Lets all take a deep breath.

[TeamBoone]

Originally Posted by TeamCasey

Nope though I've been won over by sending everyone to there own corners for everyone's benefit. I had to chew on all of this the same as many of you are. I think the changes will help the long term growth of the board.

That said, I agree Sundeck should be able to have a game thread.

I hope I answered your questions and didn't screw up the quotes too badly. I'm a little tired tonight.

Actually, I think it's a very valid argument. Any poster who was guilty of bullying/badgering (especially ORG members) other board members, regardless of the forum, should be/have been reprimanded for it.

Debate within a discussion thread is one thing; belittling posters, especially newer ones, is quite something else.

Banning ORG from SD would not be my choice in dealing with it, but I guess it will work! It's like separating battling children, instead of punishing those who are to blame. It's easier that way.

[Dracodave]

Originally Posted by TeamBoone

Some very much did; I didn't like it either. But I truly think the majority did not. Most of us know who the offenders were, and if they weren't reprimanded for it, they should have been.

It was like the bullies on the playground in grade school. And we all know how we felt about them, even if we weren't a victim.

Bulldozed both in the RL! and ORG threads themselves. It didn't matter the topic. Posting of a different idea or posting anything that showed someone a different view of the situation..thats when it got bad. Verbal attacks, getting called out, pretty much feeling like the statement of "little brains" literally.

No one felt right around alot of the ORG posters, one of the many reasons why I didnt post there. The split was evident BEFORE this change. The change just pretty much signified to all of us, what we felt before it happened.

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by reds44

I think some of it comes from the ability to respect somebody else's opinon. You could feel their opinon is completely wrong, but it still needs to be respected. Nobody is perfect, and I'm just as guilty as everybody else. Sometimes, opinons don't need facts. It's just how you personally feel.

From the other perspective, it gets frustrating refuting the same point time and time again. What is new to one poster is a monotonous rehash to another. It doesn't excuse behavior, but I've heard the frustrations from more than one ORG poster.

However, if I don't get voted in I'm not going to leave. If I si here and say if I don't get voted into the ORG I'm going to leave, I am as guilty as those who I was mad at for trying to distinguish themselves from others. I'll be here posting in the Sun Deck with everybody else and doing my best to contribute to redszone anyway I can.

I hope I get voted into the ORG, if for no other reason then to know I am a quality poster and an assest to the board. If I'm not, all I can do is try to become an assest and improve my posts.

This attitude will serve you well, reds44. I am very pleased to hear you say this.

[TeamBoone]

Originally Posted by paintmered

I do agree with you TB. It wasn't the majority. However, the posts in question generally were not in violation of the rules. How am I to reprimand someone for posting in an intimidating way? Stats can be really intimidating to someone not used to them. But they aren't against the rules. Posters who did cross the line were punished and punished severely. It didn't stop the problem.

This solution solves the problem. Unequivocally.

Yes, stats are tricky... but there's a right way and wrong way to represent yourself when trying to make a point. Many were just flat out disrespectful.

And stats were only part of the problem. It happened all too often within several topics, so often that I felt pretty angry a whole lot because of how newbies were being treated. Angry enough to know better than to post, because I new I'd be reprimanded.

I was stressed out a ton over this because it really bothered me that adults could not be more tolerant and civil to each other. Some ORG posters were given way too much leeway, and that made people angry as well (me included).

Ah well, maybe separating the two was the best way to go, but I strongly feel that a few of the ORG posters ruined it for those of us who like to interact with everyone.

And I know I'm beating a dead horse, so I will say nothing more... but I am VERY VERY unhappy.

[SandyD]

My hope is that ORG and SD will both be quality boards, with good discussion.

It's up to us now.

[jimbo]

Originally Posted by TeamBoone

Yes, stats are tricky... but there's a right way and wrong way to represent yourself when trying to make a point. Many were just flat out disrespectful.

And stats were only part of the problem. It happened all too often within several topics, so often that I felt pretty angry a whole lot because of how newbies were being treated. Angry enough to know better than to post, because I new I'd be reprimanded.

I was stressed out a ton over this because it really bothered me that adults could not be more tolerant and civil to each other. Some ORG posters were given way too much leeway, and that made people angry as well (me included).

Ah well, maybe separating the two was the best way to go, but I strongly feel that a few of the ORG posters ruined it for those of us who like to interact with everyone.

And I know I'm beating a dead horse, so I will say nothing more... but I am VERY VERY unhappy.

