The Future Section

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Screwball

Two things:

A.) What I'm suggesting is a modification. A new member still joins the Sun Deck first, still puts in his time there, and still comes up to a vote to determine whether he'll join the ORG or not. All I'm just suggesting (or re-suggeting, actually, as this isn't my original idea) is we change who votes on him since it's become painfully obvious over the last several votes that apathy has set in with the vast majority of ORG. I mean, my goodness, Boss needs to send out 4 and 5 'reminders' just to get 1/6th of the ORG to vote on it's own new initiates.

I understand that. But perhaps we lower the number of votes needed? Or perhaps if we don't get the votes after a week, we go ahead with the vote as is? There are some people that take the voting seriously. I'll confess to not checking it as often as I could, but I do make an attempt to vote on every poll, and believe I've probably come close to doing so. It's probably a case where a lot of people just don't have a reason to check that board very often, so forget about going over to vote on it.

I think if we lowered the minimum vote amount, gave it one week for each poll, and perhaps let the mods do a preliminary "yes" or "no" on prospects, then we'd be A) voting on people that already were filtered and B) in a system that was quicker and easier on people.

Originally Posted by Screwball

B.) I'd posit it isn't working. I even had a long-winded paragraph typed up saying why. But rather than subject you to that, I'll just ask this: where's Steel? and M2? Stormy? RedlegJake? Hell, even Cyclone barely posts anymore. Perhaps it's just a coincidence the site's best posters have all decided to rarely post, or worse yet have left altogether. Or maybe it's a glaring sign something ain't right and needs changed.

Boards change. I have never seen a message board where the same people stay around forever. Folks come and go. Those people are probably not around for many, many reasons, but I doubt very much how we vote on newcomers to the ORG is one of them.

Still, if we need to let a select few individuals decide on who gets in to appease some old-time posters, then perhaps the problem isn't with the system it's with the individuals. But as I said, I truly don't believe our voting process has much to do with why they're gone.

It's impossible to keep any community exactly the same. It changes with the times. Even if you keep processes similar, you're going to have turnover. It's understandable that we're talking about changing the voting process, but I don't think taking the vote out of the members' hands is the way to go.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Boards change. I have never seen a message board where the same people stay around forever. Folks come and go. Those people are probably not around for many, many reasons, but I doubt very much how we vote on newcomers to the ORG is one of them.

Still, if we need to let a select few individuals decide on who gets in to appease some old-time posters, then perhaps the problem isn't with the system it's with the individuals. But as I said, I truly don't believe our voting process has much to do with why they're gone.

It's impossible to keep any community exactly the same. It changes with the times. Even if you keep processes similar, you're going to have turnover. It's understandable that we're talking about changing the voting process, but I don't think taking the vote out of the members' hands is the way to go.

This isn't about some trivial aspect of a message board. It's not about keeping a community exactly the same. And it sure as hell isn't about appeasing some old-time posters. This is about a system that serves as the lifeblood of the community. A system that's, unfortunately, proven to be flawed. You say you don't think taking the vote out of the members' hands is the way to go. I say when only 10-15% care enough to bother voting, they've taken the vote out of their own hands.

As for the members that left - sure, it could be for any reason. I'd argue how things went after the implementation of the current voting process had a heck of a lot more to do with it than you believe, but in the end it's only speculation, or at best circumstantial eveidence. So I won't argue that.

But what I can't believe is how nonchalant you are about losing them. Maybe you weren't around to read their thoughts and haven't checked the archives. But trust me, they weren't just any posters. They were giants. It's the Reds losing Votto. The Cardinals losing Pujols. The Colts losing Manning. All without getting anything in return. Posters like those guys made Redszone special, and believe it or not you should try to keep people like them around, even if it comes across as "appeasing the old-timers."

As I was reading through some of the archives from when we went to tORG and Sun Deck, I was pretty amazed at the passion and fervor so many had. It spawned four threads (that I know of) and ~2,000 posts. One of which proved to be prophetic. Dated 6/27/2007:

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

I think once the old familiar names get accepted, the SD will largely be forgotten, thus rendering the ORG an undynamic pool of the same thinkers.

