge that there obviously was some sort of problem?

2) what would you do (suggest) to rectify the problem? They are openly asking for our suggestions on the new policy. That doesn't sound draconian.

You're griping before it even takes effect. Geez!

Policing a forum and GT that includes so many diverse personalities and opinions is not an easy task. There is always that chance you're going to upset someone, or any actions you may take be construed as draconian, favoritism, whatever.

Everyone has their own ideas about what the GTs should/shouldn't be about as far as subject matter and content.

A wise man once said "You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all the time". Of course someone ended up shooting him. ;)

But what he said rings true.

It seems to me that a few, on this thread in particular, took offense to a couple responses on here that included the statement "If people don't like the new policy or have a problem with adhering to it, then maybe find somewhere else to post, because it will no longer be tolerated here."

Some saw that to be rude and maybe arrogant. I don't think that as new mods, just given the job, that was their intent at all. Cut'em some slack.

I don't know if there is a more diplomatic or "softer" way to have put something that needed to be said without it being misconstrued as such.

C'mon.... any of us who have been on this forum for any length of time, and interacted, have got to know these mods (even these new ones) pretty well. I've even actually met with some of them outside of here at games and get-togethers. Overall (not isolated situations) they've been pretty fair and objective.

But it seems to me that some are simply looking to be critical regardless of what they say/do. Any actions taken were going to be over scrutinized, met with skepticism, and questioned IMO.

I don't think you're being fair to the mods. Especially the new ones who haven't even "clocked into the job" yet.

Way to welcome them aboard.

OK - how about if they say NO GAME THREADS PERIOD because they don't want to have to police the mess.

How would any of you like to have their job and babysit this bunch of dysfunctional, frustrated Red fans? Any takers? C'mon, step forward! :lol:

I personally don't think they are going to be "sitting on" everything that people post, putting it under a microscope, looking for an excuse to pounce. To try and do so would drive them insane and make their job very, very difficult. They know that already.

I've been on forums, like the old Cincy.com and MLB. com where there is no sense of order or decorum. It was chaos and madness.

You will always have that minority (and I think that is who is being addressed) who feel they have some sort of right to say and do whatever they please, and to use a forum to enact their own personal agenda irregardless of what actions that may constitute.

Those people, for the most part, not always, are the ones who don't like rules. They see it as an infringement.

Another wise man once said that rules (laws) were not made for the law-abiding, but for for those who break and violate them. Of course they dragged this guy outside the city limits and beheaded him.

So yeah, you moderators have a thankless job. ;)

We all are like those kids hanging out/playing at a playground, and the mods are the parents. As long as the kids play nice the parents are content staying out of the way, sitting on the benches, reading their books, eating their Quaker Rice snacks, and are simply THERE in case some kid suddenly decides he doesn't want to play nice anymore, and throws sand in another kid's face. That parent intervenes to restore order.

And lets face it.... there are some kids that just love to do that, and see if they can get away with it.... "Cause I'm a problem child!"

Play nice. Don't throw sand in other's faces - which IMHO doesn't mean you can't criticize or disagree with each other or decisions/situations that are unfolding on that field while watching or listening to the game - and I don't think we'll have any problems.

TeamCasey
05-10-2008, 08:32 AM
It seems to me that a few, on this thread in particular, took offense to a couple responses on here that included the statement "If people don't like the new policy or have a problem with adhering to it, then maybe find somewhere else to post, because it will no longer be tolerated here."

Some saw that to be rude and maybe arrogant. I don't think that as new mods, just given the job, that was their intent at all. Cut'em some slack.

I don't know if there is a more diplomatic or "softer" way to have put something that needed to be said without it being misconstrued as such.



The mods opened the door for commentary.

37Red commented.

He was shut down unfairly.

Jake acknowledged that and resolved it like a gentlemen. He uprighted the ship.

We should move on. Nice job by both of them.

jojo
05-10-2008, 09:01 AM
I don't know if the new system will ultimately mean improvement but the game threads have an incredible potential to be something special. Hats off to those who volunteered to moderate the GTs. Lets not forget the huge commitment and workload they've agreed to take on and IMHO, the GT mods represent enlightened choices by GIK/Boss and Co.

I've pretty much stopped spending time in the GTs and find myself considering taking a sabbatical from redszone more and more. Often making an argument means having to become defensive because it also can mean you'll be called arrogant, incurious, a parrot, slavish, simply seeking a pedestal to preen upon, a hater who really doesn't even like the Reds but really just wants to take advantage of this great community (I guess much like a leech), or even a delusional plagiarizer with a god complex but lacking an inability for original thought.

In the past, comments/discussions in the GTs have been fertile ground for stimulating threads where someone has said, "hmmmm, really?" and then dug deeper to find an answer thus stimulating more great discussion. It takes a lot of time and effort to post quality content like that though. Recently, I've at least found myself asking-given some of the grief that seems to go along with it more and more- is it really worth the effort?

I guess the point is-I welcome more moderation.

RFS62
05-10-2008, 09:06 AM
The mods opened the door for commentary.

37Red commented.

He was shut down unfairly.

Jake acknowledged that and resolved it like a gentlemen. He uprighted the ship.

