Please, save the "nerds with beer" stuff. Besides, if they had beer they would have friends, thus ending any possible nerdom.Originally Posted by saboforthird
Please, save the "nerds with beer" stuff. Besides, if they had beer they would have friends, thus ending any possible nerdom.Originally Posted by saboforthird
Last edited by guttle11; 05-30-2006 at 08:53 PM.
If you don't know what your rep points are you can't really complain about it.
And people who DO complain about it should be dealt with.
Go Gators!
Same reason they wanted to hide "Subscriber/Non-Subscriber" last go around: people see a big rep number and feel their being pushed around.Originally Posted by REDREAD
I was on the wrong side of that argument as a relative newbie to the board (who was put off by the fact that my knowledge of the game of baseball needed to grow) last go around. I felt threatened by not being the smartest or most clever person in the room and the natural response was to get defensive and blame people who I thought were hiding behind a title (or, in this case, high rep score).
Truth was, when I started reading what they were saying and educating myself, I realized that they weren't hiding behind anything but, rather, putting information out there that I could learn and grow as a fan from.
Hiding rep points is merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic. It's not like people are going to stop fighting or stop creating noise and disharmony on the board just because suddenly they can't see the rep score of someone.
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
I've found some forums like that. The problem is, I don't want a waiting period. I'll just find another forum that doesn't have a waiting period.Originally Posted by gonelong
In order for the community to remain viable, you need good new posters coming in. Maybe some people will register, bookmark the site, and then return in 30 days (which really doesn't accomplish much), but I'd think most people would give up.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Originally Posted by M2
Isn't this the reason we have ORG and Reds Live? If you want to avoid rehashed topics and "newbies" covering a topic that's been beaten dead, then avoid the Live side of the board. Boss went through the trouble to create a board that would be free of these instances, and it still isn't enough.
The rep system doesn't seem to have done a single positive thing. Those over 200 points still complain that the quality of posts is lacking. Those under 200 are a mix of indifference, resentment, or envy when it comes to reputation. I really like the idea of separate boards.
ORG is a place that should have a higher standard for post content. I don't expect that as much on Live. The problem I have is when people from the ORG side hold the Live board to an ORG standard. I'm sorry, but if that is the case, then why have two separate forums?
How do we know he's not Mel Torme?
Hiding Rep points won't fix that. Even if you hide the "join date", people will still know who the old timers are.Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor
I guess if Boss and GIK hide rep points, they are also going to have to either give or remove Avatars for everyone, because then you could see who was a member that way..
If one wants to remove every indication of who is in ORG and who isn't, what's the point of having two forums?
That's my point.. then why hide them then? I suspect the main reason many people want to hide rep points is to make it even more difficult for people to get promoted to ORG. As I said, if that's the case, let's make ORG the closed forum.Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
I'm in favor of hiding Rep points from others (not ourselves - i.e you could see your own rep points) only because it appears some posters are resentful of other posters totals and they get talked about too much IMO.
School's out. What did you expect?
Today is a great example of the exclusion I talked about. No game thread here on Live so I am left to twiddle my thumbs. It is very frustrating.
If we weren't all crazy we would go insane.-Jimmy Buffett
Originally Posted by flynn78
Game hasn't started yet, and you COULD start one you know.
I'm 0-1 as a starter of threads, but I will. You are right, I was looking for a 7:05 Ohio start. Kneejerk reaction. I will start the thread and risk it, but I guarantee nobody will show. Unless the want to prove me wrong.Originally Posted by Raisor
If we weren't all crazy we would go insane.-Jimmy Buffett
In my experience, and trust me I care very little about rep points or anything, the thing that bothers me as a newbie is that every time I even casually make a point it is met with arrogance. I mean, when I want to simply point out that, say, I like Felipe Lopez and think he is valuable, is it really necessary for five people to groan "Well, duh.. here is the link to the regression analysis we made last year which proved his run-share totals are exemplary."
I appreciate statistics, I mean hell they are the foundation of Liberal Arts (though remember they usually lack the empirical power to prove anything), but just because you are good at statistics doesn't mean they are part of every discussion, and certainly doesn't give you a right to arrogantly demean other people.
And for the newbies who are frustrated, I guess just keep in mind that this is an internet board, and if some people want to feel better about themselves because they spend five hours of their waking lives on an internet board... well, that's not really a very big deal, is it? Nothing here is worth getting especially heated about, unless you are a very bored person.
