PDA

View Full Version : The Future Section



Sea Ray
10-21-2010, 11:13 AM
I've noticed that voting for ORG status often takes more than a month. Anyone think that's a problem? For that reason I try to always make an effort to cast a vote. Such a system depends on its members to participate and if they don't (and our members clearly aren't participating) then it doesn't work.

In a perfect world more members would vote but that's not happenin'.

Are you folks OK with this wait as a necessary evil or should this be changed? Thoughts?

Boss-Hog
10-21-2010, 12:23 PM
Yes, I agree with you it's a problem, but we can't (or won't) "force" people to vote. If there's not enough interest in the discussion and/or voting, I'm not sure what else we can do other than to patiently wait and post reminders. What kind of change(s) did you have in mind that stays within the existing site structure?

Redsfan320
10-21-2010, 01:41 PM
Honestly, I'm not sure what we can do, but I do agree it's a problem.

Lower the minimum votes needed, maybe?

320

Screwball
10-21-2010, 02:04 PM
Yes, I agree with you it's a problem, but we can't (or won't) "force" people to vote. If there's not enough interest in the discussion and/or voting, I'm not sure what else we can do other than to patiently wait and post reminders. What kind of change(s) did you have in mind that stays within the existing site structure?

Go with M2's idea from back in the day. Elect a panel of 10-12 motivated members to be the representatives for the ORG. They and they alone will vote on each prospective member after an ORG-wide discussion period (which we have now), with 75% (e.g., 9 out of 12) approval needed for a member to be voted in.

Redsfan320
10-21-2010, 02:31 PM
Screwball, this is a good idea. I can certainly think of some posters who could handle this.

320

New York Red
10-21-2010, 03:24 PM
My personal opinion is, if you've been here long enough to build a reputation as a respectful poster, you should be good to go. I love reading the ORG board. I will never have the inside knowledge many of the ORG posters have, or the time it would take to do the statistical research many of you seem to have at your fingertips. But I'm a lifelong Reds fan and it'd be great to be able to join in the various discussions that take place on that board. Especially now that the Reds season has ended and the Sundeck board is slowing down. I respect the rules of this site and I believe seperate boards is a good idea, because it weeds out the troublemakers, posers, snipers, etc. However, I do feel it's a bit too difficult to reach ORG status. Great site though; I'm definitely here for the long haul - even if that means being a Sundecker for life. We have many, many good posters there too.

:beerme:

dougdirt
10-21-2010, 03:28 PM
I will say that I am strongly opposed to a panel of a few select people making the decisions. I am against voting on the issue in general, we are all here to talk baseball and it seems silly to me that we can't all interact with one another while talking about the Reds, just the farm system and 'other stuff'.

If we are going to keep the 'voting' process open though, I do think we should just lower the number of total votes required since a lot of people simply aren't voting.

Boss-Hog
10-21-2010, 04:38 PM
While I respect everyone's opinions on the matter, please let me make it clear that this thread is not going to be used to discuss the merits of the current site setup (i.e. having the ORG and Sun Deck forums). We've been there, done that hundreds of times over. It should be used strictly to discuss the topic mentioned in the original post (improving the current discussion/voting procedures).

Screwball
10-21-2010, 05:38 PM
I will say that I am strongly opposed to a panel of a few select people making the decisions.

Of course you are. You've admittedly voted yes to every poster up for a vote, regardless if their post history warrants it or not. Electing a panel would take away your mini protest of the current site setup.

Boss, the current process has worked for a while, but with all the new posters that, frankly, simply blend together, the voting has become too cumbersome. I don't have the time nor the inclination to sift through numerous thoughtless Sun Deck posts to form an educated opinion on a prospective member, so instead of just voting 'yes' or 'no' for everyone, I abstain. I'm guessing many others do likewise for the same reasons.

Electing (or appointing) a panel of 12 or so takes care of that. We would have a core group of self-motivated posters that took the time to review each candidate thoroughly and fairly, and would be able to render a sound and objective verdict relatively quickly. There can still be a discussion period for all of the ORG to give his or her opinion if they still want, but there isn't the lag time afterwards that keeps the prospective member in limbo. Win-win if you ask me.

I liked the idea way back when and I like it even more now. Really, the hardest part would be getting the right group together for the panel. But, I'm sure we could work out any problems along the way.

Redsfan320
10-21-2010, 05:55 PM
Really, the hardest part would be getting the right group together for the panel. But, I'm sure we could work out any problems along the way.