We should move on. Nice job by both of them.



Exactly.

Why don't we give it a try before we condemn it to failure?

RFS62
05-10-2008, 09:10 AM
Often making an argument means having to become defensive because it also can mean you'll be called arrogant, incurious, a parrot, slavish, simply seeking a pedestal to preen upon, a hater who really doesn't even like the Reds but really just wants to take advantage of this great community (I guess much like a leech), or even a delusional plagiarizer with a god complex but lacking an inability for original thought.




What's your point?

:p:

jojo
05-10-2008, 09:14 AM
What's your point?

:p:

Hey, I didn't even comment on things sent in PMs...... :cool:

Tommyjohn25
05-10-2008, 10:04 AM
Listen to that GAC guy. He is a smart and brilliant man. :cool:

Tommyjohn25
05-10-2008, 10:06 AM
Well here's my 2 cents: This is completely ridiculous....goes way above and beyond what a game thread should be. Regulation to this extent takes any and all enjoyment out of it.

Seriously, what the heck.... :rolleyes:


Play nice and you likely won't even notice a difference. It really is that black and white.

Boss-Hog
05-10-2008, 10:46 AM
After reviewing this thread, I'm pretty confident that the "issue" hasn't been fixed. It's interesting that the announcement about the "Infractions System" has now been removed. It was a solid system that, if properly utilized, would have actually made this whole discussion (and closing the game thread forum) moot.

There was simply no reason to close the game thread forum in the first place as there was already a system in place to properly moderate it. And now we've waited nearly a month to hear about a solution that appears to be far less tolerant than the system already in place but never used?

I'm not even a consistent game thread poster, but I'll be darned if I enter that venue to do anything but read it going forward.
The Infractions system isn't going away; I just felt the announcement had run its course after a month.

Bob Borkowski
05-10-2008, 10:57 AM
Heck, I'm just anxious for Monday, May 12 to arrive.

I missed the game threads! :)

SandyD
05-10-2008, 02:06 PM
tho I shouldn't, I'm going to throw in a comment here. I think the addition of game thread mods is a GREAT idea ...

But I also think the "punishments" escalate too quickly.

First off, if we all agreed on what constitutes an infraction of the rules or a "punishable offense", I don't think we'd have much of a problem. We clearly don't all agree. And frankly, in any group even 2 or 3 more people, you will have disagreements about where the line is drawn. With "no warnings issued", you lose the opportunity to help define where the line is being drawn. At the very least, the game thread mods should step in and say "calm down, boys and girls, or we're going to start kicking people out." Or "you're beating a dead horse, cut it out". Helps not only the "offending party" but the rest of the board as well.

Don't think warnings "must" be issued ... just "can" be issued, and in some cases, should be issued. Tho they don't have to be defined as formal warnings.

I also think the mods should be able to issue the single game ban freely to calm a thread down when the discussion gets too heated. In a 162 game season, I don't think the third infraction "necessarily" warrants a remainder of the season "vacation" from game threads.

I'd rather see limits like ... say 3 single game bans in a week, 6 in a month, or 10 in a season ... before escalating to the next level. To be honest, that should make the mods job easier.


Just expressing my opinion.

TRF
05-10-2008, 03:01 PM
my point mirrors Steel's in that what makes a game thread any different than any other thread. Additional moderators are fine, but why not use the existing infractions system instead of creating special rules? If you don't tolerate a thread getting personal during the course of a discussion on BP hitting fourth, and there are rules and moderators that deal with stated situation, why should the punishment be more severe just because it happened in a game thread?

More mods i firmly agree with.

Boss-Hog
05-10-2008, 03:21 PM
my point mirrors Steel's in that what makes a game thread any different than any other thread. Additional moderators are fine, but why not use the existing infractions system instead of creating special rules? If you don't tolerate a thread getting personal during the course of a discussion on BP hitting fourth, and there are rules and moderators that deal with stated situation, why should the punishment be more severe just because it happened in a game thread?

More mods i firmly agree with.
Historically, we've have considerably more rules violations within the game threads than in the non-game threads.

Spring~Fields
05-10-2008, 04:21 PM
How can some say it's not "fixed" when it hasn't even been given a chance yet?

To those that say the "problem" is not fixed....

1) what do you say the problem was? Do you acknowledge that there obviously was some sort of problem?

2) what would you do (suggest) to rectify the problem? They are openly asking for our suggestions on the new policy. That doesn't sound draconian.

You're griping before it even takes effect. Geez!

Policing a forum and GT that includes so many diverse personalities and opinions is not an easy task. There is always that chance you're going to upset someone, or any actions you may take be construed as draconian, favoritism, whatever.

Everyone has their own ideas about what the GTs should/shouldn't be about as far as subject matter and content.

A wise man once said "You can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all the time". Of course someone ended up shooting him. ;)

But what he said rings true.

It seems to me that a few, on this thread in particular, took offense to a couple responses on here that included the statement "If people don't like the new policy or have a problem with adhering to it, then maybe find somewhere else to post, because it will no longer be tolerated here."