I started one. We'll see if I'm good luck for them tonight.
Just a question here, but viable for what? this isn't a big business, it's not dependent on a lot of customers stopping in, a lot of posters register and don't say much for weeks and even months.Originally Posted by REDREAD
Making people see what is and is not the norm isn't a bad thing, RZ isn't like the rest of the Reds forums that major on insults and "HE IS SUXR"
Go Gators!
TC is a solid vet at game threads, she knows how to play the game.
Go Gators!
There's always degrees of relativism, but if you think Rich Aurilia should play 3B against RHPs because he's been a better hitter against them this season than Edwin Encarnacion then you're wrong. If you claim Paul Wilson was a really good pitcher for a few years, you're wrong. If you say batting average is the key percentage stat for an RBI man, you're wrong. If you say the GAB was a great hitters park in 2004, you're wrong.Originally Posted by Spitball
Sure, there are statistical "explanations," but there are also statistical statements. They've played the games and here's what happened regardless of what you 'buy." It's not even a stats argument. It's a recorded history argument. Sometimes people are just flat wrong and there's no getting around it. I'm not going to pretend wrong is an opinion. I'm not going to mollycoddle wrong. If you write something that just doesn't line up with the facts then that's on you, not the person who pointed out your mistake.
The stats may not be the total answer, but if the definitive record of what's actually happened runs counter to your opinion then it's incumbent upon you to figure out how to reconcile that conflict.
I sincerely doubt many, if any, "statistical guy(s)" expect a statistical response from someone who isn't inclined that way, but it would be nice if the non-statistical person could acknowledge when a gaping hole in his/her perception has been found. I mean, if you claim that hitch in a player's swing prevents him from hitting lefties well and then it's pointed out that said player actually hits lefties pretty well, then it's time to reconsider your stance.Originally Posted by Spitball
Well, I will get into the strikeout thing. The Reds strikeout a lot. They also score a lot. One does not prevent the other. Whether you're a good offense runs along lines that are totally irrelevant to your strikeout totals. Whether you're a good offensive player runs along lines that are totally irrelevant to your strikeout totals. It is clear-cut. We've seen it put in action in front of our very eyes in recent years. The evidence couldn't more overwhelming. I'm not going to act like that's not the case because it's a concept that you haven't embraced. I don't care if you don't have an in-depth statistical response to it because there is no in-depth statistical response to it. There's no in-depth any kind of response to it. It just is.Originally Posted by Spitball
We all understand that hitters attempt to make meaningful contact as a function of their job, but outs happen. You can stick strikeouts in a big pile with popouts (my personal peeve), groundouts, lineouts and flyouts. Outs is outs. It's how many you make (or really don't make) that counts, not what kind you make (with the exception of double plays, those are evil). Don't go away. Don't come up with a statistic. Just understand that for the simple truth it is. Are there corollaries off of that worth discussing? Sure and have at it, but don't tell me a player or a team is no good at the plate because he/it whiffs too much. That dog don't hunt.
I also think it should be noted that a lot of what we see on this board isn't stats vs. no stats. A lot of the no stats crowd, I find, is oddly and obsessively reliant on a handful of rudimentary stats. Batting average is an important component of the things that drive an offense (OB and SLG), but telling me one guy is a .281 hitter and therefore better than this other guy who is a .267 hitter isn't going to go very far. You could be talking Jeff Treadway (.281) and Mike Schmidt (.267) for all I know and I am going to care intensely about the vast universe outside of their BA totals. You can claim BA is the end-all, be-all for summing up an offensive, but that IS a statistical argument you're making and I've got the sum total of baseball history backing up my contention that you're wrong. In that case I'm not looking common ground or to make you feel good about your opinion. That's a you-get-it-or-you-don't moment.
And don't take that to mean BA is a totally worthless topic. If you want to make the case that Player J, given his secondary offensive skills, needs to hit .280 in order to be a plus at the plate, then that's a perfectly worthwhile point to make.
Just as an addendum, if you're going to talk about a player's offensive performance, you can expect statistics to enter into the discussion. If you're going to compare players against their positional counterparts in the rest of the league, you can expect statistics to enter in the discussion. And if you're going to talk about statistics (e.g. runs scored, RBI, pitcher's wins, team W-L) then you probably ought to expect statistics to enter the discussion.
Last edited by M2; 05-30-2006 at 08:09 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |