Site Feedback/Questions

[Boss-Hog]

So this site is for Reds fans to discuss anything that has to do with the CURRENT Reds team and some other things but just not whatever we want to discuss?

I'll be as clear on this as I possibly can: it's fine to discuss other MLB teams, players and non-MLB related events in the appropriate forum (provided the rules of the board are followed). However, on this particular topic, historically, I think the discussions have caused enough friction and problems among posters (that often spill in to other discussions) that I don't think it's prudent to continue the very same arguments in the same volume - particularly now that the subject (Adam Dunn) is no longer relevant to the Reds.

[camisadelgolf]

It still gets back to the point that the flaming is the problem as opposed to discussions about Dunn being the problem. Regardless of whether we're allowed to discuss Dunn or not, I'd like to see more done to combat needless, biased, subjective criticisms. When that happens, maybe we can discuss Dunn or anything else with less hassles. I'm not going to name names because, honestly, I just don't keep track (I could be one of them for all I know), but I'd guess that the repeated offenses are coming from a select few in tORG.

[nate]

The only problem I really have with this is a point Jojo touched on. That is, many discussions about run creation and player value inevitably lead to Adam Dunn. I've found these discussions to be very enlightening and would hate for zeal (about Dunn either way) to stifle them.

[WMR]

I've got lots of respect for the work that Boss does for the site, but I just want to add: the Adam Dunn Home Run Tracking Thread was one of the shining lights of RedsZone and it absolutely, IMO, should be allowed to continue. There was no nasty debate within that thread and that is what made it special, IMO.

[Boss-Hog]

I've got lots of respect for the work that Boss does for the site, but I just want to add: the Adam Dunn Home Run Tracking Thread was one of the shining lights of RedsZone and it absolutely, IMO, should be allowed to continue. There was no nasty debate within that thread and that is what made it special, IMO.

I have decided to reopen that thread provided AtomicDumpling continues to use it for that purpose (if he so chooses).

[Highlifeman21]

Don't forget that Dunn is not the only verboten subject these days. Willy T is also apparently an irritating subject since "all that has been discussed has been discussed".

If that's really the measuring stick for mods and admins to decide a subject is tired then there's about a hundred other subjects that should be stopped immediately. Any Marty B, George Grande or any other Reds announcer being horrible thread should be locked. That's a tried subject with plenty of chance for non-respectful conversation. (Yet those continue.....funny huh?)

All of the hot-stove league reports should be discontinued (sorry Chip) because nothing new really comes out of them other than 100 "thanks Chips" and assorted digs at the host. Any thread discussing why Dusty Baker is/isn't a good manager should be locked yesterday. It's all old news. Why are we discussing Keppeninger at all? No new news to discover there. He is what he is. What about Weathers? I mean, is there really any new ground to cover there? It's old news to everyone at this point.

So the application of the "tired subject/chance for squabbling" standard is very uneven at best.

This is Boss's & GIK's house. If they decide they are tired of hearing about Dunn obviously that is their prerogative. As long as they understand that the uneven and capricious closing of subjects and dispensing of infractions like Pez does nothing to further the "quality of the board". If you are going to have a "standard" have a standard and stick to it. Because right now what you really have are "subjects that irritate an admin so he doesn't want to hear about them anymore".

Because frankly, if the standard was really "tired thread/non-respectful talk" Dunn conversations should have been stopped a long, long time ago.

Perhaps we should have a sticky about subjects that irritate the admins and mods so we know which topics we should avoid altogether? That sounds far more smart-alec in words than it is intended. But I think it's a serious question. If the standard for stopping discussion of a topic is really more about what irritates the admins/mods than some actual concrete standard then shouldn't the RZ members know what those irritating subjects are so we can avoid them?

While I'm sure many of you could care less, my interest in RZ has evaporated. There's really nothing of interest to discuss anymore. If you can't discuss the fundamental issues of baseball (run creation, how to improve a team, how performance is measured) because someone brought up an irritating players name then what else is there to discuss? The Reds TV schedule, goofy trade ideas and a story about a cradle-robbing Pirates wife aren't really a good reason to spend any time here. Write it off as off-season slowness if you wish, but the same trend will continue into the season if topics are banned willy-nilly.

There have been some interesting points touched upon by savafan, jojo, and yourself, Ltlabner. Oh yeah, remdog too, can't forget the famous shrug.

As previously mentioned, this is the house of GIK & Boss. But, as we'll probably learned/experienced in households throughout the years, there needs to be some consistency concerning the enforcement of rules. Growing up, if you knew you'd get in trouble with Mom, you'd go to Dad, and vice versa.

Use that example with the current group of moderators. It seems there's some topics that certain mods accept and will actively participate, while different mods will close threads prematurely, or IMHO without due cause. I guess there really are certain topics that rub some mods the wrong way, while other mods don't mind the same topic.