Some saw that to be rude and maybe arrogant. I don't think that as new mods, just given the job, that was their intent at all. Cut'em some slack.

I don't know if there is a more diplomatic or "softer" way to have put something that needed to be said without it being misconstrued as such.

C'mon.... any of us who have been on this forum for any length of time, and interacted, have got to know these mods (even these new ones) pretty well. I've even actually met with some of them outside of here at games and get-togethers. Overall (not isolated situations) they've been pretty fair and objective.

But it seems to me that some are simply looking to be critical regardless of what they say/do. Any actions taken were going to be over scrutinized, met with skepticism, and questioned IMO.

I don't think you're being fair to the mods. Especially the new ones who haven't even "clocked into the job" yet.

Way to welcome them aboard.

OK - how about if they say NO GAME THREADS PERIOD because they don't want to have to police the mess.

How would any of you like to have their job and babysit this bunch of dysfunctional, frustrated Red fans? Any takers? C'mon, step forward! :lol:

I personally don't think they are going to be "sitting on" everything that people post, putting it under a microscope, looking for an excuse to pounce. To try and do so would drive them insane and make their job very, very difficult. They know that already.

I've been on forums, like the old Cincy.com and MLB. com where there is no sense of order or decorum. It was chaos and madness.

You will always have that minority (and I think that is who is being addressed) who feel they have some sort of right to say and do whatever they please, and to use a forum to enact their own personal agenda irregardless of what actions that may constitute.

Those people, for the most part, not always, are the ones who don't like rules. They see it as an infringement.

Another wise man once said that rules (laws) were not made for the law-abiding, but for for those who break and violate them. Of course they dragged this guy outside the city limits and beheaded him.

So yeah, you moderators have a thankless job. ;)

We all are like those kids hanging out/playing at a playground, and the mods are the parents. As long as the kids play nice the parents are content staying out of the way, sitting on the benches, reading their books, eating their Quaker Rice snacks, and are simply THERE in case some kid suddenly decides he doesn't want to play nice anymore, and throws sand in another kid's face. That parent intervenes to restore order.

And lets face it.... there are some kids that just love to do that, and see if they can get away with it.... "Cause I'm a problem child!"

Play nice. Don't throw sand in other's faces - which IMHO doesn't mean you can't criticize or disagree with each other or decisions/situations that are unfolding on that field while watching or listening to the game - and I don't think we'll have any problems.



1) what do you say the problem was? Do you acknowledge that there obviously was some sort of problem?

We are seeing the diversity of opinion and interpretations. This discussion, this input and feedback process for clarification needed these expressions, this discourse, including the banter that irritates to respond in kind, even the humor that was injected to try and comfort or soften previous responses. I believe that they needed to come out in this thread for a positive purpose so that we as a group might have a better chance to see it, recognize it in real time, and or be given the opportunity to properly expose it and to properly address it here.

First of all, if the moderators are going volunteer to accept a position of authority on Redszone, they also have to volunteer to accept a position of leadership.

Their writings and their responses have to be above board. They will have to act and respond in a manner to people in the way that they are advocating that they want to see the rest of Redszone interact and communicate with one another. It will be necessary for them to show leadership regarding the behavior that they want manifested on the board. Go ahead and blow that off, and you will have problems that were not necessary to have to begin with and that could have been reduced if not eliminated. I will use Boss and I as an over simplified example, because Boss knows what the hell I am trying to say, maybe. Boss and I used to interact with one another at cincy.com in the manner that some, perhaps all of us would prefer not to be a part of. I would write some dribble, and he might respond with something like, “yeah coming from you” etc.” and then the defensive nonsense flowed even deeper and longer.

Leadership can’t have it both ways. They need to be a big picture of what is to be considered right and good, and provide that tone and attitude in their communications about posters, players, coaches and the various subject matters. They are to be the example of “what playing nice is”, a generic term for acting or behaving within the rules and guidelines of Redszone. The moderators, respectfully, need to be the examples of what good posting in the “game threads”, non baseball, ORG or any thread for that matter, are to be and are acceptable regarding membership and posting privileges within the Redszone board, a vision of community standards. That leadership style should be for all posters and readers alike to set the tone, the style, the acceptable communications and interactions in this micro culture.

Second, the posters along with their communications style, input and feedback, have already been accepted on the main ORG, non baseball, and minor league boards. Apparently their/our posting or communications style has been found to be acceptable to the board’s administration and moderators. We naturally see examples in the ORG, non baseball and minor league threads, examples that one now might suspect are not acceptable in the game threads. Now we, administration, moderators, and posters alike accept and tolerate those very same communication styles of input and feedback or arguments in the ORG, non-baseball, and minor league and it is understandable, people will find it difficult to accept or understand in “game threads” if or when that same style is not acceptable in the “game threads” and there are times that it will not be acceptable.

What is tolerated and acceptable on the ORG board discussions should be consistent and accepted in the “game threads” as the accepted norm for written communications and expression on all of Redszone.