Cf. vote counts for early candidates vs. current batch. My guess is that eventually, the minimum will have to be moved down to 25 votes because the ORG members will simply have no idea who the nominees are. It's already happening, but it will only get worse over time.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Screwball

But what I can't believe is how nonchalant you are about losing them. Maybe you weren't around to read their thoughts and haven't checked the archives. But trust me, they weren't just any posters. They were giants. It's the Reds losing Votto. The Cardinals losing Pujols. The Colts losing Manning. All without getting anything in return. Posters like those guys made Redszone special, and believe it or not you should try to keep people like them around, even if it comes across as "appeasing the old-timers."

I'll just say I strongly disagree and leave it at that...

[westofyou]

Some people lose interest in the Reds or chatting about the same things over and over and over again. (M2)

Some likely are in a space of their life where the game doesn't eat that much of their pie and chat boards fall to the wayside, (Stormy, Cyclone)

Others perhaps got tired of repeating themselves to the myriad of new folks who show up with the same ideas that were refuted 19 months ago.

No voting aspect brings people back, if anything they care about the voting process as much as I do. Which is very little.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Some people lose interest in the Reds or chatting about the same things over and over and over again. (M2)

Some likely are in a space of their life where the game doesn't eat that much of their pie and chat boards fall to the wayside, (Stormy, Cyclone)

Others perhaps got tired of repeating themselves to the myriad of new folks who show up with the same ideas that were refuted 19 months ago.

No voting aspect brings people back, if anything they care about the voting process as much as I do. Which is very little.

Yes, I know. You've made sure to remind us of that every time a discussion like this comes up.

I don't know Cyclone all that well, never met him outside of Redszone. But going from his posts (and age) I'd be confident saying he doesn't fall into the above category.

As for M2 and the others (emphasis on the others), well that's exactly what I'm getting at. They got tired of repeating themselves and the tedious discussions. Perhaps a different entrance process for NIs would've changed that. Perhaps it still can, at least with the members still around.

And let me make this clear, because I think my point is getting lost. I'm not looking to change a process to bring anyone back. I'm not deluded enough to think that'd ever work. The whole reason I brought them up in the first place is to evidence the fact I don't think the current process is working. Short of a major overhaul, I think a committee of level-headed folks would be the best line of action to cure our current voting problem, as well as going back to raising the high standard it should take to get into the ORG.

But hey, I could be wrong. They all could've left for completely unrelated reasons, and dropping the threshold of minimum votes is all we need to do. And that's not to be read sarcastically - I've certainly been out in left field before. But, given the current circumstances, I'm not sure how a constructive change couldn't help.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Screwball

Yes, I know. You've made sure to remind us of that every time a discussion like this comes up.

Yep, because talking about baseball is more important to me than studying the merits of other peoples reason for coming to RZ.

No harm in that and if I want to stress that point every time someone brings up any sort of change to the system (which is one of the top 3 memes in RZ history) I will.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Yep, because talking about baseball is more important to me than studying the merits of other peoples reason for coming to RZ.

And yet, just two posts above, you speculate on poster's reasons for not coming to Redszone. I guess that's okay though.

No harm in that and if I want to stress that point every time someone brings up any sort of change to the system (which is one of the top 3 memes in RZ history) I will.

Sweet. Look forward to it.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit chippy and this is getting off topic. I wanted to lend a possible solution to the current problem, and I've done that. I've heard two voices of agreement, and two (firm) dissenting ones. If anybody else wants to give their thoughts on a panel, please do so, otherwise it's tough for the discussion to really go anywhere.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Screwball

And yet, just two posts above, you speculate on poster's reasons for not coming to Redszone. I guess that's okay though.

In some cases it's not speculation.

And yep, you're getting a bit chippy.

I'm a big boy I can deal with it.

[Roy Tucker]

There is a defacto panel. Its the people that have the inclination to vote.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

There is a defacto panel. Its the people that have the inclination to vote.

Pretty much my take, I don't have a problem with the time it takes for the process, nor the process and in hindsight it's probably the most successful of all the ways that it's been approached.

[reds1869]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

There is a defacto panel. Its the people that have the inclination to vote.

Yes indeed. It is really no different than any other form of ballot box decision making. Not all of those who are eligible to vote for government office do so, why would the internet be any different?

