PDA

View Full Version : Possible ORG/Sun Deck Merge - Are you in Favor?



Pages : [1] 2

Boss-Hog
07-21-2012, 11:14 AM
All,

GIK and I have recently spoken and are considering merging the Old Red Guard and Sun Deck forums into one forum and want to get your thoughts on the idea (whether via a vote or response to this post). If we do decide to do this, please be well aware the forum would be run using current ORG moderation guidelines (i.e. stricter than the Sun Deck has historically been). If anyone cannot adapt to those rules, they would be subject to disciplinary measures up to a permanent ban from the site. Additionally, please note that the results of these polls will not necessarily determine if we make the change - we simply want to measure the level of interest.

Tommyjohn25
07-21-2012, 11:14 AM
This is gonna be a long thread. Lol!

alexad
07-21-2012, 11:22 AM
I think there are some good topics in the Sun Deck. I read both forums and would enjoy the opportunity to respond Sun Deck members. We are all Reds Fans or we would not be on here.

Set the rules and if we can't all be mature Fans then boot them and we carry on.

traderumor
07-21-2012, 11:46 AM
I have accidentally entered the Sun Deck game threads thinking that I was entering the ORG game threads. All I can say is that the type of posting going on in the Sun Deck game threads is similar to what folks over here were mocking on the stl.today forums.

With that said, the separation of the two has not seemed to raise the level of discourse on the ORG board, which was the intended purpose. So perhaps the rejoining of the two will revive the Board into one of the best on the internet as it was.

Ironically, the board was best when the team was bad, and vice versa.

jojo
07-21-2012, 11:52 AM
I think the forums need to undergo renovation or there needs to be a way to allow more people to enter the ORG.

IMHO, the quality of discussion in the ORG would benefit by allowing new voices to also contribute.

traderumor
07-21-2012, 11:55 AM
Let me add a suggestion if the idea is improving the board: reaching out to folks who left the board for one reason or another, whether they were banned or otherwise. I'm thinking of folks like SteelSD, Falls City Beer, Princeton, Creek, Rosie Red...the place is not better without them. We all can be abrasive at times, even to the point of annoyance and needing disciplined. The funny thing is that I grappled with these folks over many issues, but they made me think about my positions, and sometimes I changed them because I was wrong. If it is folks who were banned for "fighting," give them a short rope.

RedsManRick
07-21-2012, 12:01 PM
I think the forums need to undergo renovation or there needs to be a way to allow more people to enter the ORG.

IMHO, the quality of discussion in the ORG would benefit by allowing new voices to also contribute.

I voted no, but I agree with this. Even something like a review after the posters first 20 posts or something. More voices would be good, but not unfettered access.

Raisor
07-21-2012, 12:04 PM
Yes

PuffyPig
07-21-2012, 12:13 PM
Ironically, the board was best when the team was bad, and vice versa.


That's because when the team is going bad the bandwagon jumpers are gone, and the more serious fans stay.

Winning always brings out the more casual fan who expect winning as a matter of course.

I'm not sure if there is actually that much difference between the two boards, they are largely unreadable anway. If you sift through a game thread where we actually win, 80-90% of the posts are usually negative.

savafan
07-21-2012, 12:24 PM
I love the idea. Sure, I could see more headaches at first, but I agree that the board was at its best when we had more voices sharing in the discussion.

WVRedsFan
07-21-2012, 12:33 PM
There is a big difference in what is posted about and the general tone of the posters between SD and ORG. I see gross negativity in the SD, but all I see on the ORG is worrying. I don't believe it's negative to worry abut what is going to happen in a specific situation out loud, because that's what fans do, but consider last night's game thread over in the SD where the debate went on about Jay Bruce hitting bottom after he had just gone 2-3 with a HR and a double or the one saying Jay wasn't young anymore and I think you'll see the difference.

I voted no, but I do think we could ease the process for entering into the ORG just a bit.

nate
07-21-2012, 12:34 PM
This might be impossible but if there's a way to implement poster-level "community policing" that won't be abused (and this should be the case even without merging the two forums), that would be super.

And develop faster than light travel and personal jetpacks, please.

:cool:

AtomicDumpling
07-21-2012, 12:36 PM
Maybe there could be an arrangement where ORG posters are allowed to make say 20 posts per week in the Sun Deck? Sun Deck posters could make 10 posts per week in the ORG. Get some cross-pollination going. It gives us an opportunity to get introduced to the newer members and vice versa. It would help us determine who is a good candidate to come to the ORG and it would allow the ORG members to set a good example for the SunDeckers (hopefully) so they can see the ORG standards in action.

Some fresh opinions help get the conversation going. Adding a few banana phone callers into this stale environment might do wonders to unite us bickering old regulars to "educate" the newbies that have not yet been indoctrinated/brainwashed. :p

(By the way, I am not saying that SunDeckers are like banana phone callers.)

The standard for admission to the ORG could be lowered with the idea of only keeping out the wackos and blowhards but allowing any sane person entry. Entry into the ORG should be based on the poster's civility rather than his opinions or understanding of baseball.

Boss-Hog
07-21-2012, 12:36 PM
This might be impossible but if there's a way to implement poster-level "community policing" that won't be abused (and this should be the case even without merging the two forums), that would be super.
Can you please expand on that little? I think we briefly discussed this in another thread, but you don't have something like the old reputation system in mind, right?

Boss-Hog
07-21-2012, 12:38 PM
Maybe there could be an arrangement where ORG posters are allowed to make say 20 posts per week in the Sun Deck? Sun Deck posters could make 10 posts per week in the ORG. Get some cross-pollination going. It gives us an opportunity to get introduced to the newer members and vice versa. It would help us determine who is a good candidate to come to the ORG and it would allow the ORG members to set a good example for the SunDeckers (hopefully) so they can see the ORG standards in action.

Some fresh opinions help get the conversation going. Adding a few banana phone callers into this stale environment might do wonders to unite us bickering old regulars to "educate" the newbies that have not yet been indoctrinated/brainwashed. :p

(By the way, I am not saying that SunDeckers are like banana phone callers.)

The standard for admission to the ORG could be lowered with the idea of only keeping out the wackos and blowhards but allowing any sane person entry. Entry into the ORG should be based on the poster's civility rather than his opinions or understanding of baseball.
The posting limit is not a bad idea, but I don't believe there's anything we can do within the vB software to allow for those restrictions.

Raisor
07-21-2012, 12:40 PM
This might be impossible but if there's a way to implement poster-level "community policing" that won't be abused (and this should be the case even without merging the two forums), that would be super.

And develop faster than light travel and personal jetpacks, please.

:cool:

It is 2012. Where. Is. My. Flying. Car?

powersackers
07-21-2012, 12:41 PM
Thanks for soliciting our feedback. Leaning towards a no vote. The value of posts in the ORG is better to me. I don't care to sift through posts from people who haven't invested their time into earning ORG privileges.

AtomicDumpling
07-21-2012, 12:42 PM
It is 2012. Where. Is. My. Flying. Car?

Your car can fly now. Unfortunately it can only fly downward.

WVRedsFan
07-21-2012, 12:48 PM
Let me add a suggestion if the idea is improving the board: reaching out to folks who left the board for one reason or another, whether they were banned or otherwise. I'm thinking of folks like SteelSD, Falls City Beer, Princeton, Creek, Rosie Red...the place is not better without them. We all can be abrasive at times, even to the point of annoyance and needing disciplined. The funny thing is that I grappled with these folks over many issues, but they made me think about my positions, and sometimes I changed them because I was wrong. If it is folks who were banned for "fighting," give them a short rope.I like this idea a lot, but some or most of those mentioned above left because of the arrogance of some posters here either toward them or toward others. I miss the above and include Stormy and others. I know people still on the board who still read but do not post because of the fear of being put down or called out by other members.

savafan
07-21-2012, 12:50 PM
Can there be restrictions placed on ability to start a thread? I don't have any specific idea, more or less just birthed the thought in my head, but perhaps a certain length of time after registering, or a certain number of posts (though that could be abused with mass meaningless posts) before a user can start a thread, though they can reply to threads no matter what?

WVRedsFan
07-21-2012, 12:52 PM
Can there be restrictions placed on ability to start a thread? I don't have any specific idea, more or less just birthed the thought in my head, but perhaps a certain length of time after registering, or a certain number of posts (though that could be abused with mass meaningless posts) before a user can start a thread, though they can reply to threads no matter what?They do this on many forums--Crackberry and iMore come to mind. Might be a good idea.

Boss-Hog
07-21-2012, 12:54 PM
Can there be restrictions placed on ability to start a thread? I don't have any specific idea, more or less just birthed the thought in my head, but perhaps a certain length of time after registering, or a certain number of posts (though that could be abused with mass meaningless posts) before a user can start a thread, though they can reply to threads no matter what?

I THINK we could rig something up to do that, but I'm not 100% positive. If enough people like this idea, I'd be happy to look into it.

nate
07-21-2012, 01:03 PM
Can you please expand on that little? I think we briefly discussed this in another thread, but you don't have something like the old reputation system in mind, right?

It was half-joking because these systems tend to turn into a popularity contest.

If it was possible within VBulletin to implement some sort of rep system weighted with things like:

number of posts
number of new threads started
number of people ignoring you
number of infractions

...and the "rep" was more a badge than a number, it might work.

However, that's convoluted and difficult.

It's probably better to do like Facebook and simply have a "like" button. If you want to prevent abuse, give everyone the ability to "like" post/thread once a week.

Or just merge and make it Thunderdome.

What's going to be easiest for the mods? You know which of the various systems successful and which haven't. What would you guys like to see happen?

I'm sure there's a lot of sausage making that goes into this.

Blitz Dorsey
07-21-2012, 01:04 PM
I voted "No" because the thing that separates the ORG from all other Reds message boards is that not just anyone can post here. It's like a VIP club of Reds' diehards. I think the answer is finding more quality posters from the Sun Deck and adding them to the ORG, rather than just merging the two boards. I like the idea of posters having to "earn their keep" or "prove themselves" on the Sun Deck before being "called up" to the ORG.

I've often thought it's like real baseball. The Sun Deck is like the minor leagues and the ORG is The Show (not Eric). Once you do well in the minors, you get your shot at the majors.

Just my two cents, which due to our economic crisis is actually worth about 0.005 cents.

jojo
07-21-2012, 01:18 PM
How about an easy experimental quick fix? Exercise an executive decision-like when the current permutation began-to reach down into the SD and scoop up selected posters and grant them ORG access.... either Boss/Gik could make a list or the moderators etc. Maybe ORG members could populate the ORG prospect thread with names for consideration of an immediate call up to help the selection process and also to be in keeping with the current system that gives ORG members a voice.

It might be an acceptable compromise for all.

dougdirt
07-21-2012, 01:31 PM
I have been beating the drum forever. I am all for it.

I never liked the idea of some 'upper society' deciding who gets in and who doesn't.

Brutus
07-21-2012, 01:45 PM
I THINK we could rig something up to do that, but I'm not 100% positive. If enough people like this idea, I'd be happy to look into it.

If there were a merger, I think this is a good idea. I think phase-in limitations would be helpful.

11larkin11
07-21-2012, 01:50 PM
One major problem I see in the SD is repulse threads started. I wouldn't mind more minds being brought in to discuss, but maybe limit who can start a thread, so we don't have 2000 Drew Stubbs Sux threads after every game

reds44
07-21-2012, 01:59 PM
Yes. As long as you guys don't end up splitting it again and people who earned their ORG privileges already have to earn it again (or for some of us have to earn it for a third time).

paintmered
07-21-2012, 02:06 PM
Remembering the circumstances that lead to the decision to split the board, I don't think it would take very long for those same circumstances to happen again if the board reunites.

reds1869
07-21-2012, 02:08 PM
I like the idea if moderation is actually conducted by current ORG standards. I often find myself wanting to comment in a Sundeck thread but being unable to. As long as the quality Sundeck posters are given access and those who can't play nice are given the boot I'm all for a merger. I'll say this: if it is done, it needs to be permanent. Splitting the board again post-merger could be a deathblow.

Degenerate39
07-21-2012, 02:15 PM
I'm mixed on this because I think the current system is fine but it could take someone like George Foster a long time to get in the ORG. The quality of a lot of the posters on the Sundeck really turns me off from this. For the most part the ORG is a more mature area while there are a lot of posters who really aren't too mature on the Sun Deck. I don't really frequent the Sun Deck and I may be wrong but it just seems like there are several bad eggs down there.

Scrap Irony
07-21-2012, 02:22 PM
Why not simply give all the new ORG posters one shot over the first two weeks, ban them for two weeks if they screw up, then forever if they do it again soon after returning?

Be strict. Be consistent. Ban, if need be.

If you need more moderators, I can do it.

Cooper
07-21-2012, 02:29 PM
I'm guessing there are 1000 members and, maybe 3 didn't eventually get voted into ORG. You gotta whole layer to somehow keep out a minimum number (relative to the total number of members) of posters- that seems kind of like a lot of work to generate some sort of upper level community.

For the most part, message boards need young, passionate people to give them energy. That's why many of the older posters left - it wasn't cause of the board. It was because everybody got busy with life. When you get older, you don't have enough time to argue about lineup construction for the 10,000th time. More importantly, as men get older (sorry ladies, but this board is about 95 % male) they decrease the amount of testosterone in the body- thus spending any extra you have arguing about whether Stubbs should bunt more seems kinda ....not worth it.

Let everybody in, let's get some young people on here who wanna share (and sell) their ideas. The long standing members can throw in their 2 cents once in a while and the young people can listen -heed their wise advice- and then get back to arguing about the lineup and how silly old people are:)

Open it up.

nate
07-21-2012, 02:30 PM
Idea. Make a test forum and see how "Lord of the Flies" it turns out.

edabbs44
07-21-2012, 02:33 PM
How about an easy experimental quick fix? Exercise an executive decision-like when the current permutation began-to reach down into the SD and scoop up selected posters and grant them ORG access.... either Boss/Gik could make a list or the moderators etc. Maybe ORG members could populate the ORG prospect thread with names for consideration of an immediate call up to help the selection process and also to be in keeping with the current system that gives ORG members a voice.

It might be an acceptable compromise for all.

I like this idea, or a variation of it. Keep the split, but make it easier to gain access but also be able to be "sent down" for a period or permanently depending on circumstances.

If there isn't a compromise available, I have no issue with a merge as long as the new board is moderated aggressively.

edabbs44
07-21-2012, 02:34 PM
Idea. Make a test forum and see how "Lord of the Flies" it turns out.

Not a bad idea either.

LvJ
07-21-2012, 03:09 PM
I have never supported the great wall of RedZone. Tear it down! Merge!

WMR
07-21-2012, 03:12 PM
I would be in favor of allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck but not vice versa.

dougdirt
07-21-2012, 03:20 PM
I'm mixed on this because I think the current system is fine but it could take someone like George Foster a long time to get in the ORG. The quality of a lot of the posters on the Sundeck really turns me off from this. For the most part the ORG is a more mature area while there are a lot of posters who really aren't too mature on the Sun Deck. I don't really frequent the Sun Deck and I may be wrong but it just seems like there are several bad eggs down there.

I have always said that it is generally like this because a majority of the 'good' posters show up for a week, find out they can't post in the ORG, then leave for other places. Open it up, all around discussion picks up, better posters that used to leave now stick around and pick up even stronger conversation. Stronger conversation pushes aside "X player sucks!" talk and those posters either leave or are forced to step up their argument beyond 'because I said so'.

DGullett35
07-21-2012, 03:27 PM
Im all for it however I see some of the stupid threads that are started in the Sundeck. (the Drew Stubbs suck threads, Dusty Baker sucks threads, and the other this guy sucks thread or this team is going nowhere thread.....) I understand in the ORG we get some of those threads but in the Sundeck there page is littered with stupid threads with no comments or views IMO. If we could limit those then Im cool with it. That was one of the reasons I wanted to get into the ORG and I have enjoyed my time here greatly. We all are Reds fans and I feel like everyone should be included in the same intelligent discussion. I just dont want this to turn into an ESPN message board or Reds.com message board.