Beware and be careful of turning normal law/rule abiding, established, acceptable citizens of Redszone into non conforming, non law/rule abiding citizens in the “game thread”

Example: Others or I have long been allowed to post in a certain manner in the non-baseball and ORG threads, but it could occur in a seemingly all of the sudden scenario that when others or I post in that same writing or communication style in the “game threads” it now could be that others or I could be getting warnings and that punitive actions are taken against others or myself using a communication style that has long been tolerated or even encouraged in the non-baseball or ORG threads.

Leading us to:
Now they come to the “game threads” and they somehow become unacceptable and will be dealt with as deemed appropriate by the group of those that complain, or the moderators. Something is amiss in that when they have a long standing of acceptable norms and practices on the other threads outside of the “game threads” . Go ahead and blow that off, and you will have problems that were not necessary to have to begin with and that could have been reduced if not eliminated.

Third, don’t dismiss out of hand just because of some emotional taboo that the Reds are a very bad team, that the Reds have a long way to go to be a quality product, that the Reds now have a long history of losing many games, which many people don’t dismiss. In turn don’t dismiss out of hand that we are expecting or asking people to write and to respond with writing certain qualities, certain positive and constructive standards about a bad team, a losing team, and a bad product that has seen an extension of such year leading to year, extending season to season for eight straight years, and then turn around and expect individuals to pose quality writing over the true dead horse, the bad team itself and poor quality. That is unrealistic to be asking people to write about something that does not exist, as if the Reds were something special to write home about at this time. People, they are naturally going to write and communicate what they see, what they think in the present and what they believe about the bad product at hand and how they spontaneously feel about it.

Most of the people on the board are analytical and management type personalities, they are going to write in a manner and yes complain or point out, in manner that would be consistent with problem solving, and with the Reds that isn’t sweet and positive in nature. Don’t kick against the rocks trying to change something that one cannot change, nor would it be right to change. All organizations from public to private, from the churches to the government have the dirty laundry of problems that need to be, that have to be discussed openly and dealt with by people. The Reds bad product is a real problem, is dirty laundry, don’t ask or imply that people should candy coat that away in their communications and turn around and call this an open forum at the same time, which is a conflict in and of itself.


Everyone has their own ideas about what the GTs should/shouldn't be About as far as subject matter and content, yes.

That is why Administration, management ie. Moderators need and have to show the people what good and bad is within the behavioral norms and standards of this micro culture. It cannot be assumed that everyone has the same values, beliefs, and norms as everyone else when they do not. Thus it cannot be assumed that “everyone” knows how to write and to communicate or behave like the given moderators assume that we know. The premise is good, the assumptions are in error. Communicating the mission or communicating the vision or teaching the group takes some work, some extended exertion of effort to show the people what is good and is bad; what is acceptable and unacceptable in the “game threads”, especially if it might be in conflict or contrary to what are the acceptable norms of the ORG, non-baseball, or minor league postings that have been long accepted norms. I assume that they have not attempted this when they could have simply copied and pasted a number of do’s and don’ts posts from previous game threads, live, real examples, because it might step on someone’s toes, in effect praising some and a becoming a form of ridicule for others. The board needs to get past that for constructive reasons. Those do and don’t type post need to be extracted and used for a clear and concise example of what is acceptable, expected, wanted, and needed in the “game threads” and what is not, before attempting to regulate and to move to punitive measures. Probably all of my posts in game threads, because I am one of those fans who come to “game threads” when I am disappointed, sad, disgusted or frustrated over the Reds and one who shouldn’t be posting that over and over for the consumption of the other readers.

Simply gather up some do and don’t type posts, that are sound and strong examples of things to try and avoid on the game threads. No one needs to be embarrassed or humiliated, leave the poster’s name off of the example post that are used, as examples. Don’t assume and then take some punitive actions until you have done so. The “do” posts simply give the people an idea of what you are really looking and hoping for in the game threads. If you keep blowing that suggestion off Redszone will continue to have problems in the game threads, contrary, the chat accepts posts now that are apparently unacceptable for “game threads” how can that be? What I am saying is that we are trying to correct something in “game threads” that is an acceptable norm in other areas of Redszone. Administration, moderation, leadership is allowing and sending mixed messages or creating double standards that contribute to the problem that they have indicated that they want eliminated. Fine, show the people what is and what is not acceptable in the “game threads”. Most leadership authors will tell us that the leader has to show the people what is good performance, what good performance looks like.

Because, “Everyone has their own ideas about what the GTs should/shouldn't be” clearly “everyone’s idea is not what the administration, moderators, and fellow posters want for the game threads.

I believe that we should refrain from posting in the game threads as an emotional dumping grounds for others to hold our hands during times of disappointments, chagrin, sadness, disgust, frustration or even a natural anger over the poor product and play of the Reds that has long been established. If I understand correctly the game threads are not the place for that, the game threads should not be a place where the cliché that “misery loves company” is well pronounced and expedited.

Personal responsibility, I can contribute and exhibit a willingness to work with the group and to consider the readership by not making such chronic, negative emotional dumping contributions on the game thread and will do so by being reserved and withholding and refraining from such in the new attempt to create a better environment for the reading and participation for others.

