Let's all take a deep breath (everyone please read)

[Cyclone792]

Before making any changes shouldn't we see if the discussion in ORG picks up and then see if there is any corresponding change in RL?

IIRC, the ORG has picked up quite a bit since the thread discussing the game threads, and the most recent blow up that occurred on Sunday was a reaction to game threads being allowed in the ORG. It seems that some posters got offended when ORG posters made suggestions last week (or whenever it was) to re-open game threads in the ORG and post more in the ORG. Then again, that's just my interpretation of what happened, and I wasn't even on the board when it all happened so I may be mistaken.

Anyhow, (and the rest of this is stated in general to everyone, not rdiersin), when people get upset usually the first complaint to surface is about reputation points, which frankly boggles my mind why people are so infatuated and frustrated with rep points.

I see rep points much like Steel sees them: an appreciation for insight, research, analysis, evidence, etc. There is no favortism involved, at least not from me and not that I've seen.

If you want rep points, the formula is pretty simple for posters to do at least one of the following: Give the board excellent insight on a topic and include some evidence to back it up, make the readers think on a topic, approach each topic with an open mind, provide the board with a great/humorous story, post your opinions in an articulate manner with a logical thinking process, and by golly just aim to provide a positive and worthwhile contribution to the board.

The new posters who exemplify those excellent traits will reach 200 points and beyond very quickly. And if any of those traits are difficult for a poster to provide on the board, well then they're going to have a difficult time accumulating rep points.

All that said, I do think it would be a major benefit if the board aimed to provide examples of some high quality threads and posts to be more readily available to read since I don't think The Archives does an adequate job at all with that. For one, that forum section is buried in the bottom, and secondly, half the threads in there seem to deal with policy changes or contain threads where there was some snippy fighting. IMO, if you asked the board to come up with a small contingent of threads and posts that shined through on what RedsZone stands for in a quality measure, you'll find many threads that are not listed in The Archives. Make those threads easily accessible for everyone to read and be reminded of the quality RedsZone aims to provide, and it would benefit the board, IMO.

[Puffy]

Hey guys, can we get back to the topic at hand and try to find some solutions and not add to the problem?

So now I'm adding to the problem?

Well then, OK, I won't say another word. Sorry.

[KittyDuran]

If you want rep points, the formula is pretty simple for posters to do at least one of the following: Give the board excellent insight on a topic and include some evidence to back it up, make the readers think on a topic, approach each topic with an open mind, provide the board with a great/humorous story, post your opinions in an articulate manner with a logical thinking process, and by golly just aim to provide a positive and worthwhile contribution to the board.

Luckily I was "grandfathered" in to the ORG - otherwise I'd never would have made it.

[macro]

Thread after tire-less thread has been closed on Adam Dunn because it is a subject that has been "beaten to death." Yet thread after thread bashing on Marty Brenneman or George Grande...they're allowed to stay open more often than not. You don't have to have been a resident of this place for very long to understand that Adam Dunn is the Redszone Goldenchild. Whenever a thread is started about some of his weakness', the same group of posters come out of the woodwork to shut the thread down because it's already been ran into the ground, yet many of these same posters are the ones keeping Marty and/or George threads going.

We're not allowed to harp on the goldenboy, but we can bury Marty and/or George into the ground because it's the fashionable thing to do? I'm not saying we should keep the Dunn threads open because many of them are beyond rediculous. I just think some consistancy needs to be shown in regards to what's "beaten to death" and what's not.

For what it's worth, all three Grande-bashing threads that hit this forum in the month of April were closed pretty quickly.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/searc...earchid=113031

I'll give you that one was started and allowed to run its short course this month, and several on this topic were on the board last summer, however. While it would do no good to go back and close threads that have now gathered dust on the shelf, we have at least addressed the issue recently, the latest thread notwithstanding.

As for Marty-bashing threads, this search...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/searc...earchid=113033

...turns up plenty of threads with "marty" in the title, but I honestly don't see any (based on thread titles and my recollections of what those threads were about) that were bashing him and that were allowed to stay open. There may be cases where he comes up in threads where his name isn't in the title, I don't know.

I now would like say that I think this board is over moderated...Is talking about the Dixie Chicks not wanting certian people to buy their cd political?

I really enjoy coming here and reading the posts but am dissappointed that the non-baseball board has become reduced to whats for dinner and who is you favorite band threads. When any good discussion starts the mods come in a close it, its just over done.

Talking about the Dixie Chicks not wanting certain people to buy their CD is not political, per se, but when the thread evolves into one that is political, it will be closed. This decision was made, after much discussion and deliberation, some time ago. It's not over-moderating. It's simply enforcing a policy that has been put in place.

My problem is certain topics that are deemed "beating the horse to death" are still topics of interest. Some issues will not go away. People complain about the same things everyday: taxes, traffic, Iraq, their job, etc. But nonetheless, they always have an audience because those are common issues that are important to a lot of people. Same with Dunn's Ks, George Grande, Dan O'Brien et al. Logically, people should have an outlet for these topics, even if they are redundant. If you want to have a separate forum or whatever, that's your call, but it shouldn't be outlawed or looked down upon. As mentioned, some new posters like to discuss these issues for the first time and other experienced posters like to rehash the same issues because they are important.

People do have an outlet for these topics. They can do a search of existing threads and add their unique contributions to the threads already in existence. Why the need to start a new thread? If someone else has already said it in recent weeks or months, why is anyone owed the privilege of saying basically the same thing again? Yes, this board serves an individual need (for those doing the speaking) to have one's voice be heard on topics. But it also serves a greater and broader purpose for those doing the listening (or reading, in this case). A person's privilege to say something does not supercede the greater community's privilege to not have to read the same things over and over.

Lastly, sometimes I like to vent. I'm not a great writer and don't usually put things very eloquently. As you can tell, I sometimes ramble. However, I don't understand why people can't have a place to vent when frustrated about things associated with the Reds. It makes me feel better to vent with others who feel the same way. Is it possible to have a rant forum or special section where people can just say "Larue sucks" or " George Grande loves Edmonds" without having to go into a big, long explanation?

That is not what this site was set up for. Not at all.

[Falls City Beer]

Hey guys, can we get back to the topic at hand and try to find some solutions and not add to the problem?

While I agree that it's best that sniping and ganging up should stop, it's the passive aggressive assaults like "step away from the computer" couched in conciliatory language that tick people off. It's unfair, dishonest, and does the very thing that the author purports to be contemning.

And it's the very thing Boss asked everyone NOT to say at the very outset of this thread.

[westofyou]

While I agree that it's best that sniping and ganging up should stop, it's the passive aggressive assaults like "step away from the computer" couched in conciliatory language that tick people off. It's unfair, dishonest, and does the very thing that the author purports to be contemning.

And it's the very thing Boss asked everyone NOT to say at the very outset of this thread.

Yep.. and it even comes from someone who isn't new to RZ.

Just plain sad.

Of course after I wrote the above this shows up

Warn: (20%)

So much for stressing an opinion that might be your own.

[RedsBaron]

I actually not too upset about anything here right now. What's wrong with me?

[Sham]

I used to post here as 1990worldchamps, and when the board went to the rep system I saw the problems with it and decided that I would read but not post anymore. My concern was that some people would neg rep other people who they did not agree with and this would cause obvious problems.

Well, I soon found out that I had to register to view the site, so I chose the name Sham and never intended to post. I have posted from time to time, and I can see where new posters are coming from. I had the gall to suggest that Adam Dunn was a good athlete and should work on his defense, and was blasted (and neg repped) by a few veterans as a know nothing newcomer. Other newcomers were piling on to suck up to the veterans, comparing me to some "badfundamentals" guy.

Since then I really don't post very much. This board used to be great, but IMO took on a new personality when the rep system was instituted.

Just one man's opinion, take it for what it's worth.

[edabbs44]

How about forcing everyone who signs up to read the RedsZone ground rules and attest to following those rules? Then there can be a 3 strikes and some sort of penalty policy. Whether it be losing rep points, suspension, banished to the Reds Live game thread forever, etc.

I truly think that there are many people here (myself included) who don't know all the rules and that just sign up and start posting. It might be a way to get people off on the right foot.

[edabbs44]

I actually not too upset about anything here right now. What's wrong with me?

That could be a whole other thread.

[TStuck]

First of all, I agree mostly with the "just chill out" crowd. This is a message board after all, and I think most of these "problems" could be solved if people just didn't get their panties in such a bunch over such silly things.

But if we were to make a hard-fast rule, here would be mine:

Eliminate "Reds Live" altogether. I think having the two separate forums has created a sort of cast system that naturally brings division. It also brings confusion-- sometimes I'm not sure where to post my thoughts.

To me, Redszone is Redszone. There should be ONE community. Of course, you could still keep the non-baseball forum, etc... but there should be one "big board."

I believe you will continue to see petty arguments and board degeneration as long as there are two main boards-- especially seeing one board is considered a "call up" from the other.

Perhpas we could install a "time" rule upon registering at the site? Maybe a newbie would have to wait a certain number of days or weeks before they could post-- even after signing up. That way, they could still follow the board, see how things work, and post once they've become a little more acclimated?