_Sir_Charles_
07-21-2012, 03:27 PM
I say open it up to everyone. Those voices of sun deckers that grate on the nerves of OGR'ers....those are the voices that lead to actual discussion. Debates need BOTH sides to work IMO.

And I also agree with Doug in that it feels decided weird to have the upper echelon and the surfs.

DGullett35
07-21-2012, 03:35 PM
I'm mixed on this because I think the current system is fine but it could take someone like George Foster a long time to get in the ORG. The quality of a lot of the posters on the Sundeck really turns me off from this. For the most part the ORG is a more mature area while there are a lot of posters who really aren't too mature on the Sun Deck. I don't really frequent the Sun Deck and I may be wrong but it just seems like there are several bad eggs down there.

I have to agree somewhat with this. Although Ive only been in the ORG for a short while one of the reasons I wanted out of the Sundeck was because of the immature discussions. It reminds me more of a message board as I said in an earlier post. I wouldnt mind as long as there was heavy moderation going on. Ban or suspend the guys accounts that are not adding to the discussions on the board. Just my 2 cents

SirFelixCat
07-21-2012, 03:35 PM
On the one hand, I'm all for opening it up...but I also remember when/why it was split to begin with and, tbh, I really don't want this board to return to that.


The option I think is, at least, a start to opening it up, would be to allow ORG posters into the Sundeck. This would allow ORG posters to interact w/ the Sundeck folk and find folks that should be in the ORG.

If not that, then open it up completely, but be very quick and very heavy handed with new folks, in respect to moderation.

That's just my $.02

cincrazy
07-21-2012, 03:36 PM
After a lot of thought, I voted yes. I think that maybe some Reds fans are turned off by the fact that they have to come here and post on a so-called "lesser" board before joining the most intelligent discussion. I know several bright baseball fans that left the board for this reason. They didn't have the patience for the Sun Deck. I say let everyone in. But of course, I'm not a moderator, as I'm sure it would be more difficult keeping an eye on things. Much to consider here.

KittyDuran
07-21-2012, 03:51 PM
On the one hand, I'm all for opening it up...but I also remember when/why it was split to begin with and, tbh, I really don't want this board to return to that.


The option I think is, at least, a start to opening it up, would be to allow ORG posters into the Sundeck. This would allow ORG posters to interact w/ the Sundeck folk and find folks that should be in the ORG.

If not that, then open it up completely, but be very quick and very heavy handed with new folks, in respect to moderation.

That's just my $.02I'd be one of the first to be allowed to post in the SD. Because I use Tapatalk on my iPhone, and have it set to latest posts-all threads are shown. Many times I've wanted to post on a thread only to find out that it was in the SD and access was denied (sometimes I would send a VM to the OP to comment). IIRC, when the lastest split occurred I asked if I could stay in the SD to help out. I'd be willing to do that now even though my time is becoming more limited.


I like this idea a lot, but some or most of those mentioned above left because of the arrogance of some posters here either toward them or toward others. I miss the above and include Stormy and others. I know people still on the board who still read but do not post because of the fear of being put down or called out by other members.That might be true but also I believe that life "happened" for a lot of folks including myself in a way. Redszone has been around for 12 years which is a long, long, long time in the internet world. People move on or limit their time (like me).

lidspinner
07-21-2012, 03:55 PM
I would be in favor of allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck but not vice versa.

this X1000000000000

ORG should be able to post anywhere and not vise versa....Maybe make the voting to get into ORG a little more strict, just a thought....but there are several times I log onto the Sun Deck and see a thread that I would love to post in but cant.....there are some darn good conversations going on in the SD.....

I like the merge idea, but I also like the idea of having 2 separate boards....1 for kind of the saber nerds like myself to dive deep into topics and such, and the other to talk about the everyday hoopla of the Reds.....sometimes I hate nothing more than spending an hour researching trends and stats only to see it get bombarded with spam and people not respecting others, this is where the ORG comes in great.....it kind of brings all the saber dorks together and allows us to see other posters views on saber stuff......

The idea of being able to post in the SD would make this board my go to board for the entire internet....as it stands now, I still spend most of my time here but I see at least 1 thread a day that I want to post in but cant....but I love the ORG.....

I dont think there is a simple solution that will make everyone happy, I feel for the 2 that are going to make the choice and I will defend it no matter which way you go.....Its not like this site is broken or anything so maybe it dont need fixed or tweaked....just a thought.

dougdirt
07-21-2012, 04:00 PM
this X1000000000000

ORG should be able to post anywhere and not vise versa....Maybe make the voting to get into ORG a little more strict, just a thought....

More strict? Guys are already having to wait a month to even find out if they can get in after applying because hardly anyone actually votes.

Kc61
07-21-2012, 04:10 PM
One thing in favor of merging them is that occasionally Sun Deck folks are faster with news and developments affecting the Reds. Could provide for more prompt discussion if merged.

Tommyjohn25
07-21-2012, 04:16 PM
I voted no, but it's not that big of a deal to me either way. If it happens and you need more moderators I would be happy to do it, Boss. I miss being a Mod. :(

Tom Servo
07-21-2012, 04:29 PM
I personally always liked the rep point system.

jojo
07-21-2012, 04:39 PM
I like this idea a lot, but some or most of those mentioned above left because of the arrogance of some posters here either toward them or toward others. I miss the above and include Stormy and others. I know people still on the board who still read but do not post because of the fear of being put down or called out by other members.

It's a curious statement because looking at some of those names, it's difficult to imagine them having a problem with opinions being posted in a strong fashion.

Scrap Irony
07-21-2012, 04:43 PM
I personally always liked the rep point system.

I didn't. It led to syncophant-style cult of personality posts rather than discussion on topics.

elfmanvt07
07-21-2012, 04:51 PM
As someone who has withheld a few posts because of fear of judgment, I say open the gates. Gut reactions have just as much home on a message board as do calculated musings.

Also, I think that ORG posting in SD is probably one of the worst ways to go about it. It probably just increases the gap FURTHER.

bellhead
07-21-2012, 04:54 PM
I remember when there was only one forum, and then didn't post for a year and had to wait to be accepted into the ORG, no I have no problem with it.

Revering4Blue
07-21-2012, 04:54 PM
I would be in favor of allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck but not vice versa.

If the two boards remain divided, I'm in favor of this with one caveat:

ORG posters shouldn't be allowed to start threads, administrative related threads the exception, in the Sundeck.

This occurred too frequently the last time ORG posters had Sundeck posting access and resulted in too many redundant threads.

That stated, I voted yes.

WVRedsFan
07-21-2012, 04:58 PM
It's a curious statement because looking at some of those names, it's difficult to imagine them having a problem with opinions being posted in a strong fashion.I'll not say who, but a couple of old posters told me this. It matters not in the whole scheme of things. The more I read, the more I see some value in merging the two forums with proper moderation, even though I voted no. Does anyone know how many members there are in the ORG and the SD?

mth123
07-21-2012, 05:04 PM
I'm really torn. I like the idea of being able to discuss with everyone, but I'd like to hear more about how the trolls would be kept out. There are plenty of fine Sundeck posters who love the Reds and know as much as anyone in the ORG, but the sundeck insulates the ORG from the riff-raff until it can be eliminated.

Revering4Blue
07-21-2012, 05:07 PM
Let me add a suggestion if the idea is improving the board: reaching out to folks who left the board for one reason or another, whether they were banned or otherwise. I'm thinking of folks like SteelSD, Falls City Beer, Princeton, Creek, Rosie Red...the place is not better without them.

I agree. I also miss Stormy, as well.

Nine years ago, it was actually Stormy's encouragement that resulted in me posting on Redszone.

There are others I miss, as well, but that's a topic for another thread.

Tom Servo
07-21-2012, 05:09 PM
Not ashamed to admit I miss FCB too. I mean up until 2010, he was pretty much right on the money even if it hurt to accept it.

Revering4Blue
07-21-2012, 05:11 PM
I'm really torn. I like the idea of being able to discuss with everyone, but I'd like to hear more about how the trolls would be kept out. There are plenty of fine Sundeck posters who love the Reds and know as much as anyone in the ORG, but the sundeck insulates the ORG from the riff-raff until it can be eliminated.

A very short leash, so to speak.

The Neil Yngs of the Redszone world--for those of you that remember him--tend to quickly post themselves right into a permanent ban rather quickly.

cumberlandreds
07-21-2012, 05:18 PM
I say open it up to everyone. Those voices of sun deckers that grate on the nerves of OGR'ers....those are the voices that lead to actual discussion. Debates need BOTH sides to work IMO.

And I also agree with Doug in that it feels decided weird to have the upper echelon and the surfs.

I pretty much agree with this. If someone is that bad a poster just ban or suspend them. I moderate a UK sports board and its pretty easy to see who a troll is and who isn't. I've banned a number of trolls. Anyone who is just a poor poster then just ignore them. I've done that plenty too. Poor posters tend to just fade away anyway.

15fan
07-21-2012, 05:20 PM
A merger?

Semi Pro Boardroom - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLQ3s2o_z5w)

edabbs44
07-21-2012, 05:45 PM
Not ashamed to admit I miss FCB too. I mean up until 2010, he was pretty much right on the money even if it hurt to accept it.

Anyone who was all in negative was going to be right until then. The key was to grow with the team and see what was going on leading up to 2010. IIRC, he was neg until the end.

Plus Plus
07-21-2012, 05:47 PM
Anyone who was all in negative was going to be right until then. The key was to grow with the team and see what was going on leading up to 2010. IIRC, he was neg until the end.

He also turned every thread, regardless of topic, into "the Reds' pitching is horrible."

Plus Plus
07-21-2012, 05:47 PM
Just a few thoughts and ideas--

The biggest problem with the divide is the fact that voting a user into the ORG takes a large amount of time, and many ORG members seem incredibly apathetic towards discussing or voting on users.

Why not open the gates, but only allow "ORG members" to start threads? Anyone who starts threads who is a "SunDeck member" would have their thread go into the "awaiting approval" queue akin to the "future" forum.

We could keep the ORG for "serious" discussion and the SunDeck for "casual" discussion maybe?

Just a thought. FWIW, I have personal friends who feel no incentive to post in the SD because they feel that the real quality is in the ORG, and that is likely how good posters end up not being permanent members.

edabbs44
07-21-2012, 05:49 PM
I like the limitations on starting threads idea.

LoganBuck
07-21-2012, 05:54 PM
Please no. I think I would definitely participate less. The Sun Deck can be downright unbearable at times.

gilpdawg
07-21-2012, 06:06 PM
I would be in favor of allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck but not vice versa.

Yes. It's hard to find candidates to "call up" so to speak, because you can't interact with those people. So you wind up ignoring the threads. Most of the good SD posters also post in non baseball areas but not everyone visits those areas.

gilpdawg
07-21-2012, 06:11 PM
If the two boards remain divided, I'm in favor of this with one caveat:

ORG posters shouldn't be allowed to start threads, administrative related threads the exception, in the Sundeck.

This occurred too frequently the last time ORG posters had Sundeck posting access and resulted in too many redundant threads.

That stated, I voted yes.

I agree with that. Glad you are finally here, btw. Your rock thread is one of the best things on this board.

TOBTTReds
07-21-2012, 06:15 PM
Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but one of the things I really like about the ORG is the intelligent discussion. Not saying it can't be possible with a merge, but the SD is brutal sometimes. There are actually posters in ORG that I see post that make me feel they should be in the SD, even some with thousands of posts.

I don't know what the best solution is, and I'm not fighting for it to stay the same. Maybe you have to have a certain number of posts or time as a member to post on ORG, but EVERYONE can post in the SD, even the board vets (therefore the SD won't go stale).

Another message board I'm on for an NFL team has a more "serious" side, then a general discussion side.

I guess my fear is we all the sudden get a bunch of "Drew Stubbs Sucks" posts or threads.

paintmered
07-21-2012, 06:21 PM
He also turned every thread, regardless of topic, into "the Reds' pitching is horrible."

Yep, this is why he was eventually banned. His message actually had nothing to do with it.

Also, ORG posters had the ability to cross-post for a while. A new poster would come along into the SD, post an observation or an opinion only to be hammered by a select few ORG posters. I'm for allowing ORG members to cross-post again, but it is unfair to new posters to receive this kind of welcome, and I don't want to see a repeat of it.

Mario-Rijo
07-21-2012, 06:34 PM
Interesting, I would be curious to know why the change of heart. I just can't see any good reason to keep anyone out unless they are causing problems. Trolls should get hammered quickly and harshly. Others who can't seem to adjust to some reasonable level of etiquette get 3 strikes and then are out for an extended period of time (3-6 months), it is baseball we are talking here. Will probably need to keep all current mods and maybe have a few Super Mods who can suspend/ban in Boss and Gik's stead, these mods should be folks who are already here almost all the time. That is if the current mods don't already have those privileges, if they do just add a few more mods.

Keep the Sundeck though for newbies under IDK 3-10 days and/or a specific number of posts. That should still help alot with trolls but not be to prohibitive for people who want to join the regular conversation pretty quickly.

My feeling is no one should really be banned forever (w/ the extreme few cases) nor should they be able to run amuck much at all. But all mods should also have a real clear line of what amuck is (not to intimate they don't already). Passionate positions no matter how asinine some might think they are can often lead to great knowledge. But being a real horse's backside for no good reason should be hammered early and often.

BCubb2003
07-21-2012, 06:54 PM
Merge the forums and let anyone in, but add a forum called "Louisville" to send people down to if there are issues. Then have September call-ups to give people another chance.

pedro
07-21-2012, 06:57 PM
I think if you do decide to merge the two boards that there should be some rules put around creating threads (as Savafan) suggested. Another thing that might work would be to keep them seperate but do away with the ORG members voting on new members and just leave it up to the mods to decide who gets in and who doesn't with a somewhat low bar set as to what is required to gain entry (I.E. you've been around more than a month and don't throw firebombs into every thread you participate in)

RedFanAlways1966
07-21-2012, 07:04 PM
I am totally against merging. I have been here for some time and think the set up now is the best it has ever been.

cincrazy
07-21-2012, 07:18 PM
A very short leash, so to speak.

The Neil Yngs of the Redszone world--for those of you that remember him--tend to quickly post themselves right into a permanent ban rather quickly.

Ohhhhhh Neil Ying. The man that told 16 year old Cincrazy he was going to call the police on him, and 16 year old Cincrazy BELIEVED HIM and was terrified for the next two weeks.

HokieRed
07-21-2012, 07:51 PM
Cross-posting by ORG members in SD might have the salutary effect of getting more ORG members to look at the SD and thus to find candidates to move to ORG. That might change the ORG mix without changing the structure. I voted no because I like the ORG at present, don't really see anything wrong with it, but it's a very weak no as I'm generally against "exclusive" kinds of organizations and I don't really think the proposed change would really alter ORG that much.

RedEye
07-21-2012, 07:54 PM
Given that I had to scrape and claw to get in the first time with rep points, then got knocked out because I hadn't been around long enough (or something), and then managed to get voted in again after working hard to post interesting subject matter...

*sigh*

... well, I guess I just don't care anymore. I'll have to recuse myself from this vote.

mth123
07-21-2012, 07:57 PM
Cross-posting by ORG members in SD might have the salutary effect of getting more ORG members to look at the SD and thus to find candidates to move to ORG. That might change the ORG mix without changing the structure. I voted no because I like the ORG at present, don't really see anything wrong with it, but it's a very weak no as I'm generally against "exclusive" kinds of organizations and I don't really think the proposed change would really alter ORG that much.

I think I've come to this same conclusion as well. No from me, but I could be convinced if I thought that there were enough mods to police the place.

westofyou
07-21-2012, 07:58 PM
... well, I guess I just don't care anymore. I'll have to recuse myself from this vote.

This is me.

You guys do what you want, it's your board, you have to maintain it.