I think we can and should ask ourselves and others to try to limit the misery loves company exposes in a never ending redundant manner during game threads. Come on we already know and understand that play stinks, that outcome hurt, and that we have seen it over and over with the Reds, I don’t need to shove it onto your plates, or down the throats of your eyes one more time, the pain or disgust of it has been covered and will continue to be covered in the ORG threads.

The first week of the new game thread should be a walk through and a testing of the new system. Set up the normal game thread, allow the posters to post, have the new moderators on hand to interject for the first week on the board, calling attention to or pointing out the various good posts, and those that are not desirable for the “game threads” endure and tolerate this interjection for the first week of the game threads. Use that first week to establish a quality product for the participants and readership. In that first week train, teach, lay a good foundation for the Redszone community, use the first week to show in real time what the expectations of the game threads are. Posters allow, accept, tolerate, work with, go along with the moderators during that first week and do not take offense when we as a group are trying to make this a better place for each.
After that enforce the code consistently. Go ahead and blow that off, and you will have problems that were not necessary to have to begin with and that could have been reduced if not eliminated.

The first week back to game threads should be utilized in a manner that leads to problem solving and future quality. Moderators, “show the people what good performance looks like” in the game thread department, because the game threads are different from what is acceptable in the other threads, it is not all about positive or negative human behavior, behavior being what people think, say, and do alone. Example: If the minor league game threads are what is sound and good, then tell us, show us. Yes, that is the laborious part of leadership, but it is necessary because of the diverse behaviors that come from the various value and belief systems within people and generations, even within ORG, non-baseball and the minor league standards and acceptable norms.

Another example is the use of “you” statements . And the use of the that “rolling eyes” icon. Get rid of them. They are too easily inferred as condescending and demeaning responses which are not conducive to achieving the goal of improved game threads. That rolling eyes icon has long been an accepted norm and it should not be if you want the group to contribute more constructive input and feedback and not provoke negative behavioral responses.

Don’t attack the message, improve the message with good input/feedback and clarification processes and practices.

TRF
05-10-2008, 06:00 PM
Historically, we've have considerably more rules violations within the game threads than in the non-game threads.

does it matter? If a rule is broken, enforce it. Enforced often enough, couple with some thread closings DURING the game thread should get the message across.

Sorry, aside from adding mods to game threads, I don't see the benefit. What I see is the fostering of the peception that Redszone is over moderated and suppresses ideas. I know that really isn't the case, but that will be the impression.

WVRedsFan
05-10-2008, 06:13 PM
It takes two to tango -- if you have a problem with people being arrogant, then just put them on ignore or don't respond to them.

I've done this for years. It's wonderful. That doesn't mean the next person will. It usually gets into a back and forth and I would think that is what you are trying to avoid, right?


If people want to avoid extended vacations from the forum, they'd better figure out how to discipline themselves pretty quick.

"I was ticked off" doesn't fly as an excuse anywhere else, it shouldn't fly as an excuse here. If you (the general "you") cannot control your emotions enough to follow the forum rules while watching the game, then the game thread probably isn't the place for you.

Nor should it be.


Part of the reason, according to my understanding, that the system wasn't properly utilized was due largely to the fact that moderators weren't always around in the game thread until after things had gotten out of hand. With the additional moderators, hopefully they'll always be at least one mod available to enforce the system that has always been in place.

And I applaud you guys for volunteering to do this. You'll find it's a thankless job (in my seven years as moderator of a message board, I really found that out), but one that someone has to do. When I said it wouldn't work, it was in reference to Jake's comments to 37Red, which he apologized for and realized the reaction from several of us. I appreciate that. I was an early supporter of mods for the GT and still am, I just think you guys need to get together like an umpiring crew and make decisions on what is and what is not an infraction so we have consistency. That's all I ask.

Boss-Hog
05-10-2008, 07:17 PM
does it matter? If a rule is broken, enforce it. Enforced often enough, couple with some thread closings DURING the game thread should get the message across.

Sorry, aside from adding mods to game threads, I don't see the benefit. What I see is the fostering of the peception that Redszone is over moderated and suppresses ideas. I know that really isn't the case, but that will be the impression.
You asked why the punishments for violating rules are a bit different in the game threads; I gave you a straight answer. The types of things that warrant infractions are essentially the same everywhere.

GAC
05-10-2008, 07:18 PM
Sorry, aside from adding mods to game threads, I don't see the benefit. What I see is the fostering of the peception that Redszone is over moderated and suppresses ideas. I know that really isn't the case, but that will be the impression.

I understand where you are coming from TRF; but from my previous exposure/experiences with the GTs, there was very rarely a mod present. And I don't say that as a criticism of those mods either. They are all good guys who volunteered to do the job, yet who also have lives outside of RZ. It's very hard to ask them to spend 2-3 hrs every night watching over a GT, as well as the entire forum to boot.

IMO, there were too few for too many.

I personally don't feel the forum is over-moderated at all. If it had been then we wouldn't have had any problems on the GTs. ;)

TRF
05-10-2008, 09:19 PM
I understand where you are coming from TRF; but from my previous exposure/experiences with the GTs, there was very rarely a mod present. And I don't say that as a criticism of those mods either. They are all good guys who volunteered to do the job, yet who also have lives outside of RZ. It's very hard to ask them to spend 2-3 hrs every night watching over a GT, as well as the entire forum to boot.