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by reds1869

Yes indeed. It is really no different than any other form of ballot box decision making. Not all of those who are eligible to vote for government office do so, why would the internet be any different?

And I bet if you looked at who voted for each candidate, its the same core group of people over time.

I'm sure its a pain in the neck to Boss to prod people to vote (and I thank him for that), but besides that and it taking a while during the doldrums of the baseball season, this all seems to work.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Screwball

This isn't about some trivial aspect of a message board. It's not about keeping a community exactly the same. And it sure as hell isn't about appeasing some old-time posters. This is about a system that serves as the lifeblood of the community. A system that's, unfortunately, proven to be flawed. You say you don't think taking the vote out of the members' hands is the way to go. I say when only 10-15% care enough to bother voting, they've taken the vote out of their own hands.

As for the members that left - sure, it could be for any reason. I'd argue how things went after the implementation of the current voting process had a heck of a lot more to do with it than you believe, but in the end it's only speculation, or at best circumstantial eveidence. So I won't argue that.

But what I can't believe is how nonchalant you are about losing them. Maybe you weren't around to read their thoughts and haven't checked the archives. But trust me, they weren't just any posters. They were giants. It's the Reds losing Votto. The Cardinals losing Pujols. The Colts losing Manning. All without getting anything in return. Posters like those guys made Redszone special, and believe it or not you should try to keep people like them around, even if it comes across as "appeasing the old-timers."

As I was reading through some of the archives from when we went to tORG and Sun Deck, I was pretty amazed at the passion and fervor so many had. It spawned four threads (that I know of) and ~2,000 posts. One of which proved to be prophetic. Dated 6/27/2007:

I was around during the rep system, and before the board split, when many of those folks were still here, and I remember what kind of a disaster that system was. This system puts it to shame.

I do remember those posters. I got here around 2003 and was around until 2005 or 2006 the first time around before losing my password in a computer crash and wound up going on hiatus before re-registering under my now current screen name. I appreciated the contributions of several of those (I credit a discussion with Cyclone that first interested me in Sabermetrics after he respectfully suggested I run correlation tests to see things for myself. I did and it changed the way I viewed things) and as for a few others... well, that's not important. Suffice to say, I respected some of them, but this is a place for discussion and opinions, and there's never a shortage of that.

But you've admitted that the system likely didn't chase them off nor would it bring them back. So I'm not sure what they have to do with how we vote. Perhaps you're correct that we have a flawed system. But how would putting the vote in the hands of 10-12 posters be any less flawed? It would still be bringing in new posters, some good some not as much, and the ones that do vote would not have a say in the matter. I just don't see how that helps any.

I'm not debating whether or not we could (or even should) make changes, but I'm just not seeing how going directly to a panel does much to change anything. I especially just don't see the connection to those aforementioned folks being gone.

[edabbs44]

Instead of having a continuous stream of candidates, what about having periodic classes where the candidates need to meet certain criteria? I don't vote all that much but when I have lately I've seen responses like "He only has 3 posts in the last 2 years, but they were quality so I'll say yes." Kind of ridiculous. Maybe approving a certain number per quarter in a concentrated fashion will keep more members involved.

Just a thought.

[Danny Serafini]

I have to say, I hate the idea of a panel. How can someone represent me when they don't know what it is I'm looking for in a prospective poster? Most of the time I try and review the person and vote, although there are a few times when I won't, simply because it doesn't matter to me how the vote goes. I'm willing to accept what the rest of the forum wants. But even though my voting record isn't 100%, I want that option to vote instead of having that put in someone else's hands. I can accept the very rare occasions (in fact I can't think of one) where I vote no and the majority votes yes, because at least I had my say. Besides, the idea of an esteemed panel may sound good, but there have been times where I've seen intelligent posters whose opinions I respect post some mind-boggling reasons for voting no on someone. I just don't see that as a good solution.

As far as what to do now, my best suggestion is to cut the voting off at a week, and whatever the numbers are, they are. I know the number of voters isn't where it should be, but to leave these prospective ORG members hang in limbo for a month or more just feels wrong. If people haven't voted within a week, they're probably not going to bother, so just go with what you have.