VR
07-21-2012, 10:27 PM
This is me.

You guys do what you want, it's your board, you have to maintain it.

Agree.

Roy Tucker
07-21-2012, 10:52 PM
Interesting idea.

I voted yes. For such a great season, this place has been deadly dull for me. It seems that people don't realize how precious the current success is. There seem to be a lot of posters now that are thread-killers for my reading. Frankly, the thought that comes to my mind too often is "do you really have to be such a dick about this?". Lord love a duck. It just turns me off and I just go watch the game and get out of here.

Moderation would be difficult. Trolls are a problem. There have been some good ideas about thread starting and all that. But fresh blood is needed badly.

Caveat Emperor
07-21-2012, 11:29 PM
Interesting idea.

I voted yes. For such a great season, this place has been deadly dull for me. It seems that people don't realize how precious the current success is. There seem to be a lot of posters now that are thread-killers for my reading. Frankly, the thought that comes to my mind too often is "do you really have to be such a dick about this?". Lord love a duck. It just turns me off and I just go watch the game and get out of here.

Moderation would be difficult. Trolls are a problem. There have been some good ideas about thread starting and all that. But fresh blood is needed badly.

I agree with everything that's been written in this post.

I bolded the part that I like best. I've become a lot less interested in the baseball side of things as a result of the conversation being dominated by some of these posts.

In the end, whatever you all decide works for me.

WVRedsFan
07-21-2012, 11:34 PM
This is me.

You guys do what you want, it's your board, you have to maintain it.

I guess this says it all. It's Boss and GIK's board. We are just fortunate that we can come here and enjoy the conversation.

FlightRick
07-22-2012, 12:45 AM
Voted against it.

But I say that as someone who sees neither option as optimal. I just think keeping things as is will maintain the best spot on the "Quality of Life" vs. "Pain in the Butt" Continuum. Taking as granted there is no perfect solution, the series of trade-offs faced seem to point towards leaving the two forums separate.

Then again, I say that with the open admission that I enjoy three things about posts/posters: (1) that they provide new facts and information, (2) that they provide new, thought-provoking ways to process facts/information, or (3) that they're just plain entertaining/interesting no matter what they're providing. Those are in descending order of importance.

Ergo, you won't see me campaigning to increase the number of posters, because too many people already post to message boards/twitter/faceplace/mybook/etc, who are providing none of the above. The internet has created the illusion of everybody's posts having equal value, just because they're posted from the same place. This is not the case. Some people are still much stupider than others, and I should not have to endure them in the name of "variety of opinion." I commend RedsZone for being one of the few (if not only) places that acknowledges this.

Note: I know this stance probably makes me out to be a bit of a bastard. I also point to my sign-up date/post total. I'm averaging, what?, 0.08 posts per day? I practice what I preach. I'm not suggesting anybody's freedom of speech be stifled; I'm just asking that they think about exercising it as conscientiously as I do. If I can do it, so can you.

But most people don't, which is why I'm all for a gated community that helps keep the less conscientious at bay.

If there is a move towards merging, I would suggest the goal should be "encouraging intelligent new posters to stick around and contribute," and NOT "opening the flood gates in the name of variety of opinion." As I've been screaming for years, now: being demonstrably wrong isn't an opinion. Some folks have seemingly started conflating "whatever I believe" with "opinion," when the reality is that what you believe may simply be false (either due to simple ignorance, or willful distortion of facts). So I vote let's NOT merge the forums just because "it's only fair" to let Screaming Sports Talk Radio Jackwad #45 "spice up" the conversation.

I don't want "spicy" conversation. I want to get value out of the time I spend at RedsZone. I know others have different agendas, including a social one. But for me, I like learning new things when I come here, and dislike impediments to that goal. Like the ramblings of idiots. Especially when they exist in triplicate, like they always seemed to on the SunDeck (where the winning strategy seemed to be "if wrong, repeat three times, and type in ALL CAPS if necessary; then, you win"). I hate that. Your mileage may vary...

To that end: I strongly support the idea of "new thread restrictions" on users, if there is, indeed, a merge. Let a non-ORG poster prove himself with a certain body of work (be it time-based, or post-count-based), before being allowed to start new threads.

On the flip side of that coin, if there is a merge, and a poster's body of work is lacking when s/he participates on existing threads, I support the most rapid and decisive sanction(s) possible. Either demotion to a "minor leagues" (as suggested in an earlier post), or outright banning (I assume this banning can extend to IP addresses, and not just to emails, right?).

As I said, I don't see the current model as optimal, but contemplating a merge and the amount of work that might go into policing things, I think keeping it as is might be for the best. But echoing others: this isn't my board, and I'm just pleased to be welcomed here.... so whatever the bosses say is absolutely fine with me, and I promise to keep up my sweltering post-per-day rate no matter what they decide!


Rick

Griffey012
07-22-2012, 02:13 AM
More strict? Guys are already having to wait a month to even find out if they can get in after applying because hardly anyone actually votes.

I voted no. But can we have a board of 9 or 11 members who we all may want to vote on future members to the ORG? I am fine with psuedo merging and letting more people in as long as they are solid posters. The process to get in the ORG can take quite a while, but maybe if instead of everyone voting (or not voting) we could elect a few who pay close attention and read the sun deck.

WVRedsFan
07-22-2012, 02:27 AM
Just one more thing. If the forums are merged ignore this.

If we do not merge, why not elect an executive committee who determines who gets in to the ORG?

Just a suggestion.

AtomicDumpling
07-22-2012, 02:33 AM
Having the two different "leagues" is what separates Redszone from all the other baseball discussion sites. Many of the people that have chosen Redszone over the others chose this one because they like the fact that "noisy" posters are excluded. If you like reading tons of nonsense and bellyaching there are plenty of other websites to frequent, but this is the only one where you are required to prove your ability to meet a basic standard of conduct before being allowed to fully participate.

I think we should keep the SunDeck and the ORG separated. However I believe we should make the process of being promoted to the ORG quicker and easier. Perhaps when a newbie makes his 100th post in the SunDeck (not counting non-baseball sub-forums or game threads) then an appointed 1-3 person panel is automatically notified to review his posts for possible immediate promotion into the ORG. If the candidate's posts are polite and usually more than one sentence long then he gets the promotion. If he is deemed not worthy he can get reviewed again 100-300 posts later. The current voting process is too long and takes too much effort, which causes many people to quit using the site before they ever make it to the ORG. By skipping the nomination/request formality, the week-long discussion thread and the open voting process we would see more people get promoted and it would happen much faster and sooner. The idea is to weed out the rude, impulsive banana phone callers while allowing everyone else into the ORG. It isn't an elitest club, we just want to avoid the wackos.

I like the idea of allowing ORG members to have some ability to post in the SunDeck. It helps to set an example of what is expected of SunDeckers for promotion to the ORG.

There should also be a process where posters in the ORG that get rude or argumentative could get temporarily sent back to the SunDeck for some extra seasoning as they say in baseball. I think too many threads are ruined by folks that just like to argue and be contrary. A good poster is able to state his opinion without belittling the opinions of other people.

Regarding post counts for all members, I don't think posts in the game threads should count in the totals. Some guys rack up 50 posts in one day in the game thread, which makes them look like major contributors to the site's baseball discussion when in reality they are just posting "Yesssss!!!!" or "Stubbs strikes out for the 2nd out" all season long in the game threads and ending up with thousands of posts to their credit. I realize post counts don't mean much but it seems like an improvement to the current method.

Regarding the reasons why some former top posters don't come here anymore, one major reason is likely the policy instituted a couple years ago where we are no longer allowed to post large sections of newspaper articles in the threads here anymore. Redszone used to be a one-stop shop destination where you could come here and read all the news posted anywhere about the Reds. That was very convenient. Now Redszone is really limited to discussion only, so the site is a lot less useful than it used to be. We still see a few links posted here and there but basically there is just a lot less information available on the site now than there was a few years ago.

Other ways to liven up the site would be to encourage people to create original content to be published here on the site in a special section. People could produce real articles, research projects, contests, interviews, wikis, videos, photos and artwork that would make this site a destination for a wider audience.

919191
07-22-2012, 02:42 AM
I voted yes. I just don't feel right deciding who is good enough to talk to me and who is not.

I guess being on the elite side of an internet forum just doesn't give me any feeling of importance.

gilpdawg
07-22-2012, 03:23 AM
Regarding post counts for all members, I don't think posts in the game threads should count in the totals.]
I didn't think they did? :confused:

AtomicDumpling
07-22-2012, 03:29 AM
I didn't think they did? :confused:

Oh really? I thought they did. If they don't count, then good. :thumbup:

membengal
07-22-2012, 06:33 AM
Interesting idea.

I voted yes. For such a great season, this place has been deadly dull for me. It seems that people don't realize how precious the current success is. There seem to be a lot of posters now that are thread-killers for my reading. Frankly, the thought that comes to my mind too often is "do you really have to be such a dick about this?". Lord love a duck. It just turns me off and I just go watch the game and get out of here.

Moderation would be difficult. Trolls are a problem. There have been some good ideas about thread starting and all that. But fresh blood is needed badly.

Great set of thoughts. Spot on.

Blitz Dorsey
07-22-2012, 09:15 AM
Having the two different "leagues" is what separates Redszone from all the other baseball discussion sites. Many of the people that have chosen Redszone over the others chose this one because they like the fact that "noisy" posters are excluded. If you like reading tons of nonsense and bellyaching there are plenty of other websites to frequent, but this is the only one where you are required to prove your ability to meet a basic standard of conduct before being allowed to fully participate.

I think we should keep the SunDeck and the ORG separated. However I believe we should make the process of being promoted to the ORG quicker and easier. Perhaps when a newbie makes his 100th post in the SunDeck (not counting non-baseball sub-forums or game threads) then an appointed 1-3 person panel is automatically notified to review his posts for possible immediate promotion into the ORG. If the candidate's posts are polite and usually more than one sentence long then he gets the promotion. If he is deemed not worthy he can get reviewed again 100-300 posts later. The current voting process is too long and takes too much effort, which causes many people to quit using the site before they ever make it to the ORG. By skipping the nomination/request formality, the week-long discussion thread and the open voting process we would see more people get promoted and it would happen much faster and sooner. The idea is to weed out the rude, impulsive banana phone callers while allowing everyone else into the ORG. It isn't an elitest club, we just want to avoid the wackos.

I like the idea of allowing ORG members to have some ability to post in the SunDeck. It helps to set an example of what is expected of SunDeckers for promotion to the ORG.

There should also be a process where posters in the ORG that get rude or argumentative could get temporarily sent back to the SunDeck for some extra seasoning as they say in baseball. I think too many threads are ruined by folks that just like to argue and be contrary. A good poster is able to state his opinion without belittling the opinions of other people.

Regarding post counts for all members, I don't think posts in the game threads should count in the totals. Some guys rack up 50 posts in one day in the game thread, which makes them look like major contributors to the site's baseball discussion when in reality they are just posting "Yesssss!!!!" or "Stubbs strikes out for the 2nd out" all season long in the game threads and ending up with thousands of posts to their credit. I realize post counts don't mean much but it seems like an improvement to the current method.

Regarding the reasons why some former top posters don't come here anymore, one major reason is likely the policy instituted a couple years ago where we are no longer allowed to post large sections of newspaper articles in the threads here anymore. Redszone used to be a one-stop shop destination where you could come here and read all the news posted anywhere about the Reds. That was very convenient. Now Redszone is really limited to discussion only, so the site is a lot less useful than it used to be. We still see a few links posted here and there but basically there is just a lot less information available on the site now than there was a few years ago.

Other ways to liven up the site would be to encourage people to create original content to be published here on the site in a special section. People could produce real articles, research projects, contests, interviews, wikis, videos, photos and artwork that would make this site a destination for a wider audience.

I agree with this. Make it easier for quality posters from the Sun Deck to become members of the ORG, but still keep some type of separation.

This board is outstanding. I think more bad than good would come out of merging the two boards.

forfreelin04
07-22-2012, 09:50 AM
Interesting idea.

I voted yes. For such a great season, this place has been deadly dull for me. It seems that people don't realize how precious the current success is. There seem to be a lot of posters now that are thread-killers for my reading. Frankly, the thought that comes to my mind too often is "do you really have to be such a dick about this?". Lord love a duck. It just turns me off and I just go watch the game and get out of here.

Moderation would be difficult. Trolls are a problem. There have been some good ideas about thread starting and all that. But fresh blood is needed badly.

Great post...that echoes my thoughts. I used to post a ton and learned a great deal about baseball I never knew. I played competively into my college years, but I learned new things about OBP, OPS and BABIP. The posters that truly set the bar for informative and thought provoking posts are no longer posting here. Sure, it's easier to find the time to post epic threads when the team has hundreds of holes, but ORG is booooring

jojo
07-22-2012, 09:58 AM
Sure, it's easier to find the time to post epic threads when the team has hundreds of holes, but ORG is booooring

This pretty much defines the problem with the ORG IMHO. I'd only add that more and more over the last year or two, it hasn't been worth the effort it takes to author and post "epic" topics that hopefully generate epic discussions.

Reds1
07-22-2012, 10:16 AM
I think the forums need to undergo renovation or there needs to be a way to allow more people to enter the ORG.

IMHO, the quality of discussion in the ORG would benefit by allowing new voices to also contribute.

I agree. Like to see a quicker move up or just merge it.

Tommyjohn25
07-22-2012, 11:10 AM
I think I've changed my mind on this. The ORG has been getting boring for a while now that you guys mention it. Let 'em in.

savafan
07-22-2012, 11:10 AM
I think a lot of what makes the ORG so boring is that many of the members that have been added were added because their posts were in agreement with the posters who elected them, thus there hasn't really been a lot of discussion about baseball, it's more a lot of pats on the back and stroking of egos. As for intelligent discussion, I feel we (the ORG) have become too intelligent for our own good. The appeal of Redszone back when it first started was that it was similar to hanging out with your friends at a sports bar discussing the game. It's veered quite a bit from that sort of mentality.

Captain Hook
07-22-2012, 11:45 AM
I have a few buddies that joined but quickly lost interest because they couldn't post in the same forum that I posted in.I believe I voted against the idea but I've reconsider and now believe it could be a good idea.

mbgrayson
07-22-2012, 12:06 PM
Having the two different "leagues" is what separates Redszone from all the other baseball discussion sites. Many of the people that have chosen Redszone over the others chose this one because they like the fact that "noisy" posters are excluded. If you like reading tons of nonsense and bellyaching there are plenty of other websites to frequent, but this is the only one where you are required to prove your ability to meet a basic standard of conduct before being allowed to fully participate.

I think we should keep the SunDeck and the ORG separated. However I believe we should make the process of being promoted to the ORG quicker and easier. Perhaps when a newbie makes his 100th post in the SunDeck (not counting non-baseball sub-forums or game threads) then an appointed 1-3 person panel is automatically notified to review his posts for possible immediate promotion into the ORG. If the candidate's posts are polite and usually more than one sentence long then he gets the promotion. If he is deemed not worthy he can get reviewed again 100-300 posts later. The current voting process is too long and takes too much effort, which causes many people to quit using the site before they ever make it to the ORG. By skipping the nomination/request formality, the week-long discussion thread and the open voting process we would see more people get promoted and it would happen much faster and sooner. The idea is to weed out the rude, impulsive banana phone callers while allowing everyone else into the ORG. It isn't an elitest club, we just want to avoid the wackos.

I like the idea of allowing ORG members to have some ability to post in the SunDeck. It helps to set an example of what is expected of SunDeckers for promotion to the ORG.

There should also be a process where posters in the ORG that get rude or argumentative could get temporarily sent back to the SunDeck for some extra seasoning as they say in baseball. I think too many threads are ruined by folks that just like to argue and be contrary. A good poster is able to state his opinion without belittling the opinions of other people.


I agree with all of this. Let's keep the separation, but make it easier for promotion. I like the filtering effect of having the ORG. Maybe it can seem 'boring', but it also isn't full of trolls or wack jobs.

