Are there any other Reds message boards?

[ChatterRed]

I'm frustrated that I can't post in the game thread. This board has some strange rules. Any thoughts?

[redsfanmia]

I was told by a ORG member to "go to Reds.com" so I think there must be a forum there.

[Nuxhall41]

I hear you. Can you at least have post-game threads here? I would like to discuss today's game and make some observations. It feels as though you are forbidden to talk about the actual games.

[LouisvilleCARDS]

Funny thing is I think they stopped the threads for negativity, whatever that means, and the game threads are restricted for those people in the first place. I like to read the different threads on both forums, often I'll hit "post reply" and I'll be on the ORG forum. I don't see any difference in negativity or knowledge of the Reds on either forum, but hey, thats just me. I guess to the site operators, we're second class, go figure.

[ChatterRed]

Honestly, I hate to say it.........but I feel like I'm being discriminated against. LOL.

I'll get over it. Thanks for the suggestions.

[keeganbrick]

http://www.strike3forums.com/forums/cincinnati-reds/

[jmac]

Originally Posted by Nuxhall41

I hear you. Can you at least have post-game threads here? I would like to discuss today's game and make some observations. It feels as though you are forbidden to talk about the actual games.

You can post your thoughts on a particular game after the game is over.
Or that was the case during ST so I assume it still is.

[smoke6]

The Reds homepage has a message board, but it blows. Can't you just start a game thread in the SD?

[Jr's Boy]

www.Strike3forums.com has game threads in the Reds forum.

[TheBigLebowski]

Game threads in the Sun Deck aren't going to happen. More than one game thread would eat up too much bandwidth.

[ChatterRed]

What kind of cheap message board is this?

[FlightRick]

I seriously doubt "bandwidth" (or payment for it) is the issue when it comes to game threads. I have a website of non-insignificant size, and the finances of site like this aren't crippling, not by a long shot. [Then again, I have advertisers, so certainly my perception is skewed on that issue....]

What *is* crippling is the load on the server when a message board gets busy during an "event." You can serve up countless content pages per minute with no trouble, but the number of operations/database-calls being executed when 100-150 people all want to post on a message board at the same time just kills the server and slows things down for everybody. With 162 "events" per year, it's no wonder they want to thin the herd around here; at my site, we long ago set the tone that such things were to be discussed "live" only in chat rooms, not in 20-page threads, and that worked out just fine.

Obviously, RZ doesn't view that as an option, so here we are. No big deal. Post-game trend discussion is permitted (see: a whole Janish thread that was basically a post-game thread back on Wednesday). I still think, however, that large chunks of the problem could be solved with two easy changes: (1) a board-wide "flood control" setting that forbids a single user from posting twice within 5 minutes (few people have two interesting things to say all day; nobody has two of them within five minutes), and (2) a rule that allows any user who makes a post continaing more emoticons than grammatically correct full sentences to be killed instantly. Trust me, the courts will come around soon, and this will be justifiable homicide.

That'd certainly "thin the herd" a bit, and I think allow gamethreads for all, with an emphasis on end-of-inning analysis and reaction, instead of knee-jerk pitch-by-pitch kvetching. I might even be motivated to show up and participate, instead of checking a game thread once per week with the same co-mingled horror and amusement that I get when I see a car wreck.

Might...


Rick

[muethibp]

I couldn't care less about posting in game threads, but, as I've said before, I personally find it very silly to have two parallel discussion boards on the same topics. I mean, would it really be the biggest problem to just have one? There are great posts in the sun deck and terrible posts in ORG. I really don't get it and would love to have someone explain it to me.

[Ghosts of 1990]

Originally Posted by muethibp

I couldn't care less about posting in game threads, but, as I've said before, I personally find it very silly to have two parallel discussion boards on the same topics. I mean, would it really be the biggest problem to just have one? There are great posts in the sun deck and terrible posts in ORG. I really don't get it and would love to have someone explain it to me.

but then they couldn't feel superior and exercise any type of power over anyone... and that's not what they want.

[Ghosts of 1990]

I've 'lurked' here for a long time, since around 2002-2003. Just reading the threads and just signed up for a name to post.

I've noticed A LOT of peculiar things that I didn't realize fully until I started posting. I mean, here we have a poster that has over 1,300 posts, has obviously been here a long time; but at the same time he hasn't been 'allowed' to talk in the ultra-exclusive forum. I also got a 'warning' the other day for using a borderline derogatory word in which I blanked out most of.... i.e. I called jim edmonds a word that rhymed with "rick". I mean, come on.

IMO and I'm only one man new to the message board world, they do an awful good job of pushing away a lot of solid fans. And I don't notice a difference from the two forums at all. There's not a human being on this earth that knows baseball or the Reds better than me. Not to sound confident but it's my life.

That said, some people have small amounts of control in their life; and when they get a chance to delegate and exert some power over someone, sometimes they like that feeling. I think to a degree that's what we have here. It's still a great great place here in the sun deck and the site overall has great reds discussion to read and discuss and a high activity level. Thats what gets me coming back.