IMO, there were too few for too many.

I personally don't feel the forum is over-moderated at all. If it had been then we wouldn't have had any problems on the GTs. ;)

I've repeatedly stated I'm in favor of mods just for GTs. I just don't think the extra rules are necessary. JMO, i just visit here, it ain't my house.

I don't think RZ is over moderated. I'm proud that my son can visit here and I don't have to worry about what he reads. But I've been here 8 years now. I know what this place is. I also know what the perception is on other boards. My hope is that RZ's rep as a place for discussion trumps all other perceptions.

The Baumer
05-10-2008, 10:19 PM
Just finished watching the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated for the first time.

So many parallels.

RFS62
05-10-2008, 10:23 PM
As usual, we overcomplicate things.

The old rules would have worked fine, we just didn't have mods who agreed to read the entire game thread every night and enforce them. That's a big commitment.

Now, they've got the mods to do the job.

Give it a chance before you pass judgment.

37red
05-10-2008, 11:39 PM
I've tried to stay in the background because RedLegJake and I talked about it and every thing worked out fine. Sticking my foot back in the water is a little frightening but here I go. I'll try to express what I think without making any waves, excuse me if I do. I feel the new regulations were tightened too far, the old ones were fine. I also know the mods have worked hard to bring the GT under control, it was a bit out of hand, they are all committed to making it more acceptable, we all know that. Some people feel it should be open to spontaneous reactions, I agree if they are within the same limits on profanity that we already have. I don't give a darn if people throw out a word now and then without an explanation, it's not a commentary. The game thread is different by nature than the Zone commentaries, it IS spontaneous. Some have said that there weren't enough mods to keep a handle on it, no doubt that's the case, I've always wondered how do these guys spend all of their time on the Zone.

If I had anything to add, and this is where the water gets deeper, I still think a single warning before being tossed would be a fair thing to do. The discretion of what is appropriate is fuzzy to me. I think that makes it harder for the mods as well as the posters, thus I feel a single warning per GT, before getting booted, would help everyone get a handle on what is expected. A single warning, just one, before getting removed would give the poster time enough to consider what they said that the moderator objected to. If we give it a couple weeks of tolerance and single warnings, again sticking my foot as well as my head back in murky water, I suggest we start a follow up thread, after a few weeks to this one, and see how everyone feels. I know without question that this may be a bad idea and may need a special moderator just for it, but I also feel that we as a group may see one thing or another is working or not and stick with it. Boy am I asking for trouble or not on that one LOL. One thing that will rub the moderators the wrong way, and I understand this, is that they spent weeks working on what they thought and feel was the right solution to cleaning up the GT.

I can't wait for the reactions to these comments. RedLegJake, would you give me your take on this, in the PM. Anyone else that doesn't want to post in the thread, would you please do the same.

Good Night

SteelSD
05-11-2008, 01:48 AM
As usual, we overcomplicate things.

The old rules would have worked fine, we just didn't have mods who agreed to read the entire game thread every night and enforce them. That's a big commitment.

Now, they've got the mods to do the job.

Give it a chance before you pass judgment.

The "Infractions" system was already set up. It wasn't used and I'd suggest that it wasn't used because no game thread posters really had that much of an issue with what was going on in the game threads. Going beyond that, I honestly can't remember when we haven't had a "Report Post" link for every post that was typed.

If anything is over-complicated, it's killing game threads for a month in order to set up a system to properly enforce something that should have already been enforced.

WVRedsFan
05-11-2008, 02:21 AM
The "Infractions" system was already set up. It wasn't used and I'd suggest that it wasn't used because no game thread posters really had that much of an issue with what was going on in the game threads. Going beyond that, I honestly can't remember when we haven't had a "Report Post" link for every post that was typed.

If anything is over-complicated, it's killing game threads for a month in order to set up a system to properly enforce something that should have already been enforced.

I'll have to say that this year has had less problems as far as the game thread has gone than in past years. That one incident on that fateful night seemed to get the action, for some reason. It was a bad thing, but the two who caused the problem should have been dealt with. That's ancient history, I guess, since it's been 25 days since that infraction.

And I agree with the timeline of how long it took to get things back rolling. I have to admit that I hope the new system of mods can deal with individuals instead of punishing everyone for a few folks' mistakes. I have hope that it will.

jojo
05-11-2008, 08:59 AM
Really, to me, the solution was more mods because monitoring GTs is so labor/time intensive.

Every thing else is basically, "Here's the rules. They're really not any different with the exception that since GTs have been the ORG's biggest source of problems, the mods aren't going to give posters much rope so the rules are spelled out more explicitly".

Boss-Hog
05-11-2008, 09:11 AM
The "Infractions" system was already set up. It wasn't used and I'd suggest that it wasn't used because no game thread posters really had that much of an issue with what was going on in the game threads. Going beyond that, I honestly can't remember when we haven't had a "Report Post" link for every post that was typed.