I do support ORG members being allowed to post on the Sundeck. Why should you lose acccess to posting in Sundeck when you are 'promoted'?

If we do go to a new 'one site' system, there must be an aggressive way to ban those who just want to flame people or troll. My fear is that in a 'one site' world, when someone is kicked off the site, they can create a new account and get right back on using another name. I suppose that this can happen now, but I don't see it much since I spend most of my time in ORG.

reds1869
07-22-2012, 12:14 PM
I agree with all of this. Let's keep the separation, but make it easier for promotion. I like the filtering effect of having the ORG. Maybe it can seem 'boring', but it also isn't full of trolls or wack jobs.

I do support ORG members being allowed to post on the Sundeck. Why should you lose acccess to posting in Sundeck when you are 'promoted'?

If we do go to a new 'one site' system, there must be an aggressive way to ban those who just want to flame people or troll. My fear is that in a 'one site' world, when someone is kicked off the site, they can create a new account and get right back on using another name. I suppose that this can happen now, but I don't see it much since I spend most of my time in ORG.

After reading through this thread I agree with mbgrayson's post more than any other (including my own).

dougdirt
07-22-2012, 12:20 PM
I think a lot of what makes the ORG so boring is that many of the members that have been added were added because their posts were in agreement with the posters who elected them, thus there hasn't really been a lot of discussion about baseball, it's more a lot of pats on the back and stroking of egos. As for intelligent discussion, I feel we (the ORG) have become too intelligent for our own good. The appeal of Redszone back when it first started was that it was similar to hanging out with your friends at a sports bar discussing the game. It's veered quite a bit from that sort of mentality.

I agree with this. Not everyone who votes has done this, but I have seen several discussions in the voting forum where a guy wasn't voted in because he didn't really explain his opinion well enough (I read that as he didn't use stats, though I certainly could have just been reading into that).

jojo
07-22-2012, 12:39 PM
I agree with this. Not everyone who votes has done this, but I have seen several discussions in the voting forum where a guy wasn't voted in because he didn't really explain his opinion well enough (I read that as he didn't use stats, though I certainly could have just been reading into that).

I've got two simple criteria...First have reasons for your opinions and show a willingness to share them (the reasons). Second don't be a jerk, i.e. dont attack the poster rather than their argument.

I could care less if a person's reasons are stats-based or not. But having reasons makes for much more interesting conversation so it's kind of important. If a person doesn't go ballistic when their opinion is challenged ( or gasp is told, "that's wrong and here's why...") that's a huge plus.

But this is pretty simple and really it's a low bar.

icehole3
07-22-2012, 12:46 PM
let them in, lets have some fun :)

_Sir_Charles_
07-22-2012, 01:01 PM
I think a lot of what makes the ORG so boring is that many of the members that have been added were added because their posts were in agreement with the posters who elected them, thus there hasn't really been a lot of discussion about baseball, it's more a lot of pats on the back and stroking of egos. As for intelligent discussion, I feel we (the ORG) have become too intelligent for our own good. The appeal of Redszone back when it first started was that it was similar to hanging out with your friends at a sports bar discussing the game. It's veered quite a bit from that sort of mentality.

This. Like I said earlier, we need opposition for a debate. We need people who believe differently than we do. It's one of the many reasons I'm VERY glad that the Cards fans are on here. Intelligent posters with opposing views are a GOOD thing.

Unassisted
07-22-2012, 01:32 PM
I'm not crazy about the idea of adding a bunch of chaff to the wheat in the ORG. I lose interest whenever I read the Sun Deck because of the uninformed speculation and echoing of certain announcers' pet peeves that I see there. There are also too many knee-jerk threads there IMO, started to gripe about a single in-game event.

Instead of lowering the gate in both directions, how about just letting all ORG posters into the Sun Deck as a trial step in the direction of unity? Those ORG folks who want to be in a more free-wheeling posting environment can post there. If that move drains the life out of the ORG, then you'll have your answer on whether it's worth continuing the ORG.

CySeymour
07-22-2012, 04:41 PM
Even when I was in the Sun Deck, I liked the division. I liked having something to earn by being a good poster. I can see, however, how the present system of earning promotion is getting bogged down by not a lot of Org members taking the time to checkout the new applicants.

There should be a waiting period before someone gains access to the Org. Maybe 250 non-game thread posts. Then they would gain access to the org, but not the ability to start threads. Then once they reach maybe 700 posts and the admins haven't had any issues with the poster, they get full-fledged posting rights.

Just a thought.

kaldaniels
07-22-2012, 06:06 PM
Yeah, I don't exercise my right to vote on the new guys. Guilty.

But being able to interact with them on the Sundeck forum would at least let me get to know some of them and in turn, push me into the voting booth. That would be a good start.

The question that I have been wondering lately however, is what is a good way to (perhaps not the best word) "punish" trolls. I've seen some lately, but hate to report posts, and I get the sense that mods don't like a flurry of reported posts anyway.

But my theory is if one posts something idiotic down, lets just say "Jay Bruce doesn't belong on an MLB roster" (I totally made that up)...I have no use for you and don't want you on this board.

I've seen this great season been drug through the mud too many times.

Just my 2 cents...

Brutus
07-22-2012, 06:18 PM
Is there a way to bring back the reputation system but hide it from public view? I know that seems counter-intuitive to its purpose, but I think it could serve as a bit of a guide for moderators in a combined forum.

If there were a reputation system and people used it to give feedback with +/- comments, moderators could have more of a starting point when dealing with reported posts and problematic posters to investigate whether there's an issue.

I think coupled with having a threshold before new users could start new threads, and some of the bad stuff might be weeded out a bit.

Just thinking out loud, really. I realize the reputation system had major flaws and created a lot of vindictive behavior among posters. I just wonder if a 'private' reputation system might be useful in examining issues.

LawFive
07-22-2012, 08:27 PM
Long-time reader, seldom-seen poster here...in all the years I've been following this board, it has gone thru probably 4-5 major format changes. Each one ends up having to be changed because it caused too much conflict of one sort or another, and the mods/admins have had to find a better solution. So, the issue can simply be answered by asking this question: does the current setup cause grief and hassle such that everyone is clamoring for something else? I haven't seen it. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Mario-Rijo
07-22-2012, 08:36 PM
In reading the SD merge thread I had a few thoughts I wanted to put down here.

#1 - The SD has many good posters who simply aren't posting down there much, in addition to many who are. Those folks shouldn't have to spend another day stuck down there.

#2 - We need to have 2 boards. Bottom line is there are 3 different kind of crowds some of which don't care to chat with one another (SABR, Ole School & Some in between). If I don't want to learn about BABIP I shouldn't have it stuffed down my throat, but that doesn't mean I don't want to have a place to talk about Reds ball in my own way.

#3 - The biggest issue isn't so much merging boards but being able to allow access to one of them easier. I think it was RiverRat who suggested an alternate way to vote, simply have a no vote for those you want to keep out, say 20-25 votes. Everyone else gets in after 3 days of voting. I'd add instead of us having constant voting just make it so we have a 3 day period every month to "go to the polls". People would be more inclined to visit "The Future" thread on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd of every month to keep out trolls, knowing they don't have to check it any other times. After awhile we might be able to vote quarterly. Take away nominations all together, if people want in have them send a PM just like always before the end of each month. If they don't they clearly have no desire to join, better for everyone.

But I say start with a clean slate. Everyone who wants into the ORG gets in right away and anyone who can't keep a respectable level of discourse gets ejected and cannot be in the ORG again for 3-6 months. They come back up again (no vote) and haven't grown up it's a year ban from the entire site.

In short - No merge (please change my vote if at all possible), a change to an easier, quicker, less restrictive voting method & tougher, quicker penalties for troublemakers alone.

Superdude
07-22-2012, 10:10 PM
You can call me snooty, but I prefer the ORG split just because it's nice not having to sift through hundreds of new members spouting off at each other in every thread.


Yeah, I don't exercise my right to vote on the new guys. Guilty.

But being able to interact with them on the Sundeck forum would at least let me get to know some of them and in turn, push me into the voting booth. That would be a good start.

This is a great point. Being able to post occasionally in the Sundeck would at least give me some kind of rooting interest and familiarity with certain posters without making it seem like work. A more active and efficient promotion process would add some new blood without diluting everything that's great about the ORG.

George Anderson
07-22-2012, 11:56 PM
I voted no but as been mentioned before it is not a big deal to me because this isn't my site so the site owners should do as they see fit.

The only thing I feel strongly about is do not bring back the rep point system. To me that was nothing but a huge clique where friends and friends of friends would give you enough points to move up. I recall one poster who worked for the Reds posted pics of the players on the field and in the dugout which he had access to. He set the record for rep points in a day but unfortunately it was found out real quick that posting cool pics of the Reds on the field and in the dugout hardly makes you a good poster.

I kinda hate to see Org being no more because to me there are alot of very knowledgeable baseball people there. I worry alot of these people would go away once more noise is brought in from the SD. Just the other day several umpires and I were talking about just how clueless the average day fan, manager and player has become in regards to the game of baseball. Every time I read the SD if my head doesn't hurt from reading it reminds me of just how clueless people are when it comes to the game of baseball. With Org I don't always argue or engage with people I feel are wrong because while we may disagree I repect their knowledge enough about the game that I just let it go. They may be wrong on this one but I know they know the game so let it be.

So do as you wish and maybe I have no clue what I am talking about because I was very opposed to Votto signing the big deal a few months back. My judgement at times is lacking.

WVPacman
07-23-2012, 12:01 AM
I like this idea a lot, but some or most of those mentioned above left because of the arrogance of some posters here either toward them or toward others. I miss the above and include Stormy and others. I know people still on the board who still read but do not post because of the fear of being put down or called out by other members.

I have to be honest thats the main reason I don't start any threads no more or post alot.Its been a long time ago but it seem like I was always getting put down,called out telling me that I should have already knew that or you don't know much about baseball.A message board is a place to get on and have fun talking about your team.If you don't agree with a person's post then just say you don't agree.You don't have to talk down to the poster making them feel bad or making them afraid to post any thing else on here.

dman
07-23-2012, 12:08 AM
I have to be honest thats the main reason I don't start any threads no more or post alot.Its been a long time ago but it seem like I am always getting put down,called out telling me that I should have already knew that or you don't know much about baseball.A message board is a place to get on and have fun talking about your team.If you don't agree with a person's post then just say you don't agree.You don't have to talk down to the poster making them feel bad or making them afraid to post any thing else on here.

Well said... very well said. I don't know if it's arrogance as some have stated before as much as it is condescending.

FlightRick
07-23-2012, 12:11 AM
#2 - We need to have 2 boards. Bottom line is there are 3 different kind of crowds some of which don't care to chat with one another (SABR, Ole School & Some in between). If I don't want to learn about BABIP I shouldn't have it stuffed down my throat, but that doesn't mean I don't want to have a place to talk about Reds ball in my own way.

However the vote goes, and whatever policy changes (if any) are enacted, I really don't want to see this be the way lines are drawn in the sand.

There are either 2 or 3 different kinds of crowds that I'd like to see kept at least partially segregated (see my previous post), but Stats vs. Old School isn't how I deliniate them. Idiots Who Should Be Weeded Out vs. People Who Contribute Positively is how it should be done.

Doing it based on stats vs. old school strikes me as a surrogate version of FOXNews vs. MSNBC. Instead of trying to be well-informed and right, you just seek out whichever outlet feeds you whatever you already believe, so you can feel like you "win" any debate, instead of making the effort to be correct. It's bullplop (on both sides), and it's a big reason why political discourse is next to impossible these days.

Call me an optimist, but I'd like to believe that baseball discourse shouldn't be damned to that same hell. Certainly, RedsZone as-is does not strike me as particularly hell-ish; I wouldn't come here two or three times a day if it did.

The key here is to get intelligent, rational posters concentrated in one place. People who can trade information and ideas while maintaining the best possible signal-to-noise ratio. Speaking personally, I've been "transformed" a bit when it comes to the stats/old school debate over the years I've been on RedsZone, and I think that's a credit to the caliber of discussion here. Today, I don't even see it as a debate: I see it as two approachs that fit together, and the fact that I finally understand both is a great joy to me. This is the sort of thing that can come from intelligent, rational posters exchanging ideas.

Segregating people based on agreeing/disagreeing with you is a bad thing. You'll never learn anything or enhance your decision making ability that way. But you know what else gets in the way of learning and critical thinking? Blithering idiots who make it impossible to have a discussion. This idiocy can stem from simple ignorance (which is mostly forgiveable, provided the person shows a willingness to learn), or from a willful misrepresentation of reality (in order to make everything fit precisely into a pre-ordained narrative, regardless of of many facts changes since said narrative was conceived).

THIS is the distinction I'd like to make among posters, and the way I'd like to see them sorted. That is, if we keep sorting them at all after this process is complete.

FWIW, since my first post in this thread, the one concept I hadn't really fully contemplated is that the ORG/SD separation scares off potentially awesome new posters, who don't want to go through the hassle of being initiated. It seems that not all good baseball fans would have the same level of patience that I displayed.

Allowing ORG members to post in the SD has been suggested, but I'd go ahead and admit, right here, that I can't see why I'd ever bother. I would instead suggest that those who do read the SD could help expose the rest of us to the good stuff. Instead of saying "I wish I could post in such-and-such a thread," why not just bring that topic up to the ORG, and re-post it with the caveat that it came from the SD. I'm not so far removed from the SunDeck that I don't remember all the times a thread would start with "From the ORG" and we'd do our own version of it. If it's a good idea, bring it from the SD to the ORG, and see if it plays on the big stage.

If it does, instant exposure for whoever started said thread in the SD, and for whoever else contributed to it to the point where it got ported over to the ORG. That can only help in speeding up the process of new members making a positive impression faster, right?



Rick

EDIT TO ADD: Just addressing this, which was posted while I was typing...


I have to be honest thats the main reason I don't start any threads no more or post alot.Its been a long time ago but it seem like I was always getting put down,called out telling me that I should have already knew that or you don't know much about baseball.A message board is a place to get on and have fun talking about your team.If you don't agree with a person's post then just say you don't agree.You don't have to talk down to the poster making them feel bad or making them afraid to post any thing else on here.

Along with my notion that intelligent, rational people can interact and trade ideas and help improve each other's understanding of baseball, I should have said that CIVILITY is just as important as intelligence and rationality. "Disagreeing without being disagreeable," and all. One can be steadfast in one's ideas, but it's every bit as important that one refrain from personal attacks when one presents them as it is that one be open to the ideas of others.

So put me down for "lack of civility" being just as bad a crime as being ignorant or willfully-lying-to-advance-your-agenda.

That said, I will say -- with all due care and gentleness -- that one should also have a certain amount of thick-skinnedness when it comes to the internet. There are idiots everywhere, so don't let them get you down. But also: everybody's "the newbie" at some point, and that's when NObody will ding you for asking a stupid question or repeating something that's already been beaten to death. NObody. But if you've gone through the trouble of getting admitted to the ORG? Isn't it kinda fair to expect that you wouldn't make those mistakes, because BY DEFINITION, you aren't the newb, anymore?

Again, I don't say that to wound any feelings, but I think it's a reasonable stance: there are some things that RedsZone could fix to be more universally appealing, but there are also some things each of us could fix in order to be more appealing to RedsZone. I say that fully aware that I could tone it down, and come off as less of an ay-hole.

Idea: Yahoo does fantasy baseball leagues where you have to declare yourself "competitive" or "casual" and splits you up accordingly.... maybe the distinction here isn't "SABR" vs. "Scouting" or "Smart" vs. "Sports Talk Radio Idiots"... maybe it's as simple as "I'm here to be informed" vs. "I'm here to be social." And if so, does that inform this discussion about eliminating/maintaining/changing how the boards are split?