Like Ltlabner said, if Adam Dunn is the biggest verboten topic, and Willy Taveras is the heir apparent, where does it end? Marty? The Cowboy? Existence of Clutch? EE? BP? Homer Bailey? Drew Stubbs? (Insert Reds lightning rod here...) Maybe it would be easier if the mods put up a list of accepted topics for RedsZone? (I'm 1/2 kidding, 1/2 serious).

But, let's get back to consistency in this household. If individual posters are kids, then how come some kids get away with more than other kids? Some have a short leash, others quite long. Again, no consistency. While it would be fun to name names about the kids that seemingly get free reign on this board, and name the names of those frequently punished for far less (and no, this isn't just b/c I've gotten multiple slaps on the wrist lately, it just seems that my gripe is now timely, and I'm not alone...), it wouldn't be productive (although it would be highly amusing to hear the mods justify why some posters can say whatever they want about whatever they want whenever they want..).

So, while this might sound and look like plagarism of Ltlabner's post, it's not, but rather a kid in the house who feels that his siblings are treated far differently, without objective standards.

Censorship is a slippery slope, and we're already sliding.

[paintmered]

But, let's get back to consistency in this household. If individual posters are kids, then how come some kids get away with more than other kids? Some have a short leash, others quite long. Again, no consistency. While it would be fun to name names about the kids that seemingly get free reign on this board, and name the names of those frequently punished for far less (and no, this isn't just b/c I've gotten multiple slaps on the wrist lately, it just seems that my gripe is now timely, and I'm not alone...), it wouldn't be productive (although it would be highly amusing to hear the mods justify why some posters can say whatever they want about whatever they want whenever they want..).

Can you give examples of this?

We mods don't claim to be infallible. I've made plenty of mistakes. But I do try to make it right and explain myself if ever questioned.

[camisadelgolf]

I agree with Highlifeman21 in the sense that it seems like some people are treated differently. It's hard to give details because there is a lot of stuff that happens behind closed doors, but that's just how it seems to me, and apparently, at least a few others. Even if I could give details, I don't think it would be a good idea to publicize them, and I think paintmered's question should be answered via PM.

All in all, though, this is my favorite message board, so I don't think a lot of change is needed. However, improvement is always good, so I just wanted to say that some of the recent accusations made in this thread aren't completely off base in my opinion.

[paintmered]

I agree with Highlifeman21 in the sense that it seems like some people are treated differently. It's hard to give details because there is a lot of stuff that happens behind closed doors, but that's just how it seems to me, and apparently, at least a few others. Even if I could give details, I don't think it would be a good idea to publicize them, and I think paintmered's question should be answered via PM.

All in all, though, this is my favorite message board, so I don't think a lot of change is needed. However, improvement is always good, so I just wanted to say that some of the recent accusations made in this thread aren't completely off base in my opinion.

I'm fine with that. All I ask is that you give us a chance to engage you on any issues. What I don't want to see is this blow up to an us vs. mods situation. It should never come to that.

[camisadelgolf]

To be honest, I consider myself an unbiased party because in pretty much every facet of my life, I'm hated equally.

[jojo]

If redszone was unmoderated, it wouldn't be readable.

[redsfandan]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Redszone be unmoderated. But it seems like it can be tricky to not overmoderate sometimes. Closing threads is an obvious example. I wonder if it would be possible for a mod/admin to mark a post as invisible if it's offensive or baiting with a warning attached.

[jojo]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Redszone be unmoderated. But it seems like it can be tricky to not overmoderate sometimes. Closing threads is an obvious example. I wonder if it would be possible for a mod/admin to mark a post as invisible if it's offensive or baiting with a warning attached.

The benefits of moderation are tangible and substantial. The downside is that it takes a lot of effort and it's a voluntary endeavor by some dedicated people. I'm willing to accept a thread being closed as collateral damage for the obvious benefits.

Also, I can't recall many closed threads off of the top of my head where the decision was demonstrably poor-maybe one or two but certainly not a pattern that indicates uneven or hair trigger moderation.

As to an uneven treatment of members, I'm not sure how we'd even know given we have no way of knowing about warnings given to others.

[westofyou]

What if Red Sox fans could not discuss Manny Ramirez?

Because he's a polarizing part of that teams recent history and yet a large part of it as well.

Adam Dunn is a baseball outlier and that and a all the kings horseman won't change that or the fact that he his the Reds all time leader in games played in LF.. ALL TIME.

That's not going away nor is the reaction his game creates when discussed. It's kind of hard to not discuss an active player 1/2 a season removed from the team after he was talked about for the last decade.

[redsfandan]

...
Also, I can't recall many closed threads off of the top of my head where the decision was demonstrably poor-maybe one or two but certainly not a pattern that indicates uneven or hair trigger moderation.
...

Actually I was thinking about when threads are closed before there's any hint of trouble just because Dunn is part of the discussion. Like westofyou, I don't see how you can avoid discussions about Dunn on a message board dedicated to the Reds. It's just not possible.