If anything is over-complicated, it's killing game threads for a month in order to set up a system to properly enforce something that should have already been enforced.
I don't necessarily disagree with most of the things you said, but regarding your comment that no game thread posters had a problem with what was going on, that much is certainly clear, but the site administrators definitely had a problem with seeing personal attacks and general snotiness in the game threads (when we did take a look at them).

All this new policy really means is that we're much better equipped to handle the posts that violate site rules.

Boss-Hog
05-11-2008, 09:13 AM
Really, to me, the solution was more mods because monitoring GTs is so labor/time intensive.

Every thing else is basically, "Here's the rules. They're really not any different with the exception that since GTs have been the ORG's biggest source of problems, the mods aren't going to give posters much rope so the rules are spelled out more explicitly".
That is spot on.

Boss-Hog
05-11-2008, 02:00 PM
All,

Based on feedback offered within this thread, we have added the ability for moderators to issue warnings, rather than infractions, for some of the less offensive violations. By no means are they required to issue a warning before an infraction, particularly if the offense is blatant enough and warrants the latter, but this does create the option of allowing moderators to issue a warning without incrementing a user's infraction level.

Spring~Fields
05-11-2008, 03:52 PM
Really, to me, the solution was more mods because monitoring GTs is so labor/time intensive.



Beyond belief, true

I know that common web sites with good traffic consume a great deal of time to monitor etc., they are like giant sponges in time consumption, one can spend their entire day working on them, monitoring them over and over. I canít imagine the time expenditure monitoring a message board, it has to be even worse than common web sites.

paintmered
05-11-2008, 03:57 PM
Beyond belief, true

I know that common web sites with good traffic consume a great deal of time to monitor etc., they are like giant sponges in time consumption, one can spend their entire day working on them, monitoring them over and over. I can’t imagine the time expenditure monitoring a message board, it has to be even worse than common web sites.

Back when I actually moderated every post of a game thread, it would take me a solid two hours to get through it all. If I moderated the GT in real time, it took even longer (~5 hours to include pre- and post-game). For volunteer work, that's a lot to ask of any moderator every evening.

This is why the I love the report post function so much. It saves us mods all kinds of time as we aren't stuck reading every single post.

Boss-Hog
05-11-2008, 03:58 PM
Back when I actually moderated every post of a game thread, it would take me a solid two hours to get through it all. If I moderated the GT in real time, it took even longer (~5 hours to include pre- and post-game). For volunteer work, that's a lot to ask of any moderator every evening.
Agreed...that's why I think it was important to add five new moderators to that forum.

37red
05-11-2008, 04:08 PM
The change about the warning is excellent. Adding Moderators to the GT is also a very good call.

Spring~Fields
05-11-2008, 04:28 PM
Back when I actually moderated every post of a game thread, it would take me a solid two hours to get through it all. If I moderated the GT in real time, it took even longer (~5 hours to include pre- and post-game). For volunteer work, that's a lot to ask of any moderator every evening.
This is why the I love the report post function so much. It saves us mods all kinds of time as we aren't stuck reading every single post.

I believe that

As a single individual would not even have a life, as chunk of their waking time is consumed.

and then the multiplyer effect with additional labor x time

That is a solid enough reason right there for us posters to really be considerate and to keep a control on ourselves in posting, regardless of the Reds this or that.

I am glad you disclosed that, I will make a better effort to keep a lid on my ......

Addendum:

Another point is that this site is not maintained by large corporations with seemly endless deep pockets and resources, this is not Cincinnati Enquirer, ESPN, CBS, FOX, Yahoo, or MSNBC et el.

This site is maintained by a couple of individuals and volunteers, supported by some concerned members in an attempt to give the rest of us a decent venue to discuss the Reds and other topics on non-baseball.

If some of us as posters continue to make it unduly more difficult for those individuals it would not be any problem for them one day to just make a phone call and to pull the plug on this site, within hours it would disappear.

It is a credit to them, and very generous, that they haven’t said, “who needs this crap” already.

REDREAD
05-12-2008, 06:12 PM
I'm not trying to complain, but it seems a bit odd that the lineup thread was locked, the lineups were cut and pasted on the game thread page (which is also locked) and will then be unlocked at a particular time.

I know the mods want to limit the time that the game thread is open, yet at the same time, it seems reasonable to be able to discuss the lineups as soon as they are available.

I don't know what the answer is, but I hope there can be a little bit more flexiblity than effectively shutting down all conversation about the game other than the specified game thread window opening time...

Again, just an observation, not an attack.. I know I'm free to post elsewhere if I don't like it...

Screwball
05-12-2008, 07:00 PM
I know the mods want to limit the time that the game thread is open, yet at the same time, it seems reasonable to be able to discuss the lineups as soon as they are available.


Agreed, REDREAD. I think this is especially important for those of us that are going to the game and would like to discuss/read about the lineup or pitchers or whatever before they have to leave. I mean, I too understand the desire to limit the amount of moderation required, but even when the lineups were posted some 3 odd hours before game time there would be 2, maybe 3 pages tops consisting of 1 line posts about the lineups. That doesn't seem too cumbersome to me.

Unassisted
05-12-2008, 07:02 PM
It's just the first day, guys. Let them get their ducks in a row for the maiden voyage before you complain. Sheesh!