As an example, I'd point to the recent ORG trend to have split threads on Hot Stove Transactions (which I read and enjoy) and Hot Stove Thoughts and Opinion (which I'd only scan, because they added very little to my knowledge, but it seemed like plenty of people were enjoying it)... is that anything we can use?

WVPacman
07-23-2012, 12:30 AM
Well said... very well said. I don't know if it's arrogance as some have stated before as much as it is condescending.

I don't know either man... I just wish the posters that do this would stop and think that the poster that they are putting down may have a disabilty or something and can't help that they are'nt as knowledgeable of baseball like they are.Another thing that gets my blood pressure high is some posters putting down other posters grammer and spelling.I have a disability with cerbral palsy(alot already knew this) and I mess up alot with my grammer and spelling.

Some people just need to chill and enjoy this awesome forum that they have made for us.

REDREAD
07-23-2012, 12:52 AM
I would be in favor of allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck but not vice versa.

I like the idea of merging, but this is a good compromise in a merge does not happen. (Letting ORG posters post in the sundeck).

RedlegJake
07-23-2012, 12:57 AM
I read every comment here and thought a lot about it before commenting. For the past few weeks I've read and commented in the Enquirer Sports Section. I can't believe that place. Some guys seem fairly knowledgeable but everyone puts everyone down, calls anyone with a different opinion idiots or worse, its an impossible place to have an actual discussion. I gave up after a couple days of trying.

I read where Doug says let everyone in and the jerks will just go away after a few days if people ignore them. That's not my experience. My experience is they try harder to get under your skin, get more abusive and abrasive and obnoxious.

Still I agree the split in the board has one really big drawback - I think it pushes away a lot of good possible members who don't want the hassle of waiting to get on the "big" board.

I've read Sundeck threads. Some are pretty good, but some are really, really bad. I say let them in but keep the moderators ready and let everyone know that name calling and other non-civil behavior isn't going to be tolerated.

Mario-Rijo
07-23-2012, 02:14 AM
However the vote goes, and whatever policy changes (if any) are enacted, I really don't want to see this be the way lines are drawn in the sand.

There are either 2 or 3 different kinds of crowds that I'd like to see kept at least partially segregated (see my previous post), but Stats vs. Old School isn't how I deliniate them. Idiots Who Should Be Weeded Out vs. People Who Contribute Positively is how it should be done.

Doing it based on stats vs. old school strikes me as a surrogate version of FOXNews vs. MSNBC. Instead of trying to be well-informed and right, you just seek out whichever outlet feeds you whatever you already believe, so you can feel like you "win" any debate, instead of making the effort to be correct. It's bullplop (on both sides), and it's a big reason why political discourse is next to impossible these days.

Call me an optimist, but I'd like to believe that baseball discourse shouldn't be damned to that same hell. Certainly, RedsZone as-is does not strike me as particularly hell-ish; I wouldn't come here two or three times a day if it did.

The key here is to get intelligent, rational posters concentrated in one place. People who can trade information and ideas while maintaining the best possible signal-to-noise ratio. Speaking personally, I've been "transformed" a bit when it comes to the stats/old school debate over the years I've been on RedsZone, and I think that's a credit to the caliber of discussion here. Today, I don't even see it as a debate: I see it as two approachs that fit together, and the fact that I finally understand both is a great joy to me. This is the sort of thing that can come from intelligent, rational posters exchanging ideas.

Segregating people based on agreeing/disagreeing with you is a bad thing. You'll never learn anything or enhance your decision making ability that way. But you know what else gets in the way of learning and critical thinking? Blithering idiots who make it impossible to have a discussion. This idiocy can stem from simple ignorance (which is mostly forgiveable, provided the person shows a willingness to learn), or from a willful misrepresentation of reality (in order to make everything fit precisely into a pre-ordained narrative, regardless of of many facts changes since said narrative was conceived).

THIS is the distinction I'd like to make among posters, and the way I'd like to see them sorted. That is, if we keep sorting them at all after this process is complete.

Idea: Yahoo does fantasy baseball leagues where you have to declare yourself "competitive" or "casual" and splits you up accordingly.... maybe the distinction here isn't "SABR" vs. "Scouting" or "Smart" vs. "Sports Talk Radio Idiots"... maybe it's as simple as "I'm here to be informed" vs. "I'm here to be social." And if so, does that inform this discussion about eliminating/maintaining/changing how the boards are split?

As an example, I'd point to the recent ORG trend to have split threads on Hot Stove Transactions (which I read and enjoy) and Hot Stove Thoughts and Opinion (which I'd only scan, because they added very little to my knowledge, but it seemed like plenty of people were enjoying it)... is that anything we can use?

I think you misunderstand my position, my fault, poor attempt at communicating. "I'm here to be informed" vs. "I'm here to be social" is close to where I was going with it. However consider this person, he understands the game his own way (old school), doesn't understand advanced metrics, doesn't care to discuss them or to try to understand them but wants to chat with like minded people in a sports bar kind of atmosphere without actually leaving the house. That guy and folks like him will want a board where they don't have to hear a bunch of SABR talk.

GAC
07-23-2012, 04:21 AM
Yes. It's easier on the mods to watch over one group then two. If needed, increase the number of mods.

Question? Would this also eliminate the "nominating" process as far as membership goes? That would simplify things. If joined together, how would a new person join/apply? Personally, I'd just let anyone register/sign-up. If they disobey the rules, can't play nice, then that is what the disciplinary procedures are for.

Open it up though IMO.

SunDeck
07-23-2012, 11:16 AM
Do what you need, guys. Personally, I've always been chagrined by the fact that the high side of the board was named after the legendary ORG, while the newbie, "let's make sure these people aren't crazy before we let them in" side of the board bears my own name. :)

mdccclxix
07-23-2012, 11:55 AM
I like it the way it is, although taking a chance on a poster 20 comments in doesn't seem unwarranted. It's also not as long of a time for a poster to wait, which is nice. I just don't like the idea of any old poster getting access, but I do recognize the need for a little more traffic. But, don't worry, when the Reds fall under .500 someday, there will be less need for traffic then, as all the old and new posters will be out with their thoughts.

mdccclxix
07-23-2012, 11:58 AM
Yeah, I don't exercise my right to vote on the new guys. Guilty.

But being able to interact with them on the Sundeck forum would at least let me get to know some of them and in turn, push me into the voting booth. That would be a good start.

The question that I have been wondering lately however, is what is a good way to (perhaps not the best word) "punish" trolls. I've seen some lately, but hate to report posts, and I get the sense that mods don't like a flurry of reported posts anyway.

But my theory is if one posts something idiotic down, lets just say "Jay Bruce doesn't belong on an MLB roster" (I totally made that up)...I have no use for you and don't want you on this board.

I've seen this great season been drug through the mud too many times.

Just my 2 cents...

Definitely true.

mdccclxix
07-23-2012, 12:01 PM
There are at least a few posters in the Sun Deck that are head scratchers as to why they're not in the ORG, I won't name names.

Boss-Hog
07-23-2012, 12:18 PM
I appreciate all the good input that has been provided so far. For those of you who favor keeping the boards separate but allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck, how do you propose Sun Deck members gain access to the ORG? Are you anticipating more ORG members voting if they can interact with Sun Deck members or via another way?

Patrick Bateman
07-23-2012, 12:20 PM
I voted no.

A number of posters are clear trolls not trying to add anything to the discussion and just derail threads. I think the whole point of the split is to simply weed people like this out. Unless mods are ready to ban a poster after 5-10 posts regularly, then this issue will not persist.

I like it as is.

Patrick Bateman
07-23-2012, 12:22 PM
I appreciate all the good input that has been provided so far. For those of you who favor keeping the boards separate but allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck, how do you propose Sun Deck members gain access to the ORG? Are you anticipating more ORG members voting if they can interact with Sun Deck members or via another way?

I think just having 2-3 people level headed people in charge of admitting access to the ORG would do the trick. They would be responsible for reading the Sundeck regularly, and once over a short span a poster has demonstrated they aren't clear trolls can be added.

RBA
07-23-2012, 12:23 PM
I voted no. But can we have a board of 9 or 11 members who we all may want to vote on future members to the ORG? I am fine with psuedo merging and letting more people in as long as they are solid posters. The process to get in the ORG can take quite a while, but maybe if instead of everyone voting (or not voting) we could elect a few who pay close attention and read the sun deck.

We can call it the gang of nine.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

mdccclxix
07-23-2012, 12:30 PM
I appreciate all the good input that has been provided so far. For those of you who favor keeping the boards separate but allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck, how do you propose Sun Deck members gain access to the ORG? Are you anticipating more ORG members voting if they can interact with Sun Deck members or via another way?

I do like the idea of being able to post in the Sun Deck and it would interest me to see how far it goes and what shape it takes.

jojo
07-23-2012, 12:48 PM
I appreciate all the good input that has been provided so far. For those of you who favor keeping the boards separate but allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck, how do you propose Sun Deck members gain access to the ORG? Are you anticipating more ORG members voting if they can interact with Sun Deck members or via another way?

Can something similar to an up/down vote system be implemented for posts? Maybe only ORG members could hit the up/down vote button for a post.

Then arbitrary criteria could be established.... For example, if after 200 posts, a person is at a rating of 85% or higher (or whatever is deemed acceptable), they could automatically gain ORG access.

Its not too different than the rep system of the past but it would be a streamlined system that would not add to anyone's workload and ORG members would have already voted in essence through their interactions with SDers.

Boss-Hog
07-23-2012, 01:16 PM
Can something similar to an up/down vote system be implemented for posts? Maybe only ORG members could hit the up/down vote button for a post.

Then arbitrary criteria could be established.... For example, if after 200 posts, a person is at a rating of 85% or higher (or whatever is deemed acceptable), they could automatically gain ORG access.

Its not too different than the rep system of the past but it would be a streamlined system that would not add to anyone's workload and ORG members would have already voted in essence through their interactions with SDers.

It's a good idea, but I don't BELIEVE that's possible. I will have to see if there is an addon that supports this, but I am not aware if one.

Unassisted
07-23-2012, 01:55 PM
Are you anticipating more ORG members votingThe main reason I don't always vote is because I don't routinely visit the voting forum to notice new threads there. If the lack of ORG members voting is the main issue that prompted this discussion, maybe the notifications of voting need to be more direct? Can you set the subscribe feature in the voting forum to notify every ORG member of every new thread there. (Not every post, just every thread, since every thread includes an action item for an ORG member.)

Part of the obligation of being an ORG member would be that we agree to receive these PM notifications.

Caveat Emperor
07-23-2012, 01:57 PM
I voted no.

A number of posters are clear trolls not trying to add anything to the discussion and just derail threads. I think the whole point of the split is to simply weed people like this out. Unless mods are ready to ban a poster after 5-10 posts regularly, then this issue will not persist.

I like it as is.

There are at least few people on the ORG that do nothing but derail threads as well -- it's part of the reason I don't post on the baseball side nearly as much as I used to.

Patrick Bateman
07-23-2012, 02:00 PM
There are at least few people on the ORG that do nothing but derail threads as well -- it's part of the reason I don't post on the baseball side nearly as much as I used to.

I agree. I don't know what there is to do about that, probably a different topic altogether.

pedro
07-23-2012, 02:01 PM
I appreciate all the good input that has been provided so far. For those of you who favor keeping the boards separate but allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck, how do you propose Sun Deck members gain access to the ORG? Are you anticipating more ORG members voting if they can interact with Sun Deck members or via another way?

I think it should be left to the mods with the major criteria being whether or not a poster who wants to be able to join the ORG has 1) been around for a minimum of 90 days 2) is a somewhat regular contributor and 3) doesn't toss firebombs into every thread they participate in. I think voting by ORG members should be ended and that the only criteria for entry should be that you are not a troll or a complete jerk.

Caveat Emperor
07-23-2012, 02:03 PM
I agree. I don't know what there is to do about that, probably a different topic altogether.

You add more voices. When there's a limited number of voices on a board, one loud and obnoxious one can really drown out the rest.

mdccclxix
07-23-2012, 02:04 PM
I think it's the nature of conversation, stream of consciousness, etc. There are sub topics that relate tangentially to the main thread and often that sparks a debate and the thread is off in another direction. Not that big a deal most of the time, although finding relevant discussions can be harder. In general, I think more threads of less length could be helpful. Narrowing the topic often spurs better conversation.

nemesis
07-23-2012, 03:33 PM
I like having separate Forums. To many poor posters in the Sun Deck would kill the quality of threads and turn some into long drawn out arguments.

The best case scenario for myself would be allowing the ORG members to cross post since we were already once and proven valued posters of the Sun Deck. Still creates a need to prove yourself below before you can come above but allows you to continue to post and improve posts on the Sun Deck... (they do seem to have more "fun" discussions down there)

RedlegJake
07-23-2012, 03:33 PM
I appreciate all the good input that has been provided so far. For those of you who favor keeping the boards separate but allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck, how do you propose Sun Deck members gain access to the ORG? Are you anticipating more ORG members voting if they can interact with Sun Deck members or via another way?

I like the Sun Deck access idea, Boss, but I also like the restriction on us being able to start threads there. If you go that route I think it should remain their board basically but ORG members are basically helping to raise the bar of discussion and interact to get to know members. To gain access I think a "no" vote level should be instituted - if a member gets a certain level of no votes - say 20, he is not elected. This is because of the problem of overall voting - this means only prospective members that are really considered problems would require a vote at all. Members are more likely to vote to keep someone out than keep someone in, imo. It gets pretty vociferous when a real troller tries for membership in the ORG and on the other hand almost no action at all sometimes when its a good poster.

RedlegJake
07-23-2012, 03:43 PM
One more note for keeping the ORG separate Boss. Recently I had a minor squabble with Patrick Bateman. Nothing big. But we dusted up a bit and then we PM'd apologies and got everything cool again between us. This is the nature of the members on the ORG. Debate can get heated, but basically we try to be civil and even when it gets out of hand - we've become friends and acquaintances and want to keep good relationships. We try to get along. We give the benefit of the doubt. We bite our tongues sometimes, and apologize the times when we don't. When I was a moderator almost every member I had to say something to was apologetic in the end. This is a great board of people willing to have a civil discourse with each other and I think that's more important than whether the conversation gets stale sometimes. You and GIK and everyone associated with building this board have made a great place to discuss Reds baseball out of the ORG. I just hate to risk that quality above all by opening the board up to any and all.

Brutus
07-23-2012, 03:43 PM
I prefer just outright adjoining the boards if we make changes, but as a substitute, I'd be in favor of ORG members posting on the Sundeck, though without the thread-starting restriction. I don't see that being necessary if promoting healthy discussion is the goal. I will say, though, I like the idea of an up/down voting system or (private) rep system as means to a call-up. I think allowing ORG members participate there and having a rep system, perhaps it would encourage more of a hands-on approach to membership.

If we join the boards, I'd advocate some kind of (again, private) rep system as means for helping moderators. I'd also suggest a restriction for new members from starting threads for a period of time, which would help weed out trolls and redundant topics.

gonelong
07-23-2012, 04:04 PM
I appreciate all the good input that has been provided so far. For those of you who favor keeping the boards separate but allowing ORG members to post in the Sun Deck, how do you propose Sun Deck members gain access to the ORG? Are you anticipating more ORG members voting if they can interact with Sun Deck members or via another way?

I know I would, it's very hard to get to know people when you don't have any back and forth with them.

IMO this would be a good first step. Don't allow ORG members to start threads, but allow them to comment.

GL

MikeThierry
07-23-2012, 06:34 PM
I like having separate Forums. To many poor posters in the Sun Deck would kill the quality of threads and turn some into long drawn out arguments.

The best case scenario for myself would be allowing the ORG members to cross post since we were already once and proven valued posters of the Sun Deck. Still creates a need to prove yourself below before you can come above but allows you to continue to post and improve posts on the Sun Deck... (they do seem to have more "fun" discussions down there)

This......

nate
07-23-2012, 08:50 PM
As I recall, when ORG members could post in the Sun Deck, ORG got very little traffic.