I think a nominate-and-vote thing (ironic, isn't it?) could have this taken care of in a month.

320

Brutus
10-21-2010, 06:38 PM
Count me against a panel. If we're going to have a voting process, and clearly that's the direction the site has decided in favor of, then let's keep it open to all members.

I like the idea, if we're going to segregate the two forums, of deciding who we are going to converse with. I don't like the idea of a select few people deciding that for us.

I strongly oppose the panel. Maybe if we have a panel to make nominations, that would weed out some of the ones that are unlikely to get many yes votes. Then it would cut down on the amount of voting and discussion we have to make. I guess I'd be OK with that.

But give we the people the final vote.

Screwball
10-21-2010, 06:51 PM
But give we the people the final vote.

We already have. They're not voting. Hence the thread.

Brutus
10-21-2010, 07:52 PM
We already have. They're not voting. Hence the thread.

It's working, just not as quickly as people want. The issue isn't whether or not the current process works, just a matter of can it be modified.

Sea Ray
10-21-2010, 09:34 PM
While I respect everyone's opinions on the matter, please let me make it clear that this thread is not going to be used to discuss the merits of the current site setup (i.e. having the ORG and Sun Deck forums). We've been there, done that hundreds of times over. It should be used strictly to discuss the topic mentioned in the original post (improving the current discussion/voting procedures).

I understand you're committed to the current model so with that in mind, my suggestion would be to keep it simple. Don't set up a new panel or anything. Too much hassle. Let the current MODs serve as "the Panel". MODs can decide who gets kicked off so I have no problem with them deciding who's accepted. When someone applies, you folks send PMs back and forth and come to a decision, seamlessly. The rest of us need not know the applicant was even being considered.

I'm fine with leaving the system like it is. It's no skin off my back but it seems a bit cumbersome.

Screwball
10-22-2010, 12:37 AM
It's working, just not as quickly as people want. The issue isn't whether or not the current process works, just a matter of can it be modified.

Two things:

A.) What I'm suggesting is a modification. A new member still joins the Sun Deck first, still puts in his time there, and still comes up to a vote to determine whether he'll join the ORG or not. All I'm just suggesting (or re-suggeting, actually, as this isn't my original idea) is we change who votes on him since it's become painfully obvious over the last several votes that apathy has set in with the vast majority of ORG. I mean, my goodness, Boss needs to send out 4 and 5 'reminders' just to get 1/6th of the ORG to vote on it's own new initiates.

B.) I'd posit it isn't working. I even had a long-winded paragraph typed up saying why. But rather than subject you to that, I'll just ask this: where's Steel? and M2? Stormy? RedlegJake? Hell, even Cyclone barely posts anymore. Perhaps it's just a coincidence the site's best posters have all decided to rarely post, or worse yet have left altogether. Or maybe it's a glaring sign something ain't right and needs changed.


I understand you're committed to the current model so with that in mind, my suggestion would be to keep it simple. Don't set up a new panel or anything. Too much hassle. Let the current MODs serve as "the Panel". MODs can decide who gets kicked off so I have no problem with them deciding who's accepted. When someone applies, you folks send PMs back and forth and come to a decision, seamlessly. The rest of us need not know the applicant was even being considered.

I considered that as well, but my thinking is that it'd be just another pain in the ass for them to have to deal with. They already donate enough time moderating the board, I don't think they should be expected to carry the onus of thoroughly researching, discussing, and voting on prospective members as well. Of course, if they'd want to do it, have at it. But a seperate group would probably make things easier on all involved.

Brutus
10-22-2010, 04:27 AM
Two things:

A.) What I'm suggesting is a modification. A new member still joins the Sun Deck first, still puts in his time there, and still comes up to a vote to determine whether he'll join the ORG or not. All I'm just suggesting (or re-suggeting, actually, as this isn't my original idea) is we change who votes on him since it's become painfully obvious over the last several votes that apathy has set in with the vast majority of ORG. I mean, my goodness, Boss needs to send out 4 and 5 'reminders' just to get 1/6th of the ORG to vote on it's own new initiates.

I understand that. But perhaps we lower the number of votes needed? Or perhaps if we don't get the votes after a week, we go ahead with the vote as is? There are some people that take the voting seriously. I'll confess to not checking it as often as I could, but I do make an attempt to vote on every poll, and believe I've probably come close to doing so. It's probably a case where a lot of people just don't have a reason to check that board very often, so forget about going over to vote on it.