I think this post is dead on the mark, as posts by TeamBoone usually are. There were only a small handfull of ORG posters who continuously acted in condescending manners to not only new posters, but esablished ones as well. What's funny is that we probably all know who they are, but they continue their ways. I got to the point where I tried to just ignore them because reacting would just make it worse. It wasn't only the condescending nature of their posting, but their obnoxious ways of suggesting that their "opinions" were absolute and undebatable.

Like I've said before, I really don't have a problem with the rules changes except for taking away access from ORG members who have proven their worth. What makes it even worse is seeing the posters who do act in constantly negative ways as mentioned still going about their way even though they probably ruined it for everyone.

Also, after reading through the game threads since the change, I really feel the quality of them has declined because several good posters who were regulars there no longer have access.

I wasn't going to say anything more on the subject, but I just really thought TeamBoone was dead on and wanted to expand on it. My two day mini-protest is over. I mainly only stayed away for awhile because I was upset and didn't want to say something I would regret later. I just really love the Reds and there are too many posters here who I respect too much to just walk away, even though I no longer can converse with many of them. I'll just have to live with the reality of the situation and move on. One thing I will not do though is change who I am just to get acceptance into ORG. If my contributions are not considered enough, then so be it. I'll make new friends in the Sun Deck.

[harangatang]

Originally Posted by paintmered

Hence a major reason why ORG members are not permitted to post in the sundeck. ORG members absolutely bulldozed new posters in RL. It was part of the problem.

I agree with you 100%. I can say that when I joined I kind of fell into the category of wayward posters but I learned alot and was eventually promoted to the ORG. I feel that while my knowledge may not be advanced as some (and never will be for that matter) I still understand and argue some advanced valid points that don't suit posting where I am slated to now. For example I argued throughout the offseason that the Reds would not be a contender this year due to the Pythagoran W-L record in the 2006 and the lack of significant changes in the offseason. I am appreciative of what Redszone has taught me about baseball throughout the last 2 years. I do have to add that I feel it was disrespectful on the part of the adminstration of this board that I was not notified that my posting priveleges were revoked nor was there any official reasoning for this change in my posting priveleges. The fact of the matter is that I was nominated by my fellow posters here to be good enough to post in the ORG but I suspect that many of those posters were also banned from the ORG as well. I really have no idea why I was banned but this appears to be the turd icing on the Reds pitiful season.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by harangatang

I do have to add that I feel it was disrespectful on the part of the adminstration of this board that I was not notified that my posting priveleges were revoked nor was there any official reasoning for this change in my posting priveleges. The fact of the matter is that I was nominated by my fellow posters here to be good enough to post in the ORG but I suspect that many of those posters were also banned from the ORG as well. I really have no idea why I was banned but this appears to be the turd icing on the Reds pitiful season.

I covered that here, but if you have any other questions, please let me know.

[dfs]

Originally Posted by TeamCasey

That said, I agree Sundeck should be able to have a game thread.

I hope I answered your questions and didn't screw up the quotes too badly. I'm a little tired tonight.

Thanks. You did just fine TeamCasey. I disagree with your perspective, but you explained it well. (That's OK. We're allowed to disagree.)

FWIW I also agree that allowing a gamethread in the sundeck would have been a nice gesture, but it's not my house, so I don't get to make the rules.

[harangatang]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

I covered that here, but if you have any other questions, please let me know.

Uh, Yes I do and I will be a little more specific.
1. Why is it that none of us were notified of these changes by you or any other of the moderators? That is not answered in that section nor are there any instructions telling us how to find out where we were placed by you. The only way I found out was by going to the ORG and getting an error page.

2. The official reasoning for this change was inflation of membership yet many members newer than myself were let into the ORG. It seems this inflation would affect many newer members that have joined the board and been nominated to the ORG.

I can't lie about the fact that I'm pretty upset not only about the move but the way it was presented to us. It really made me feel like I was not wanted on Redszone any more and I feel like I was hand-picked by you and other mods to leave. This supposed "inflation" sounds like nothing more than an excuse to single out posters that were chosen by fellow peers to be worthy of posting at the next level. It really is ashame because I came on the board last night wanting to discuss the Reds and I can't fully do that because essentially you told me I couldn't.

[westofyou]

Why is it that none of us were notified of these changes by you or any other of the moderators?