Boss-Hog
07-23-2012, 08:54 PM
As I recall, when ORG members could post in the Sun Deck, ORG got very little traffic.

I can't recall, but you very well may be right. I wouldn't want to see that happen again.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 08:55 PM
As I recall, when ORG members could post in the Sun Deck, ORG got very little traffic.

That's true, and many subjects became double posted, hence not allowing ORG members to start threads is the preferred method of interaction

nate
07-23-2012, 09:28 PM
I could be wrong but I recall reduced ORG traffic as a big reason for the current system.

westofyou
07-23-2012, 09:47 PM
I could be wrong but I recall reduced ORG traffic as a big reason for the current system.
Yes, that is how I recall it going down

Joseph
07-23-2012, 09:51 PM
Let's just rename the board the Old Red Guard, then everyone can post everywhere.

Or not.

savafan
07-23-2012, 10:07 PM
As I recall, when ORG members could post in the Sun Deck, ORG got very little traffic.

That's how I remember it as well.

GAC
07-24-2012, 04:13 AM
A number of posters are clear trolls not trying to add anything to the discussion and just derail threads.

If true, then they'll probably get banned right away. Don't let the bad keep the good out. Weed out the obviously bad (i.e. trolls).

GAC
07-24-2012, 04:47 AM
Boss/GIK....

Why, or what is the motivation/reasoning for now wanting to merge the two forums?

Again, I personally think it's a good idea. Simplifies the process.

If people are worried about "bad apples", those bad apples will take care of themselves eventually if they refuse to follow the rules.

Boss-Hog
07-24-2012, 06:36 AM
Boss/GIK....

Why, or what is the motivation/reasoning for now wanting to merge the two forums?

Again, I personally think it's a good idea. Simplifies the process.

If people are worried about "bad apples", those bad apples will take care of themselves eventually if they refuse to follow the rules.
Yes, I agree on the last point. One of the reasons is the apathy that I've seen over a fairly long period of time towards the voting process and it does take some time on my end to do. If people aren't interested in voting, I see no reason to continue doing it. Also, I think this forum could use some new blood, provided the new posters are capable of following the basic rules of the site. New posters don't have to come from merging the forums - they could come from a revised system that allows Sun Deck members to join the ORG.

Mario-Rijo
07-24-2012, 07:26 AM
Yes, I agree on the last point. One of the reasons is the apathy that I've seen over a fairly long period of time towards the voting process and it does take some time on my end to do. If people aren't interested in voting, I see no reason to continue doing it. Also, I think this forum could use some new blood, provided the new posters are capable of following the basic rules of the site. New posters don't have to come from merging the forums - they could come from a revised system that allows Sun Deck members to join the ORG.

I think this is the best way. Merging doesn't feel like it's necessary or even wanted by a significant number of posters on both boards. I think if there hasn't been an ideal scenario given by now there probably isn't one.

So i'd say go with the next best thing and just allow access to all those who want it right away and then give those who wanna act up (on both sides of the board) a bit of a short leash (suspensions/demotions/eventual limited bans). As for future additions well if we aren't gonna vote then it's just a matter of time/posts for automatic entrance. Something long enough to keep trolls from getting in quickly to short enough for those who want to post here to move reasonably quick. If we are gonna vote I don't know how we could change it enough so it's not so time consuming for you and for everyone really, still have to read folks history to be smart about it and I know that is the thing that people hate about the process, it's not so much the actual vote (though that does have it's own issues).

Let those who want entry in and be a bit stricter/quicker with rule breakers.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-24-2012, 11:46 AM
I don't know if this has ever been brought up, but would it be possible for SunDeck posters to get rep points only from ORG members and once they pass a certain threshold, they gain access to the ORG? I don't know about anyone else, but I go over and check that side out every day.

With that said, I wouldn't lose sleep if the boards were merged. I just think if you're looking for maybe an easier way to determine ORG access from the SunDeck, it would be pretty neat to give us the opportunity to rep quality posts over there. No negative rep either, just positive.

Boss-Hog
07-24-2012, 12:01 PM
I don't know if this has ever been brought up, but would it be possible for SunDeck posters to get rep points only from ORG members and once they pass a certain threshold, they gain access to the ORG? I don't know about anyone else, but I go over and check that side out every day.

With that said, I wouldn't lose sleep if the boards were merged. I just think if you're looking for maybe an easier way to determine ORG access from the SunDeck, it would be pretty neat to give us the opportunity to rep quality posts over there. No negative rep either, just positive.

I think that's mostly possible, but I don't believe there is a way to only allow positive rep.

Unassisted
07-24-2012, 12:15 PM
I don't believe there is a way to only allow positive rep.Another vBulletin forum I frequent uses only positive rep (http://www.city-data.com/forum/about-forum/1182857-negative-reputation-points.html).

Boss-Hog
07-24-2012, 12:44 PM
Another vBulletin forum I frequent uses only positive rep (http://www.city-data.com/forum/about-forum/1182857-negative-reputation-points.html).

Thanks...do any others like this idea?

dougdirt
07-24-2012, 12:46 PM
Thanks...do any others like this idea?

If we are allowed to post in that forum, I don't dislike it. But I can't imagine many going down there to read the topics if they aren't going to also be allowed to post there.

Boss-Hog
07-24-2012, 01:14 PM
If we are allowed to post in that forum, I don't dislike it. But I can't imagine many going down there to read the topics if they aren't going to also be allowed to post there.

That's a valid point - it just concerns me that we tried that once before and the post volume in the ORG took a hit.

bucksfan2
07-24-2012, 01:24 PM
I hardly ever read the SunDeck anymore. When ORG members were allowed to post I would interact down there from time to time if ORG was dead. I like the way RedsZone currently works. Most if not all the posters on ORG I fully respect their opinion and baseball knowledge even if I disagree with their belief. Posting in the non baseball threads has been pretty good for the most part but from time to time you get something out of left field that either makes no sense or doesn't help the discussion.

In order to increase the membership from the SunDeck to RZ why not make it a 51% vote? To be honest I hardly ever check the futures section and very rarely ever vote. Form time to time I will venture in there and pretty much vote yes on everyone unless I really didn't think they had anything to add.

Boss-Hog
07-24-2012, 01:36 PM
The issue is that hardly anyone has been voting for some time, so to me, that indicates disinterest with the current system. I don't think the necessary percentage is the issue, as I can't recall many candidates that received 50% of vote but not 70%.

Puffy
07-24-2012, 01:45 PM
Merging? I am in favor of adding a third forum to get rid of some of the drivel that has killed the ORG.

:laugh:

UKFlounder
07-24-2012, 02:12 PM
I like it as is, but admit I have little interest in the voting process or in the Sun Deck since I can't post there (though even if I could, I'm more of a lurker at this point.)

I kind of think the KISS approach should be considered - Keep it Simple. There are some good ideas in this thread, but they might be a lot of work. I think that either keeping it like it is, but tweeking the "selection process" of promoting people to ORG or just making it one big forum would be best, and easier than trying to implement who can or can't start threads or keeping track of time limits or post counts, etc.

Of course, Boss and GIK may not mind those extra steps (with help from the moderators) but I do think that simple may be better.

SirFelixCat
07-24-2012, 02:42 PM
That's a valid point - it just concerns me that we tried that once before and the post volume in the ORG took a hit.

Try it on a trial basis, with the caveat that ORG posters can't start threads.

Brutus
07-24-2012, 02:57 PM
I still think if we do anything, we might as well combine the forums.

But I do think letting ORG members post on the Sun Deck, without the ability to start threads, would promote some additional interaction with those members and if there were a rep system that ORG members could utilize, it could definitely create a more interactive voting system. If that's the goal with this possible change, then it might work without killing discussion here. But I sense it would be easier just to combine the forums and hold everyone to the same standards we'd expect here.

mdccclxix
07-24-2012, 03:18 PM
I belong to a vBulliten board elsewhere and if a poster has a negative thing to say about a player or coach and their post count is low they get negative reps like crazy, are unwelcome, and can be quickly banned if the newbie is persistent. It makes for another sort of insular, group think style where everyone is out to prove their allegiance to the team. In one sense, the place is policed quite effectively, in another there isn't much incentive for newbies to express their ideas, especially if they're different. The discourse on ORG is a lot more open to disagreements. Of course, baseball is different than college basketball. But the flaming is almost non-existent on ORG, which I really value. If the forums are merged, I support commenting only for 100+ comments with the option to negative rep or report insane people to have them gone within 15 minutes if need be.

edit: perhaps once they've reached a 2nd level of admission they can lose their rep point visibility, which served as an indicator but is no longer needed once they've been shown to be trustworthy. Also, they could begin starting threads.

camisadelgolf
07-24-2012, 04:05 PM
If we are allowed to post in that forum, I don't dislike it. But I can't imagine many going down there to read the topics if they aren't going to also be allowed to post there.
That may be true, but I feel like it's the people who take the effort to visit the Sundeck while trying to make the ORG a better place who deserve the biggest say in who's in the ORG. Personally, I know I'd give positive rep to Sundeck members to members of the Sundeck I'd like to see in the ORG.

klw
07-24-2012, 04:11 PM
That's a valid point - it just concerns me that we tried that once before and the post volume in the ORG took a hit.

Well if that were to happen again (majority of posting in Sun Deck, low volume in ORG) it would be a good argument for merger as it would indicate that the interaction of all parties was occurring in a way that was approved by most of the board.

AtomicDumpling
07-24-2012, 04:42 PM
So how is the vote going in this thread Boss?

Judging from the posts it seems that a small majority want the forums (fora?) to remain separate but with a quicker and easier non-voting process to get more SunDeckers into the ORG.

camisadelgolf
07-24-2012, 04:43 PM
Another idea: if we combine the forums, what if posts get automatically hidden if they receive a certain amount of negative reputation votes?

westofyou
07-24-2012, 04:53 PM
Another idea: if we combine the forums, what if posts get automatically hidden if they receive a certain amount of negative reputation votes?

While all of these are great ideas.. voting, add-ons, they are also:

Programming
Testing
Trouble shooting
Maintenance

Which is more work, so I'd think the KISS way might be the best for the manpower that has to run the site.

I spend all day long chasing software around hoping it will be perfect and do something for someone, it never is perfect though... but I'm getting paid to do it.

Whenever I'm asked if something is possible I say sure.... but it all comes with a price and all requests need to be measured with one thing in mind.


Is it an enhancement that is manageable?
Will it be used by a large enough group to justify the T&M that will go into it
Is it sustainable? Or will all the work I throw into it be tossed when point 1 and point 2 no longer are true

Boss-Hog
07-24-2012, 05:19 PM
Another idea: if we combine the forums, what if posts get automatically hidden if they receive a certain amount of negative reputation votes?
As of woy said, that can't be done (at least not within stock vB).

Boss-Hog
07-24-2012, 05:20 PM
So how is the vote going in this thread Boss?

Judging from the posts it seems that a small majority want the forums (fora?) to remain separate but with a quicker and easier non-voting process to get more SunDeckers into the ORG.
I think that's a fair summary. I'd prefer not to provide the current results because I don't want them to influence people who have not yet voted (either way), but we've received enough input that I'll end the polls earlier than originally scheduled (14 days).

Redsfan320
07-24-2012, 05:40 PM
I ultimately voted Yes, as I don't see a significant reason to have two forums. However, there are a lot of really good ideas in here that still involve keeping them separate and I'd have no problem with that either. Also, I think if they were merged, a tighter leash than what the Sun Deck seems used to would certainly be necessary.

320

Joseph
07-24-2012, 05:51 PM
I'm all for joining them up. Maybe allow current ORG members to be in a group that can hand out rep and once new members recieve X amount they are also allowed to 'rep' posters. The rep can be negative or positive and hopefully we'll work to weed out the bad elements.

For example, someone gets to 100+ they are allowed to rep others [and maybe the rep locks at that point] and if they get to 100- they are banned/expelled whatever.

Red in Chicago
07-24-2012, 06:09 PM
My two cents

Let them in
No rep system

savafan
07-24-2012, 09:07 PM
I'm curious, if it's not too personal a question, how many hours would the current and former moderators say they spend actively moderating the forum? Is it fair to assume that at any given time, on any given day, there is at least one active moderator/administrator policing the board? Has the amount of time and work required to moderate increase with 2 baseball forums as opposed to when there was just one?

Joseph
07-24-2012, 09:09 PM
I'm curious, if it's not too personal a question, how many hours would the current and former moderators say they spend actively moderating the forum? Is it fair to assume that at any given time, on any given day, there is at least one active moderator/administrator policing the board? Has the amount of time and work required to moderate increase with 2 baseball forums as opposed to when there was just one?

As a former moderator I can say that its was VERY easy to overlook the Sundeck forum. I would be of the opinion that combining them [and maybe adding a couple mods] would make the work easier.

Most of the work I did in the sundeck involved posts that were reported by other members.

Boss-Hog
07-24-2012, 09:36 PM
It's hard to quantify, but some more than others. This isn't a full time job for any of us, so I think it's safe to say we contribute whatever time we can after our jobs, families, hobbies, etc. It'd be nice if there was always one active admin/moderator active, but for the reason I mentioned, I certainly can't guarantee that.

I think Joseph has a point, and I imagine the workload would be slightly reduced if we combined the baseball forums, but you're still dealing with the same number of posts to potentially moderate - it's just in one forum instead of two.


I'm curious, if it's not too personal a question, how many hours would the current and former moderators say they spend actively moderating the forum? Is it fair to assume that at any given time, on any given day, there is at least one active moderator/administrator policing the board? Has the amount of time and work required to moderate increase with 2 baseball forums as opposed to when there was just one?

Brutus
07-24-2012, 09:44 PM
It's hard to quantify, but some more than others. This isn't a full time job for any of us, so I think it's safe to say we contribute whatever time we can after our jobs, families, hobbies, etc. It'd be nice if there was always one active admin/moderator active, but for the reason I mentioned, I certainly can't guarantee that.

I think Joseph has a point, and I imagine the workload would be slightly reduced if we combined the baseball forums, but you're still dealing with the same number of posts to potentially moderate - it's just in one forum instead of two.

Boss, it would be the same number of posts, but probably only about 50-70% of the threads that moderators would have to surf through.

If Joey Votto signs a long-term extension, that topic is started as a thread on two different forums. But with a combined forum, while it might roughly be the same number of posts, at least they're contained into one thread.

I definitely think, just looking at it in terms of moderator workload, a combined forum would cut down on the work. Not suggesting that's the most important consideration, obviously, but it definitely would cut down on the efforts.

Boss-Hog
07-24-2012, 09:51 PM
That's a valid point; you're right, though, that isn't the primary consideration, but it's certainly not insignificant, either.

WVPacman
07-24-2012, 11:46 PM
Boss,we can't thank you enough for putting this site up so all of us can get on here and talk baseball.You and your guys have already done more than enough for us to make us happy ands make this site the best reds site on the net.Do what ever you need to to make it easier for you and your guys so you would'nt have to work as much on here.Do whats best for you b/c you have already done more than enough for all of us.

savafan
07-24-2012, 11:50 PM
While reading the thread on this same topic in the Sun Deck, I thought that user ukredsfan made a small but notable point with this:


If someone visits this site for a period of time without incident, regardless of how many posts the user has made I doubt they are suddenly going to go crazy just because they have ORG access.

FlightRick
07-25-2012, 12:33 AM
I'd say ukredsfan has a point, except that I was in the SunDeck (without incident) for 8 years before getting the "call up," so I'm going to stay grumpy and elitist now that I'm here!

Or, joking aside, my vote for keep some level of separation remains, but I'm all for lowing the bar/making it easier to make the jump. Especially if there are ORG members who really do want some new blood and are confident the "new blood" will be more good than bad.

It comes down to this, I think: how do you want membership to the ORG defined?

(1) If you must be so good that you earn inclusion, then some sort of "starter" forum must be maintained, even if you lower requirements for the ORG or increase cross-polination between the ORG and SunDeck. Or,

(2) If you must be so bad that you are excluded (banned), then go ahead with the straight merger. But then also be ready with enough increased moderation that bannings happen in a timely and efficient manner.