I think if we lowered the minimum vote amount, gave it one week for each poll, and perhaps let the mods do a preliminary "yes" or "no" on prospects, then we'd be A) voting on people that already were filtered and B) in a system that was quicker and easier on people.


B.) I'd posit it isn't working. I even had a long-winded paragraph typed up saying why. But rather than subject you to that, I'll just ask this: where's Steel? and M2? Stormy? RedlegJake? Hell, even Cyclone barely posts anymore. Perhaps it's just a coincidence the site's best posters have all decided to rarely post, or worse yet have left altogether. Or maybe it's a glaring sign something ain't right and needs changed.

Boards change. I have never seen a message board where the same people stay around forever. Folks come and go. Those people are probably not around for many, many reasons, but I doubt very much how we vote on newcomers to the ORG is one of them.

Still, if we need to let a select few individuals decide on who gets in to appease some old-time posters, then perhaps the problem isn't with the system it's with the individuals. But as I said, I truly don't believe our voting process has much to do with why they're gone.

It's impossible to keep any community exactly the same. It changes with the times. Even if you keep processes similar, you're going to have turnover. It's understandable that we're talking about changing the voting process, but I don't think taking the vote out of the members' hands is the way to go.

Screwball
10-22-2010, 08:42 AM
Boards change. I have never seen a message board where the same people stay around forever. Folks come and go. Those people are probably not around for many, many reasons, but I doubt very much how we vote on newcomers to the ORG is one of them.

Still, if we need to let a select few individuals decide on who gets in to appease some old-time posters, then perhaps the problem isn't with the system it's with the individuals. But as I said, I truly don't believe our voting process has much to do with why they're gone.

It's impossible to keep any community exactly the same. It changes with the times. Even if you keep processes similar, you're going to have turnover. It's understandable that we're talking about changing the voting process, but I don't think taking the vote out of the members' hands is the way to go.

This isn't about some trivial aspect of a message board. It's not about keeping a community exactly the same. And it sure as hell isn't about appeasing some old-time posters. This is about a system that serves as the lifeblood of the community. A system that's, unfortunately, proven to be flawed. You say you don't think taking the vote out of the members' hands is the way to go. I say when only 10-15% care enough to bother voting, they've taken the vote out of their own hands.

As for the members that left - sure, it could be for any reason. I'd argue how things went after the implementation of the current voting process had a heck of a lot more to do with it than you believe, but in the end it's only speculation, or at best circumstantial eveidence. So I won't argue that.

But what I can't believe is how nonchalant you are about losing them. Maybe you weren't around to read their thoughts and haven't checked the archives. But trust me, they weren't just any posters. They were giants. It's the Reds losing Votto. The Cardinals losing Pujols. The Colts losing Manning. All without getting anything in return. Posters like those guys made Redszone special, and believe it or not you should try to keep people like them around, even if it comes across as "appeasing the old-timers."

As I was reading through some of the archives from when we went to tORG and Sun Deck, I was pretty amazed at the passion and fervor so many had. It spawned four threads (that I know of) and ~2,000 posts. One of which proved to be prophetic. Dated 6/27/2007:


I think once the old familiar names get accepted, the SD will largely be forgotten, thus rendering the ORG an undynamic pool of the same thinkers.

Cf. vote counts for early candidates vs. current batch. My guess is that eventually, the minimum will have to be moved down to 25 votes because the ORG members will simply have no idea who the nominees are. It's already happening, but it will only get worse over time.

Sea Ray
10-22-2010, 08:56 AM
But what I can't believe is how nonchalant you are about losing them. Maybe you weren't around to read their thoughts and haven't checked the archives. But trust me, they weren't just any posters. They were giants. It's the Reds losing Votto. The Cardinals losing Pujols. The Colts losing Manning. All without getting anything in return. Posters like those guys made Redszone special, and believe it or not you should try to keep people like them around, even if it comes across as "appeasing the old-timers."



I'll just say I strongly disagree and leave it at that...

westofyou
10-22-2010, 09:19 AM
Some people lose interest in the Reds or chatting about the same things over and over and over again. (M2)

Some likely are in a space of their life where the game doesn't eat that much of their pie and chat boards fall to the wayside, (Stormy, Cyclone)

Others perhaps got tired of repeating themselves to the myriad of new folks who show up with the same ideas that were refuted 19 months ago.

No voting aspect brings people back, if anything they care about the voting process as much as I do. Which is very little.