Spring~Fields
05-12-2008, 07:07 PM
I'm not trying to complain, but it seems a bit odd that the lineup thread was locked, the lineups were cut and pasted on the game thread page (which is also locked) and will then be unlocked at a particular time.

I know the mods want to limit the time that the game thread is open, yet at the same time, it seems reasonable to be able to discuss the lineups as soon as they are available.

I don't know what the answer is, but I hope there can be a little bit more flexiblity than effectively shutting down all conversation about the game other than the specified game thread window opening time...

Again, just an observation, not an attack.. I know I'm free to post elsewhere if I don't like it...

You have a point and a point that could also help keep the clutter down on the new game threads

Lineup discussion is really something different from game threads or game thread participation that should perhaps have it's own discussion place in the ORG and not in the game threads. I mean it makes sense to post the lineup in the game thread as a prelude. But full blown discussions of the lineups pro's and con's probably should be discussed in ORG, otherwise the game thread will start out with 1-3 pages of wading through to look for game content.

Screwball
05-12-2008, 07:09 PM
It's just the first day, guys. Let them get their ducks in a row for the maiden voyage before you complain. Sheesh!

Not trying to tick anybody off, but the game threads were suspended for nearly a month, so there was plenty of time to figure all this out. I don't have a problem letting them know I 'd like to discuss/read about the lineups before I have to leave early to get to the game.

Spring~Fields
05-12-2008, 07:11 PM
Agreed, REDREAD. I think this is especially important for those of us that are going to the game and would like to discuss/read about the lineup or pitchers or whatever before they have to leave. I mean, I too understand the desire to limit the amount of moderation required, but even when the lineups were posted some 3 odd hours before game time there would be 2, maybe 3 pages tops consisting of 1 line posts about the lineups. That doesn't seem too cumbersome to me.


I never thought of people heading off to the game or even work later. I still think that three pages etc should be spent on the ORG to not clutter the opening of the game threads. Especially since we have been hitting the lineups pretty hard with negativity lately and will probably continue until the manager sees fit to comply with us. ;)

Boss-Hog
05-12-2008, 07:20 PM
Not trying to tick anybody off, but the game threads were suspended for nearly a month, so there was plenty of time to figure all this out.

It was figured out.


All game threads will be started by a moderator 15 minutes or so before every game. If starting lineups are posted prior to the 15 minutes, the thread will be locked and be re-opened. Be patient. We'll let you in the gates before the game starts.

If you have something new and insightful to add regarding lineup ideas, you are free to post it in this forum. However, the threads that start three hours before first pitch containing the same old gripes about the lineup du jour are done.

KronoRed
05-12-2008, 07:24 PM
It's just the first day, guys. Let them get their ducks in a row for the maiden voyage before you complain. Sheesh!

That's not RZ, also somehow this is all Adam's fault.:thumbup:

Screwball
05-13-2008, 12:48 AM
If you have something new and insightful to add regarding lineup ideas, you are free to post it in this forum. However, the threads that start three hours before first pitch containing the same old gripes about the lineup du jour are done.

Fair enough. I didn't realize it was a conscious decision rather than an oversight. I still feel like they should be opened earlier than 15 mins. before gametime; but yeah, it's tough to cut down on the lineup gripes otherwise.

I guess the only insightful idea I might have is to move the discussion to chat for those who want to talk about it. Of course chat isn't ideal for response to what other people say (can't quote and you have to be in the room the entire time), but if enough people participate (SDers are obviously welcome too), I think it'd actually become the solution to the problem.

REDREAD
05-13-2008, 11:48 AM
If you have something new and insightful to add regarding lineup ideas, you are free to post it in this forum. However, the threads that start three hours before first pitch containing the same old gripes about the lineup du jour are done.


Ok.. I didn't realize that it was an intentional effort to get the board to stop talking about lineups. If that was the intent, it makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

Boss-Hog
05-13-2008, 05:40 PM
Ok.. I didn't realize that it was an intentional effort to get the board to stop talking about lineups. If that was the intent, it makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
If it was original, thought-provoking material, we obviously wouldn't have any problems with it, but the previous pre-game thread lineup "discussions" added very little to the board, in our collective opinion. It was the same people complaining about the same things each and every day.

REDREAD
05-13-2008, 06:05 PM
If it was original, thought-provoking material, we obviously wouldn't have any problems with it, but the previous pre-game thread lineup "discussions" added very little to the board, in our collective opinion. It was the same people complaining about the same things each and every day.

I can see that point.. I didn't mean to sound sarcastic in my reply.

Boss-Hog
05-13-2008, 06:12 PM
I can see that point.. I didn't mean to sound sarcastic in my reply.
No problem...you didn't.

RedsMan3203
05-19-2008, 02:51 PM
Well its been sometime since i've been on RZ or even posted for that matter....

But here is my lone suggestion for the GT.

Make it a pay service.

paintmered
05-19-2008, 06:37 PM
Well its been sometime since i've been on RZ or even posted for that matter....

But here is my lone suggestion for the GT.

Make it a pay service.

We've been down that road before to ugly results. RZ turned into a civil war between the "haves" and the "have nots".