Rick

gilpdawg
07-25-2012, 12:52 AM
I'm a member of a board where new people can't start threads until they've been there for a pre-determined amount of time or a certain number of posts. If we combined boards, that would maybe eliminate the troll threads because people would have to read and slowly integrate themselves to what is expected here. IMO that's not a horrible idea.

GAC
07-25-2012, 04:10 AM
I'm a member of a board where new people can't start threads until they've been there for a pre-determined amount of time or a certain number of posts. If we combined boards, that would maybe eliminate the troll threads because people would have to read and slowly integrate themselves to what is expected here. IMO that's not a horrible idea.

I'm on a sports forum that that does this too, and it does seem to work. One can post/read; but has to serve a probationary period (maybe a month), and the administrator/mod then determines to allow you thread starting capabilities.

GAC
07-25-2012, 04:40 AM
The issue is that hardly anyone has been voting for some time, so to me, that indicates disinterest with the current system

And the above is the key. It was a novel idea, but it simply hasn't worked because of disinterest or whatever.

I know of a couple current ORG members who it seem like it took forever to get them ORG membership, and it was simply because several of us couldn't get ORG members involved enough, and thus they couldn't reach that threshold to gain membership.

We created this sub-forum in order to "screen" posters (good from the bad) for possible future entry into the ORG, and then another sub-forum (Future) for voting; but the system they rely on to gain entry has basically proven unreliable to a large degree. And it's without a doubt "our" (ORG member's) fault. So they are basically kept in a sort of "purgatory" (not a slight on the SD either).

If the SD is to remain with that intended purpose... and I still say merge them.... then I still believe we should eliminate the ORG member voting, as well as The Future forum (saves bandwidth), and create a forum that is only accessible/readable by either a committee of mods... if they are willing to do so. I certainly don't want to volunteer them for more responsibility/work when they already do a great job ... or a newly formed committee of veteran ORG members (five), who are well liked/respected to invite SD members for ORG membership.

What will then occur is possibly two things....

1) a gradual process where the SD will most likely lose it relevancy, less people posting as members are promoted, and can, at some point if need be, be totally eliminated.

2) It continues to prove it's usefulness as simply a "preemptive" and cautionary screening tool for future ORG membership. It's just no longer done by ORG member voting.

lidspinner
07-25-2012, 06:29 AM
I have sat and let this sink in my brain for a bit and I have a thought, kind of piggybacking off others ideas.......why not keep them separated but allow ORG posters to use the SD, let them start threads, post, do whatever it is they want....but use the ORG for more detailed conversations that deal with some in depth stats of the such......

basically, the SD would be like the AAA farm team, you do good there for awhile and prove yourself then you can gain membership to the ORG.....earlier I stated I wanted it to be harder to get into the ORG, I take that back, lets make it easier but lets make some platforms that you must reach before getting the "call up" to the ORG. Make it somewhat easy but not so anyone who joins the site can get to the ORG in a few months...the average member should have to post and participate in the SD for awhile before getting to the ORG, but we dont need a voting system, just have them PM a MOD and the MOD checks the posters credentials and if he meets all the criteria then said poster is in.

Basically it allows ORG faithful to continue with the high end discussion threads that normally do contain some really great thoughts and posts and normally are well discussed thoughts.....the SD is more for people who just want to chime in with an "I agree" type post......thats just my opinion and the way I look at the ORG versus SD forums....and I mean no ill will towards SD members as I stated earlier, I see at least a few threads a week that I wish I could post in because they are really good topics with great discussion.

but, as noted by another poster already, GAC and Boss, you guys do what you feel is best, this is your board and we are all just visitors....I truly do feel like you guys have opened your doors and welcomed us all in at your house to talk Reds.....but at the end of the day, its still your house and you can decorate it how ever you prefer and I will still stop by and talk ball anytime.....

Mario-Rijo
07-25-2012, 12:02 PM
I don't care for the idea of allowing ORG posters to post in the SD. I think it's less than ideal for the ORG and the SD. Sure it has it's pros but I think the cons outweigh them (we've been over them). I still say no merge (we need the SD to filter future members) but let's just get this mass exodus from the SD underway already, the sooner we can get through the growing pains the sooner we can get back to a playoff run. But I know Boss & GIK will figure out the right thing so I am fine with whatever.

_Sir_Charles_
07-25-2012, 01:50 PM
Boss,we can't thank you enough for putting this site up so all of us can get on here and talk baseball.You and your guys have already done more than enough for us to make us happy ands make this site the best reds site on the net.Do what ever you need to to make it easier for you and your guys so you would'nt have to work as much on here.Do whats best for you b/c you have already done more than enough for all of us.

Well said. Personally, I'm in favor of merging. But not if it means more work. Simpler is better.

mdccclxix
07-25-2012, 02:19 PM
Boss, it would be the same number of posts, but probably only about 50-70% of the threads that moderators would have to surf through.

If Joey Votto signs a long-term extension, that topic is started as a thread on two different forums. But with a combined forum, while it might roughly be the same number of posts, at least they're contained into one thread.

I definitely think, just looking at it in terms of moderator workload, a combined forum would cut down on the work. Not suggesting that's the most important consideration, obviously, but it definitely would cut down on the efforts.

From the ORG or Sundeck user perspective it would create more threads to sort through as well. Which, IMO could be good, or tiresome. Mostly, I think the ORG is too compact with threads and more issues could be brought out into their own threads instead of buried in a 700 post thread. The Sundeck, otoh, tends to have more micro topics. Frankly, I get more laughs out of the Sundeck, albeit juvenile in nature. I love (LOVE) the serious approach in ORG, but a little (LITTLE) more insanity is okay by me. It's a great year and a great time to be a Reds fan, let egalitarianism reign!

lidspinner
07-25-2012, 03:21 PM
From the ORG or Sundeck user perspective it would create more threads to sort through as well. Which, IMO could be good, or tiresome. Mostly, I think the ORG is too compact with threads and more issues could be brought out into their own threads instead of buried in a 700 post thread. The Sundeck, otoh, tends to have more micro topics. Frankly, I get more laughs out of the Sundeck, albeit juvenile in nature. I love (LOVE) the serious approach in ORG, but a little (LITTLE) more insanity is okay by me. It's a great year and a great time to be a Reds fan, let egalitarianism reign!


I kind of want to piggyback off the sentence bolded and underlined above....sometimes it is crazy to want to post something about, lets say Jay Bruce, and someone has dug up a 2 year old thread on jay to post it in there....sometimes I dont want to sift through all the jive from a ways back and that is the one thing the SD has that the ORG does not.....we can still have great discussions and great topics without placing every single topic about a certain thought under one umbrella thread.....having 2-4 threads about Jay Bruce, but from different times of the season are fine with me, it allows me to find what i am looking for easier as opposed to finding one huge thread and reading through the last 5-7 pages to see if something is posted or not.......

once again, just my opinion, and its one of the few things I loved about the SD and disslike about the ORG so I thought it needed said.

RedlegJake
07-25-2012, 04:37 PM
I love some of the fun posts in the Sundeck. I admit it, I am a closet Sundeck reader! I'd be for joining both boards in an instant if there is a way to keep the "Griffey is not your Savior" posters out of it. Reading their thread on the same topic I was amused to see how many thought of ORG as a math/stat/analytical board because I'm about as analytical as a pig with a calculator. Seriously - I'm math challenged and you guys make me work hard to understand some of the stuff you bring up - which is one of the great things about ORG - I've learned a ton just interacting here but it does get heavy - some threads I just read because you admittedly fly over my head (statistical outliers and theories involving advanced math statistics that only actuaries really understand etc).
I was also struck at how many Sundeckers think the ORG is here because we are trying to be elitist. I've never felt that way. I'm offended at the thought. It's simply a screen to keep out trolls for crying out loud - if they had been here in the "Savior" days they might understand. That and similar trollishness almost made the board unreadable. The ORG division saved it. Still, maybe its purpose has run its course.

Whatever, I am on board with whatever Boss and GIK feel is appropriate and thank them for the tons of time and what they've spent out of pocket to keep this board up and running. It's your board and I'm fine on whatever you want to do!

Mario-Rijo
07-25-2012, 05:59 PM
I love some of the fun posts in the Sundeck. I admit it, I am a closet Sundeck reader! I'd be for joining both boards in an instant if there is a way to keep the "Griffey is not your Savior" posters out of it. Reading their thread on the same topic I was amused to see how many thought of ORG as a math/stat/analytical board because I'm about as analytical as a pig with a calculator. Seriously - I'm math challenged and you guys make me work hard to understand some of the stuff you bring up - which is one of the great things about ORG - I've learned a ton just interacting here but it does get heavy - some threads I just read because you admittedly fly over my head (statistical outliers and theories involving advanced math statistics that only actuaries really understand etc).
I was also struck at how many Sundeckers think the ORG is here because we are trying to be elitist. I've never felt that way. I'm offended at the thought. It's simply a screen to keep out trolls for crying out loud - if they had been here in the "Savior" days they might understand. That and similar trollishness almost made the board unreadable. The ORG division saved it. Still, maybe its purpose has run its course.

Whatever, I am on board with whatever Boss and GIK feel is appropriate and thank them for the tons of time and what they've spent out of pocket to keep this board up and running. It's your board and I'm fine on whatever you want to do!

Good post Jake, agree. :thumbup:

Ghosts of 1990
07-25-2012, 08:33 PM
I am all for it. I mean I'm not above anyone else. Anyone can talk baseball and make decent points if they really wish to. I hope to see it. I don't have the time to read the Sun Deck much but I would bet there's a lot of really good guys in there (and gals) to talk baseball with right now.

fearofpopvol1
07-26-2012, 03:13 AM
I have always said that it is generally like this because a majority of the 'good' posters show up for a week, find out they can't post in the ORG, then leave for other places. Open it up, all around discussion picks up, better posters that used to leave now stick around and pick up even stronger conversation. Stronger conversation pushes aside "X player sucks!" talk and those posters either leave or are forced to step up their argument beyond 'because I said so'.

I think this is a serious issue. I know I wouldn't want to wait it out in the Sun Deck forever.

With that said, I like the 2 forums to be separate, but I like the idea of some kind of fast tracking system for quality posters. I'm not sure how that would work exactly, but that is what I think.

CySeymour
07-26-2012, 09:30 AM
I think this is a serious issue. I know I wouldn't want to wait it out in the Sun Deck forever.

With that said, I like the 2 forums to be separate, but I like the idea of some kind of fast tracking system for quality posters. I'm not sure how that would work exactly, but that is what I think.

I would agree, if the board does decide to keep the two sections separate, there needs to be a better way for users to gain admission to the org.

AtomicDumpling
07-26-2012, 08:21 PM
... I like the 2 forums to be separate, but I like the idea of some kind of fast tracking system for quality posters. I'm not sure how that would work exactly, but that is what I think.

Agreed 100%. :beerme:

savafan
07-27-2012, 02:32 PM
The one thing I've never been able to grasp is what is the definition of "quality discussion"? I would think it is a subjective opinion, and differs from person to person. There are no statistics which can be drawn from to show that a poster engages in "quality discussion". The rules of the forum are at the bottom of every page. You stick to those, you're fine. We're all baseball fans here, most of us fans of the Reds. When you go to GABP and buy a ticket, the sections of the stadium aren't broken down by baseball IQ. I've enjoyed many great conversations at games over the years with many strangers with variable levels of knowledge on the game, and I've enjoyed each one.

jojo
07-27-2012, 02:42 PM
The one thing I've never been able to grasp is what is the definition of "quality discussion"? I would think it is a subjective opinion, and differs from person to person. There are no statistics which can be drawn from to show that a poster engages in "quality discussion". The rules of the forum are at the bottom of every page. You stick to those, you're fine. We're all baseball fans here, most of us fans of the Reds. When you go to GABP and buy a ticket, the sections of the stadium aren't broken down by baseball IQ. I've enjoyed many great conversations at games over the years with many strangers with variable levels of knowledge on the game, and I've enjoyed each one.

In my mind, quality discussion is generally characterized by a penchant to share the reasons for your opinions and to be motivated by a desire to raise the level of discourse rather than lower it. I think most people would be on board with that. The board rules specifically address the most prevelant aspects that detract from quality discussion but (and here's where reasonable people could really disgree) IMHO a person could follow all of the board rules and not necesarily rise to the bar that seems to be set in the description of the ORG authored by Boss and GIK. That said, they obviously have given us a large say in defining this standard by allowing us each an equal vote.

Mario-Rijo
07-27-2012, 04:18 PM
The one thing I've never been able to grasp is what is the definition of "quality discussion"? I would think it is a subjective opinion, and differs from person to person. There are no statistics which can be drawn from to show that a poster engages in "quality discussion". The rules of the forum are at the bottom of every page. You stick to those, you're fine. We're all baseball fans here, most of us fans of the Reds. When you go to GABP and buy a ticket, the sections of the stadium aren't broken down by baseball IQ. I've enjoyed many great conversations at games over the years with many strangers with variable levels of knowledge on the game, and I've enjoyed each one.

I agree, not to mention people can & do learn. Excellent post.

DGullett35
07-29-2012, 01:56 AM
Kind of funny how the voting went. Seemed like most that posted on this thread were for the merger. The votes tell a different story.

Brutus
07-29-2012, 04:35 AM
Kind of funny how the voting went. Seemed like most that posted on this thread were for the merger. The votes tell a different story.

I dunno. The vote was basically 60-40 and that seems to be in line with the tone of the thread, I thought.

Vottomatic
07-29-2012, 09:27 AM
Why not open the Sun Deck to ORG posters and see if the discussions get better or worse?

dougdirt
07-29-2012, 12:40 PM
The Sundeck voted 83-17 for one forum. The ORG voted 61-39 against one forum. I figured it would probably be something like that.

westofyou
07-29-2012, 12:51 PM
The Sundeck voted 83-17 for one forum. The ORG voted 61-39 against one forum. I figured it would probably be something like that.

Plus they got to read all sorts of opinions about their existence!

So now they've been insulted and rejected.

Unfortunately from the thread on the Sundeck on voting some have returned the former of those on the members up here as well as the boards owners.

What I'd be interested in knowing is

A. How many people are in the ORG now

B. How many of the voters in this poll were once in the Sundeck.

For the record I did not vote, nor do I condemn anyone for their views.

dougdirt
07-29-2012, 01:04 PM
All I know is that the minor league forum lets both sides post and it is an outstanding forum with hardly any issues at all to be dealt with. Yeah, not everyone from both sides post in there, but the ones that do tend to mingle well.

Benihana
07-29-2012, 01:25 PM
Unfortunately from the thread on the Sundeck on voting some have returned the former of those on the members up here as well as the boards owners.


Huh? :confused:

cincrazy
07-29-2012, 01:34 PM
Regardless of what happens, I think there needs to be some kind of change. There are several posters in the Sun Deck that most of us know nothing about, because they choose to mainly read the ORG instead of posting in the Sun Deck. They just don't feel like there's a process that will lead to their inclusion in the ORG in a timely manner. And I have to agree with that.

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread some kind of "committee" to be set up, and I like that idea. Have rounds of voting. Put 3 or 4 people in charge. The way it's currently set up, I don't know that I've ever voted. And if I have, it was months ago. I don't have time to consistently read on the ORG, while also keeping up with Sun Deck posters. But if we shifted that responsibility to different posters for short periods of time, I think it could work.

I know a lot of great baseball minds that were here, that stay in the background or walk away, simply because it's too complicated to gain admittance to the ORG. I think we need to correct that, and I'm glad ways are being discussed to make that happen.