Screwball
10-22-2010, 09:42 AM
Some people lose interest in the Reds or chatting about the same things over and over and over again. (M2)

Some likely are in a space of their life where the game doesn't eat that much of their pie and chat boards fall to the wayside, (Stormy, Cyclone)

Others perhaps got tired of repeating themselves to the myriad of new folks who show up with the same ideas that were refuted 19 months ago.

No voting aspect brings people back, if anything they care about the voting process as much as I do. Which is very little.

Yes, I know. You've made sure to remind us of that every time a discussion like this comes up.

I don't know Cyclone all that well, never met him outside of Redszone. But going from his posts (and age) I'd be confident saying he doesn't fall into the above category.

As for M2 and the others (emphasis on the others), well that's exactly what I'm getting at. They got tired of repeating themselves and the tedious discussions. Perhaps a different entrance process for NIs would've changed that. Perhaps it still can, at least with the members still around.

And let me make this clear, because I think my point is getting lost. I'm not looking to change a process to bring anyone back. I'm not deluded enough to think that'd ever work. The whole reason I brought them up in the first place is to evidence the fact I don't think the current process is working. Short of a major overhaul, I think a committee of level-headed folks would be the best line of action to cure our current voting problem, as well as going back to raising the high standard it should take to get into the ORG.

But hey, I could be wrong. They all could've left for completely unrelated reasons, and dropping the threshold of minimum votes is all we need to do. And that's not to be read sarcastically - I've certainly been out in left field before. But, given the current circumstances, I'm not sure how a constructive change couldn't help.

westofyou
10-22-2010, 09:52 AM
Yes, I know. You've made sure to remind us of that every time a discussion like this comes up.

Yep, because talking about baseball is more important to me than studying the merits of other peoples reason for coming to RZ.

No harm in that and if I want to stress that point every time someone brings up any sort of change to the system (which is one of the top 3 memes in RZ history) I will.

Screwball
10-22-2010, 10:15 AM
Yep, because talking about baseball is more important to me than studying the merits of other peoples reason for coming to RZ.


And yet, just two posts above, you speculate on poster's reasons for not coming to Redszone. I guess that's okay though.



No harm in that and if I want to stress that point every time someone brings up any sort of change to the system (which is one of the top 3 memes in RZ history) I will.

Sweet. Look forward to it.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit chippy and this is getting off topic. I wanted to lend a possible solution to the current problem, and I've done that. I've heard two voices of agreement, and two (firm) dissenting ones. If anybody else wants to give their thoughts on a panel, please do so, otherwise it's tough for the discussion to really go anywhere.

westofyou
10-22-2010, 10:30 AM
And yet, just two posts above, you speculate on poster's reasons for not coming to Redszone. I guess that's okay though.


In some cases it's not speculation.

And yep, you're getting a bit chippy.

I'm a big boy I can deal with it.

Roy Tucker
10-22-2010, 11:29 AM
There is a defacto panel. Its the people that have the inclination to vote.

westofyou
10-22-2010, 11:32 AM
There is a defacto panel. Its the people that have the inclination to vote.

Pretty much my take, I don't have a problem with the time it takes for the process, nor the process and in hindsight it's probably the most successful of all the ways that it's been approached.

reds1869
10-22-2010, 12:28 PM
There is a defacto panel. Its the people that have the inclination to vote.

Yes indeed. It is really no different than any other form of ballot box decision making. Not all of those who are eligible to vote for government office do so, why would the internet be any different?

Roy Tucker
10-22-2010, 01:41 PM
Yes indeed. It is really no different than any other form of ballot box decision making. Not all of those who are eligible to vote for government office do so, why would the internet be any different?

And I bet if you looked at who voted for each candidate, its the same core group of people over time.

I'm sure its a pain in the neck to Boss to prod people to vote (and I thank him for that), but besides that and it taking a while during the doldrums of the baseball season, this all seems to work.

Brutus
10-22-2010, 02:53 PM
This isn't about some trivial aspect of a message board. It's not about keeping a community exactly the same. And it sure as hell isn't about appeasing some old-time posters. This is about a system that serves as the lifeblood of the community. A system that's, unfortunately, proven to be flawed. You say you don't think taking the vote out of the members' hands is the way to go. I say when only 10-15% care enough to bother voting, they've taken the vote out of their own hands.

As for the members that left - sure, it could be for any reason. I'd argue how things went after the implementation of the current voting process had a heck of a lot more to do with it than you believe, but in the end it's only speculation, or at best circumstantial eveidence. So I won't argue that.

But what I can't believe is how nonchalant you are about losing them. Maybe you weren't around to read their thoughts and haven't checked the archives. But trust me, they weren't just any posters. They were giants. It's the Reds losing Votto. The Cardinals losing Pujols. The Colts losing Manning. All without getting anything in return. Posters like those guys made Redszone special, and believe it or not you should try to keep people like them around, even if it comes across as "appeasing the old-timers."

As I was reading through some of the archives from when we went to tORG and Sun Deck, I was pretty amazed at the passion and fervor so many had. It spawned four threads (that I know of) and ~2,000 posts. One of which proved to be prophetic. Dated 6/27/2007:

I was around during the rep system, and before the board split, when many of those folks were still here, and I remember what kind of a disaster that system was. This system puts it to shame.

I do remember those posters. I got here around 2003 and was around until 2005 or 2006 the first time around before losing my password in a computer crash and wound up going on hiatus before re-registering under my now current screen name. I appreciated the contributions of several of those (I credit a discussion with Cyclone that first interested me in Sabermetrics after he respectfully suggested I run correlation tests to see things for myself. I did and it changed the way I viewed things) and as for a few others... well, that's not important. Suffice to say, I respected some of them, but this is a place for discussion and opinions, and there's never a shortage of that.

But you've admitted that the system likely didn't chase them off nor would it bring them back. So I'm not sure what they have to do with how we vote. Perhaps you're correct that we have a flawed system. But how would putting the vote in the hands of 10-12 posters be any less flawed? It would still be bringing in new posters, some good some not as much, and the ones that do vote would not have a say in the matter. I just don't see how that helps any.

I'm not debating whether or not we could (or even should) make changes, but I'm just not seeing how going directly to a panel does much to change anything. I especially just don't see the connection to those aforementioned folks being gone.

edabbs44
10-22-2010, 08:17 PM
Instead of having a continuous stream of candidates, what about having periodic classes where the candidates need to meet certain criteria? I don't vote all that much but when I have lately I've seen responses like "He only has 3 posts in the last 2 years, but they were quality so I'll say yes." Kind of ridiculous. Maybe approving a certain number per quarter in a concentrated fashion will keep more members involved.

Just a thought.

Danny Serafini
10-23-2010, 12:26 AM
I have to say, I hate the idea of a panel. How can someone represent me when they don't know what it is I'm looking for in a prospective poster? Most of the time I try and review the person and vote, although there are a few times when I won't, simply because it doesn't matter to me how the vote goes. I'm willing to accept what the rest of the forum wants. But even though my voting record isn't 100%, I want that option to vote instead of having that put in someone else's hands. I can accept the very rare occasions (in fact I can't think of one) where I vote no and the majority votes yes, because at least I had my say. Besides, the idea of an esteemed panel may sound good, but there have been times where I've seen intelligent posters whose opinions I respect post some mind-boggling reasons for voting no on someone. I just don't see that as a good solution.

As far as what to do now, my best suggestion is to cut the voting off at a week, and whatever the numbers are, they are. I know the number of voters isn't where it should be, but to leave these prospective ORG members hang in limbo for a month or more just feels wrong. If people haven't voted within a week, they're probably not going to bother, so just go with what you have.

dougdirt
10-23-2010, 01:38 PM
As far as what to do now, my best suggestion is to cut the voting off at a week, and whatever the numbers are, they are. I know the number of voters isn't where it should be, but to leave these prospective ORG members hang in limbo for a month or more just feels wrong. If people haven't voted within a week, they're probably not going to bother, so just go with what you have.

I like this idea if we are keeping things to a vote.

Defacto
10-23-2010, 02:01 PM
I think lowering the amount of votes(but still have the same percent needed to gain access to tORG) would be fine.

Degenerate39
10-23-2010, 06:17 PM
Just keep the voting thread open until there's enough votes

Ron Madden
10-23-2010, 06:46 PM
Just keep the voting thread open until there's enough votes

I think this is the best way to go.

redsfandan
11-23-2010, 07:51 AM
Just keep the voting thread open until there's enough votes

I think this is the best way to go.

When I was voted into the ORG it took exactly one week from the time my poll started to when I found out that I was in. We currently have a member whose poll will have been up exactly 6 weeks come Wednesday (11/24).


It's working, just not as quickly as people want. The issue isn't whether or not the current process works, just a matter of can it be modified.
Gee, Brutus, how long should it take?

I don't mean any disrespect towards Brutus or anyone else. I understand that some polls take longer than others. And I know some will say that for the privilige of becoming an ORG member they should be willing to wait while the esteemed members of the ORG decide their fate. But, how long is a reasonable amount of time for these people to have to wait for an answer? 2 months?!?

It's been a month since the last post in this thread. And not only have things not gotten any better but they might've gotten worse. Wow, that's progress.

I don't know what the answer is but I just know that it might actually be worthwhile to tweek the voting process.

Unassisted
11-26-2010, 10:28 PM
Here's an out-of-the-box idea for a fix. Maybe if there were some threads in that forum discussing something other than voting we'd be inclined to open it more often?

I guess those threads not discussing votes need to have universal appeal. How about a weekly prize thread where you have to post in the thread to be entered into the weekly drawing? That'd be a carrot that would get people into that forum more often than once a month.

jojo
11-28-2010, 11:55 AM
Is it possible that a lack of participation for a potential member is a sign that their posting history hasn't generated enough enthusiasm to motivate votes one way or the other? There have been a number of discussion threads where the few actual comments were akin to "well nothing jumps out as a problem". The way the current system is set up, abstaining has meaning.

kaldaniels
11-28-2010, 07:30 PM
What was the deal with the rep/negging setup that used to be here. If wanting current Zoners to participate is the goal...that is the way to go.

Its a 2 way street.

If you must vote someone in to the ORG...you aren't going to get that many current Zoners to help the process.

If you do the rep system, more participation is involved with the drawback of letting some dreck slide thru before they are negged to another galaxy.

I'm of the let them in until they show they don't belong camp myself, but it's not my message board.

Mario-Rijo
11-28-2010, 07:50 PM
I believe that the major reason for the delay is people simply forget to vote, or won't take the time to vote even if they remember because they don't really care. Not alot can be done about those who don't wanna vote so we need only concentrate on the former.

Keep it the way it is with one Caveat. Add a deadline for when the vote gets moved to the ORG (after 2 or 3 weeks). Add a sticky on the ORG when this happens allowing for the vote to continue. In order to keep it confidential you assign a number to each Votee when they are 1st put up for vote so if they have to be moved to the ORG for a vote the heading isn't their board name but their number only.

Example:

(On the Future board)
princeton (#1) is up for nomination
M2 (#2) is up for nomination
Screwball (#3) is up for nomination

(On ORG)
*Sticky - #2 still needs X number of votes - vote here (refer to the future board for the name associated with this number)

Sea Ray
11-29-2010, 04:12 PM
Is it possible that a lack of participation for a potential member is a sign that their posting history hasn't generated enough enthusiasm to motivate votes one way or the other? There have been a number of discussion threads where the few actual comments were akin to "well nothing jumps out as a problem". The way the current system is set up, abstaining has meaning.

Jojo, that's the point of this thread. Most Redszoners don't care to vote on new members and that's why it's taking so long. Abstaining has meaning and the result is a longer process.

Simply put, should we continue with a voting system for induction when most of its members don't want to vote for whatever reason?

Boss-Hog
11-29-2010, 04:50 PM
Moving forward, I think we'll set a cap on the voting length at a month. At that point, GIK and I will take the current voting results into account, along with a review of the candidate's posts, and make a final decision in the interests of reaching a conclusion. Thank you for everyone's input.

wolfboy
11-29-2010, 08:14 PM
I care. I rarely vote though. To be honest, I just don't have the time to sift through pages of posts.

TRF
11-30-2010, 04:24 PM
I almost never vote. Probably because I almost never read the SunDeck. I don't know them, so I don't vote for them.

To be honest, I don't see the problem at all with how it is done now. I don't know all there is to know about baseball, but I find I am less interested in stats beyond OPS for hitters and WHIP for pitchers. For fielding, I use my eyes.

So what is a poster from the SunDeck going to tell me? just more noise as they quote the poster ahead of him/her agreeing/disagreeing. (Did it myself in the 2011 HOF thread). I'm not losing interest in RZ, but i want better conversation. I don't think new members necessarily lends to that. So the speed of new members entering, or lack thereof does not bother me a bit.

And why the rush to escape the SunDeck anyway? you get to a place where you can discuss this thing you love, you make friends, then you leave knowing most of them won't be joining you anytime soon. Yeah, there are some buffoons in there. ORG has a few too.