Redszone is a big ole board run by two guys who have lives and work 40 hours plus a week, the board doesn't make any jack at all. This is about as organized as it is ever going to get, it's a grassroots thing, not ESPN, not an extension of a big business interest, just two guys who own some software and pay the hosting bills and deal with knuckleheads 365 days a year.

They don't owe us crap, not me, not you not any of us. If they want to sell the domain tomorrow to a fan group of Man United zealots then they could and we'd all be posting on a soccer board tomorrow. What's done is done, no amount of zeros and ones or outrage will change that.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by jimbo

I think this post is dead on the mark, as posts by TeamBoone usually are. There were only a small handfull of ORG posters who continuously acted in condescending manners to not only new posters, but esablished ones as well. What's funny is that we probably all know who they are, but they continue their ways. I got to the point where I tried to just ignore them because reacting would just make it worse. It wasn't only the condescending nature of their posting, but their obnoxious ways of suggesting that their "opinions" were absolute and undebatable.

Not sure if I'm one of the people you're referencing here, but one of the major frustrations of the stat-inclined group is that any time we back something up with statistics, some people take offense and call us arrogant and condescending. Also, a lot of times people honestly don't realize that they are coming across a certain way. While I wouldn't want to get in to an argument, sometimes a PM that says "hey, not sure if you meant to come across this way, but _________________" can go a long ways to nipping those sorts of problems in the bud.

I think that often the assumed tone of a post is not the fault of the poster, but of the reader. Many people are quite defensive regarding their own position, regardless of how informed it may or may not be. When asked for the reasoning behind their opinion, they immediately take offense, as if asking them for reasoning is calling in to question their right to hold that opinion. I've seen many a poster say very ignorant things about statistics, making horribly incorrect assumptions due to a lack of understanding, and then claim abuse when somebody calls them on it.

I agree that every poster should understand that he/she might be wrong in their assertions. Nobody has a claim on absolute truth here. Certainly there are rude, arrogant, and condescending posters of all types, but I think there should also be an expectation that in the course of a discussion, people will disagree, sometimes fundamentally. We cannot expect anybody to caveat every post with a leading sentence "I understand the limitations of my opinion and understand that I might be wrong".

I'm all for civility, but civility requires an open mind from all parties. It requires people to play devil's advocate with their own opinion from time to time. It's very easy to be civil when we agree with each other. What we need to develop is a vocabulary for peacefully disagreeing. In my mind, one of the primary differences between the typical ORG discussion and the typical Live discussion on the same topic is this ability to civilly disagree.

If you're upset that you didn't make the cut, I think one of first questions to ask is how you handle yourself on the board during a disagreement with another poster. Do you continue the conversation constructively? Do you end/leave it when it's clear that you can't? Do you honestly consider that you might be wrong? Do you investigate the legitimacy of another poster's claim before disagreeing?

[harangatang]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Redszone is a big ole board run by two guys who have lives and work 40 hours plus a week, the board doesn't make any jack at all. This is about as organized as it is ever going to get, it's a grassroots thing, not ESPN, not an extension of a big business interest, just two guys who own some software and pay the hosting bills and deal with knuckleheads 365 days a year.

They don't owe us crap, not me, not you not any of us. If they want to sell the domain tomorrow to a fan group of Man United zealots then they could and we'd all be posting on a soccer board tomorrow. What's done is done, no amount of zeros and ones or outrage will change that.

Oh really so those 2 guys have enough time to go through and select members of who they want or not, type up a vague letter, and answer people's questions but not notify the excluded members of the ORG? That sounds like alot of horse manure to me. It is their site but why play favorites with members who were already chosen by fellow posters to post in the ORG?

[harangatang]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

If you're upset that you didn't make the cut, I think one of first questions to ask is how you handle yourself on the board during a disagreement with another poster. Do you continue the conversation constructively? Do you end/leave it when it's clear that you can't? Do you honestly consider that you might be wrong? Do you investigate the legitimacy of another poster's claim before disagreeing?

Some of the most rude and condescending posters of this board are in that forum right now. I don't think that was the only criteria and doubt that had any part in the decision making process.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by harangatang

Oh really so those 2 guys have enough time to go through and select members of who they want or not, type up a vague letter, and answer people's questions but not notify the excluded members of the ORG? That sounds like alot of horse manure to me. It is their site but why play favorites with members who were already chosen by fellow posters to post in the ORG?

Sorry it didn't work for you, and it is their site so they can do what they want, if you don't like it try somewhere else is the best I can suggest.