Unassisted
07-29-2012, 01:37 PM
All I know is that the minor league forum lets both sides post and it is an outstanding forum with hardly any issues at all to be dealt with. Yeah, not everyone from both sides post in there, but the ones that do tend to mingle well.Minor league fans are likely to be hardcore and well-informed about the big picture. I would argue that that forum is not a cross-section that represents the Sun Deck, but it is a good place to identify posters who are ORG material.

dougdirt
07-29-2012, 01:37 PM
Minor league fans are likely to be hardcore and well-informed about the big picture. I would argue that that forum is not a cross-section that represents the Sun Deck, but it is a good place to identify posters who are ORG material.

I would argue that people who seek out Redszone are hardcore fans as well or they would stick to ESPN, Cincinnati or Reds.com.

Unassisted
07-29-2012, 01:43 PM
I would argue that people who seek out Redszone are hardcore fans as well or they would stick to ESPN or Reds.com."Well-informed" is the more important differentiator there. Being able to back up opinions with facts has a lot of appeal. Although there are plenty of folks bringing the passion, I don't see enough arguments supported by facts for my taste.

dougdirt
07-29-2012, 01:47 PM
"Well-informed" is the more important differentiator there. Being able to back up opinions with facts has a lot of appeal. Although there are plenty of folks bringing the passion, I don't see enough arguments supported by facts for my taste.

I still think that is mostly because we tend to promote the guys who do that, so there aren't many guys who feel the need to because they don't see the examples of it.

westofyou
07-29-2012, 02:56 PM
Huh? :confused:

Check out the stickie on the Sundeck concerning the merger, lots of reaction to this discussion there, hard to say it was all positive

RedlegJake
07-29-2012, 07:05 PM
Check out the stickie on the Sundeck concerning the merger, lots of reaction to this discussion there, hard to say it was all positive

I read all of it and agree - it was harsh, some of it, and some of it I agree with, some of it is why the forums are separate

jojo
07-29-2012, 07:20 PM
Posted for context:


Welcome to RedsZone.com. If this is your first visit, it’s important that you understand our mission and why the site was founded.

In 1999, a number of users participated in Reds discussion at Cincinnati.com. The site drew a large amount of traffic, particularly when it became evident that Ken Griffey Jr. would eventually become a Cincinnati Red, but the forum was essentially no-holds barred, anything goes. Personal attacks were the norm and moderation was non-existent. Noticing that there was genuine interest to discuss the team, but not a place to do so that was free from this type of behavior, in April 2000, co-founders GIK and Boss-Hog created RedsZone.com.

RedsZone was built upon the idea that members would have an opportunity to discuss their team by making intelligent posts in an environment that was free from the type of nastiness that became commonplace at Cincinnati.com. Invitations were extended to a group of people who we thought could best carry out this mission. The site become an instant hit, as users migrated from the old forum to RedsZone and word of mouth eventually reached other online Reds sites. Many of our initial members still post here to this day and are an especially valued group.

As RedsZone continued to gain popularity and grow, the site faced many challenges in maintaining the same level of quality discussion while allowing all fans of the team to participate. Eventually, it became necessary to create two separate baseball forums: one called The Old Red Guard (named after a very well respected former member of the board who has since passed) that was reserved for long-time members of the board and/or others who had proven themselves capable of making the type of quality posts that the site encouraged. The other forum, which was eventually renamed to Reds Live, was open for anyone to post in and generally consisted of the site’s newer members.

Additionally, those who were invited to post in the ORG were also given the ability to post in Reds Live and members could earn the ability to post in The Old Red Guard via a self-policing reputation system. This system, while an initial success, did not stand the test of time. Disrespect toward others became prevalent on both forums. In short, the site had become what it sought to get away from when it was founded.

In May 2007, after considerable debate, the decision was made to start a new Old Red Guard forum by selecting current members that best represented the RedsZone that we used to enjoy: one that was full of interesting posts, free from personal attacks, and a real sense of community. The remaining registered members of the site were given the ability to post in the renamed Sun Deck forum, with members earning the ability to post in the Old Red Guard via voting that replaced the existing reputation system.

Old Red Guard members have to vote prospective members in via 70% of no less than 50 total ORG member votes (or a minimum of 35 "Yes" votes), along with additional criteria (minimum registration time and post count) that must first be met. Additionally, ORG members are now restricted from posting in The Sun Deck and only within the current baseball forum. If this sounds like an elitist attitude, it’s not a coincidence, as we have determined that such drastic measures are necessary to return the site to the enjoyable place it had once been.

As a result, quality discussion and civility toward your fellow members are musts for posting here. We don’t look favorably upon topics that state little more than you think a player sucks or the like. It’s encouraged that you have opinions, but you should be able to back them up before convincing others. By the same token, it’s also very important to be respectful of others who may not follow or approach the game in the same manner that you do. Nastiness and condescending attitudes toward members will not be tolerated. Each user has a warning level below their user name that tracks any rule infractions that have occurred. This number is only viewable to you and should not be discussed with anyone other than the administrator or moderator who upped your warning. The site’s administrators and moderators reserve the right to suspend or ban any member who has broken site rules or whom they otherwise deem unfit to post here. Please keep in mind that this is a privately owned message board and it is not your personal right to post here.

If you’re looking for a place to blow off steam by pronouncing players worthless when the Reds play poorly, this is not the place for you. If you’re looking for a place to engage in smack talk, this is also not for the place for you. If you’re looking for a place to intelligently and passionately discuss the team in a respectful manner, this may be the place for you. If you agree to these rules, welcome to the board - please take some time out in the Introductions & Site Feedback forum to introduce yourself and say hello.

Welcome to the board.

GIK and Boss-Hog (co-founders, RedsZone.com)

It's actually truly remarkable that the mission of redszone has largely been achieved and maintained in the turbulent sea of intellectual flotsam and jetsam that is the "anonymous" internet (especially given the small number of moderators on redszone). It's even more remarkable that this is so given the incredible amount of input and ability to shape this community that Boss and GIK have freely given to it's members.

Just thought this thread wouldn't be complete without quoting the official redszone welcome.

traderumor
07-29-2012, 07:45 PM
Rethinking after seeing the trade deadline fool's day posts going on over at Sun Deck right now :p

edabbs44
07-29-2012, 08:50 PM
Rethinking after seeing the trade deadline fool's day posts going on over at Sun Deck right now :p

Was thinking the same thing, how ironic that was at this time.

WVRedsFan
07-29-2012, 09:07 PM
Just got through reading the SD. Not only this thread, but some others. If we merged, I imagine most of the present ORG would be gone by September. I'm still a no.

Plus Plus
07-29-2012, 09:12 PM
Just got through reading the SD. Not only this thread, but some others. If we merged, I imagine most of the present ORG would be gone by September. I'm still a no.

Could you elaborate, just so that I better understand what you are frustrated with more specifically?

savafan
07-29-2012, 09:47 PM
Rethinking after seeing the trade deadline fool's day posts going on over at Sun Deck right now :p

I looked, but I don't see the thread that you're referring to.

DGullett35
07-30-2012, 01:17 AM
If the merger does happen(I voted no by the way) I think that it would be better to do the merger in the offseason. The reason is that with the Reds on a roll and having a good shot at playing deep into October there will be alot of new people joining the board(Ive already noticed alot of new posters in the Sundeck) and I think some of these posters are "trolls" even though I hate that word. Im guilty of reading ESPN message boards and other boards also. I dont post on them but Ive seen a couple names on those boards and the same names have joined over here to the Sundeck. Im not going to mention any names and Im not 100% sure they're the same person(although reading their posts leads me to believe so) but they really do not add to any discussion and have caused problems on those other boards. Just a thought. I really do enjoy this board greatly and have learned alot from the very knowledgeable posters that we have. This board is a far cry from "ESPN message boards" and I would love it to stay that way. Thanks Boss and GIK for all you do this is my fav. site in all the net.

GAC
07-30-2012, 04:31 AM
Rethinking after seeing the trade deadline fool's day posts going on over at Sun Deck right now :p

And we haven't seen similar, even redundant, thread topics, in the ORG? :lol:

edabbs44
07-30-2012, 06:15 AM
I looked, but I don't see the thread that you're referring to.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97379

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97383

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97380

savafan
07-30-2012, 06:26 AM
And we haven't seen similar, even redundant, thread topics, in the ORG? :lol:

True, anytime there's a tweet from JohnnySmith, we end up discussing it on the ORG :)

Boss-Hog
07-30-2012, 05:22 PM
All,

Thank you very much for the replies - GIK and I have found the input very valuable. He and I, along with the moderating staff, are already discussing the route to choose and rest assured we will select the option that we feel is in the best long-term interest of the site and its users. We appreciate your patience while we reach that decision.

M2
07-30-2012, 09:08 PM
I'd like to add a yes if still possible. Wasn't that wild about the split when it happened. Yes, increasing the number of posters increases the noise quotient and potentially lowers the quality, but the quality bus left the station a long time ago. It's well past time to upset this board's equilibrium, to flush the system. Time for a really big enema.

Sea Ray
07-31-2012, 09:02 AM
I can't say I'm in favor of a full merge but I would like to see the "poll" system removed for voting folks into ORG. Clearly the ORG membership isn't into it as the vote totals have gotten smaller and smaller. Some of those members who do vote everytime have been quite vocal that they tend to vote yes everytime because they dislike the two tier system. I don't think that's what the poll system was intended to accomplish.

I'm fine with the MODs or even a sub set of them determining who gets in. We're told in many other ways that this site is not a democracy and that's fine, so let's not pretend.

Boss-Hog
07-31-2012, 01:59 PM
I'm fine with the MODs or even a sub set of them determining who gets in. We're told in many other ways that this site is not a democracy and that's fine, so let's not pretend.

Respectfully, I think GIK and I have been extremely democratic soliciting community input, both on major and minor decisions, over the past 12+ years.

Sea Ray
07-31-2012, 02:12 PM
Respectfully, I think GIK and I have been extremely democratic soliciting community input, both on major and minor decisions, over the past 12+ years.

So what's your point? I don't know of anyone who says you've haven't sought out community input.

My point is that you've gone too far in that direction where future ORG members are concerned. I honestly don't know what you're trying to point out when I'm saying that you've been too democratic. Your one sentence post above supports that point.

Boss-Hog
07-31-2012, 02:34 PM
So what's your point? I don't know of anyone who says you've haven't sought out community input.

My point is that you've gone too far in that direction where future ORG members are concerned. I honestly don't know what you're trying to point out when I'm saying that you've been too democratic. Your one sentence post above supports that point.

Either you typed the wrong thing above or I misunderstood what you said. You said (paraphrasing) 'we're told this is NOT a democracy' and that's the portion of your post I objected to because we've never said that or operated that way.

Sea Ray
07-31-2012, 02:46 PM
Either you typed the wrong thing above or I misunderstood what you said. You said (paraphrasing) 'we're told this is NOT a democracy' and that's the portion of your post I objected to because we've never said that or operated that way.

That part of my post referred to the system of moderating and sanctions. That's done very secretively. Given that moderators can kick someone off the site, why can't they grant them entrance too?

Brutus
07-31-2012, 02:55 PM
That part of my post referred to the system of moderating and sanctions. That's done very secretively. Given that moderators can kick someone off the site, why can't they grant them entrance too?

I think the mods picking people is a bad idea. Not that they're not capable of it or they shouldn't, but you're asking a group of half a dozen people to have to monitor Sun Deck threads even more closely to know which posters bring quality to the ORG and which ones don't. That seems like too much to ask of them.

Sea Ray
07-31-2012, 02:57 PM
You said (paraphrasing) 'we're told this is NOT a democracy' and that's the portion of your post I objected to because we've never said that or operated that way.

I have no problem with how you paraphrased my statement. Please allow me to do the same. I disagree with your statement that you don't operate that way and here's where:

To paraphrase, we're told "this is NOT a democracy" in every PM in which we receive a violation. We've been told that this is Boss and GIK's site and they can run it any way they want (which I agree with) and I think that's been said in public.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the moderating should change. I'm saying those same principles should be applied to induction of new members.

Sea Ray
07-31-2012, 03:04 PM
I think the mods picking people is a bad idea. Not that they're not capable of it or they shouldn't, but you're asking a group of half a dozen people to have to monitor Sun Deck threads even more closely to know which posters bring quality to the ORG and which ones don't. That seems like too much to ask of them.

I understand that. I wouldn't want that job. But do you think the poll system of induction should continue as is? It typically goes like this:

Redsfan3000x has been recommended for induction for ORG, followed by two or three posts of "seems Ok to me", followed by a vote of 25-5 in favor.

If we're going to have a two tier system it's going to take some work on someone's part

Boss-Hog
07-31-2012, 03:07 PM
I have no problem with how you paraphrased my statement. Please allow me to do the same. I disagree with your statement that you don't operate that way and here's where:

To paraphrase, we're told "this is NOT a democracy" in every PM in which we receive a violation. We've been told that this is Boss and GIK's site and they can run it any way they want (which I agree with) and I think that's been said in public.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the moderating should change. I'm saying those same principles should be applied to induction of new members.

I certainly could be wrong, since this site has existed since 2000, but I don't ever recall telling anyone this is my site and I'll run it how I like.

In any event, we're bickering over something I consider rather trivial. Let's get this topic back on track with continued ideas and input on the proposal we mentioned is on the table.

Captain Hook
07-31-2012, 05:21 PM
Would it be possible to merge alike threads from both forums and place them in a forum that anyone could post in?I wouldn't say all simular threads should be merged but maybe ones that aren't getting much activity but exist in both the ORG and Sundeck.

dougdirt
07-31-2012, 05:30 PM
Boss, I must have missed it, but what proposal is on the table?

jojo
07-31-2012, 05:37 PM
Boss, I must have missed it, but what proposal is on the table?

It's either the potential merging of the ORG and SD or it's the potential to increase our per diems.

dougdirt
07-31-2012, 06:21 PM
It's either the potential merging of the ORG and SD or it's the potential to increase our per diems.

Oh. I figured with the vote done and the discussion this far in, another idea had been sprung for consideration.

Boss-Hog
07-31-2012, 07:43 PM
All of the ideas that have been presented in both threads, along with any others we come up with on our own, are on the table.

SirFelixCat
07-31-2012, 10:18 PM
So what timeline are we looking at? The longer this goes the more divisive this will be Imo.

Boss-Hog
07-31-2012, 10:39 PM
So what timeline are we looking at? The longer this goes the more divisive this will be Imo.
I'm not going to set a date on that - a decision will be made once GIK and I have each had ample time to explore all possible scenarios (and there have been many good ones presented). With some potential options, I have to look into the feasibility of how we'd handle things like automatically promoting people based on post count, registration time, etc. Factor in real life responsibilities and an upcoming vacation and it could be a little while. I'm more interested in reaching the right decision than making a hasty one (not to say you were suggesting we do the latter).

I don't think things will get significantly more divisive by us doing our due diligence to reach a decision. If people really think that's the case, we can certainly close both threads until we've reached that decision.

Patrick Bateman
07-31-2012, 10:50 PM
I think the Boss and co, should evalute who they want in ORG, including those in it currently, and get rid of all those who don't fit what they are trying to do. As well, posters who git their criteria should be brought in by their own arbitrary system.

Esssentially, I'm saying, get rid of those whom are clear trolls, and let in all of those whom are at least attempting discussion. This isn't a matter of intelligence. Everyone has an opionon. Let those in whom are aren't complete jerks, and let everything else go. I also dont think its jerkish to bring up past posts. People are wrong all the time, and we should be able to look back at past history to figure out why that happens and bring condescending attitudes to a stop and humanize everyone.

dougdirt
08-01-2012, 07:31 AM
Something needs to change at the very least in how people can get into the ORG. A user was put up for discussion on the 30th at 5:45. Here we are 37 hours later and the topic has been viewed by all of 10 users.

GIK
08-01-2012, 08:54 AM
Thanks, everyone, for your feedback.

Boss-Hog
08-01-2012, 08:54 PM
Something needs to change at the very least in how people can get into the ORG. A user was put up for discussion on the 30th at 5:45. Here we are 37 hours later and the topic has been viewed by all of 10 users.
No arguments there...at the very least, there will be changes in that regard.