Amen and Hallelujah!! I agree totally Ed. As long as 1 board is viewed as a "step up" from the other, there will be those who strive only to be promoted (and do whatever it takes to get there) and there will be those who neg to maintain a closed society. To expand on a concept presented - possibly limit the number of posts a new poster is allowed per day or week (for some designated period). This might help promote a bit more thought before willy-nilly posting of meaningless drivel or pointless comments (basicly "talking" to hear oneself talk). I have always subscribed to the notion that unless I have something to say which I feel actually contributes something new or fresh to a thread, I am content to sit on the sidelines and observe.

[RedsBaron]

That could be a whole other thread.

Good point!

[redsfan30]

Well, since I'm being taken to task over something I said...I'd just like to point out the second part of that statement that nobody seems to think was important.

Again folks, we need to stop categorizing people. Most of the fights on this board are "stats vs. non stats" based. If the stat guys would step back and realize that baseball is not played in a computer, and the non stat guys would step back and realize that stats do play an important part of the game this place would be alot better off.

I did not single one group out so please don't treat me like I did.

[MikeS21]

My take is that far more often it's someone using the word "opinion" as a shield against the facts that have been presented to them. Numerous times in the past week I've run into posters making claims that are simply contrary to some rather basic evidence and instead of using that evidence to alter their opinion they've griped that they should be allowed to have an opinion without having numbers thrown at them. Sorry, but (and this is a made-up example) if you want to claim the Reds are the best triples hitting team in history and there's a quick and easy numerical test that proves you wrong, then it's for you to recognize that they keep score in baseball and that your perception doesn't trump what's actually happened.

If only it were that cut and dry. What one person may view as straight fact, another person sees the same "fact" as open to other interpretations.

It's not enough to simply spout off a stat like, "Albert Puljos leads the majors in HR's." True, that's a cold hard fact that no one can dispute. But my impulse is to put the stat into context. "Who has he hit all those HR's off of?" If (hypothetical) Puljos has hit fifteen of his 20+ homers off guys like Eric Milton and Brandon Claussen - the gopherball kings, then his status as the HR leader - despite what the stats say - is not as cut and dry as we would like to believe.

Would Albert Puljos be the great young hitter everyone hails him as, if he didn't get to face horrible Reds pitching 20 games every season over the last three or four seasons? How much has poor Cincinnati pitching helped inflate Puljos's stats over the last three years? What about all the time that good inter-division pitchers like Woods, Prior, and Oswalt have spent on the DL, and Puljos didn't have to face them? And how about the fact that Puljos gets to pad his stats every season for six games against the KC Royals? How has that affected his stats? Suddenly, all his impressive stats aren't so impressive. I'm not trying to dis Albert Puljos, but this is why I say that stats have to be taken in context.

Let me illustrate it this way: To use the tired old Adam Dunn striking out debate, (hypthetical) if Adam Dunn strikes out five times while facing Pedro Martinez, I'm not going to sweat it too much. Martinez strikes out a lot of guys out - not just Adam Dunn. So if Pedro rings Dunn up, so what? But if Dunn whiffs five time against a below average pitchers like Brian Moelher or Dave Williams, who have one of the lowest K/9 rates in the majors, and probably couldn't K their own mother, then I think it is not unreasonable for someone to at least question Adam Dunn and his strikeouts. Statistically, there is no difference in five strikeouts against Martinez and five strikeouts against Moehler. But based on Moehler's ERA and WHIP statistics, there are lots of hitters who are not striking out when they face Brian Moehler. I believe it's fair to ask why Dunn is not among them (hypothetically).

I'm not trying to start the Adam Dunn debate over again. But I am trying to point out that not everyone agrees on how to interpret all these stats.

[jimbo]

In fact, many of the original and longtime posters around here came from cincinnati.com.

That board was a mess and they eventually killed it. I haven't been there since they brought it back but if I were to guess, it's more of the same.

You guessed right. I just came from there a few weeks ago. It has basically turned into one big Griffey-Dunn-Narron bash board and if you don't go along with that ideaology, you are called an "idiot" on a daily basis. It was actually a good board during the offseason, but once the season started and the trolls came out of the woodwork, it went down the crapper real quick.

I don't think I've been here long enough to comment too much on the topic at hand, but I have read through all of it and have found it very informative. All I will comment on is that I always try to remind myself that you should treat others, on a forum such as this, as you would like to be treated. Attacking or attempting to refute an opinion is one thing, attacking the person is another and something we should all avoid, no matter how much the opinion is wrong in your eyes or has been torn down by facts. It is better to skip it altogether rather than making condescending remarks towards a poster.

I will say though that this site is 100 times better than where I came from and I'm glad I've found it.