Important: Merging of the Baseball Forums

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by TRF

One problem this and likely every board has is mob mentality. It is almost like you cannot have an opposing viewpoint. And once the "mob" smells blood, the posts then start sliding in quality. A lot of them become simple zingers at the other side. How many times do we have to read about Zach Stewart and multiple Cy Young awards. Yes, doug said he had the potential to win one, but the denigration of his (and to an extent mine) viewpoint added nothing to the argument. Every post from M2 was well thought out, well reasoned. WOY talking about essentially chemistry and an overall change in philosophy was well reasoned and on point. (talking about the Zach Stewart DFA thread) But we also got 4-5 Cy Young jabs in the first couple of pages and a few sprinkled in after, that offered nothing to the conversation, brought the tone to one where one side feels attacked. That side in opposition relented on certain aspects, but the attacks continued.

So, it makes on feel like he/she cannot bring up an idea that doesn't work in the "mob mind". Good lord what will this place be like when Billy Hamilton arrives? What is the over/under on "CF bats first dude" posts. I put it at 75 the first month.

It isn't like this all the time. But when it does get like this, it's like a train.. gains steam and is hard to stop. And you can bet that is a big reason we lost some posters.

I think the issue with that, and why the Zach Cy Young joke is as long lived as it has been, is that Doug didn't say potential. He either guaranteed, or said to bet on it, or some other really, really confident statement.

Is the joke kind of old? Maybe. But if Zach did go on to win a Cy Young in Toronto, I am sure that Doug would've been heralded as this board's Joe Willie.

But the mob mentality is a definite issue at times. No doubt.

[klw]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

Unfortunately, it does not appear the above request is possible. Provided GIK is also OK with it, if there's ample people that would like this removed (for the second time; I did not recall we had it once before), I am not opposed to that.

I don't remember us having the like section before but what it visually reminds me of is when we could tag terms to the posts,(to make for search organization).

[TRF]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

I think the issue with that, and why the Zach Cy Young joke is as long lived as it has been, is that Doug didn't say potential. He either guaranteed, or said to bet on it, or some other really, really confident statement.

Is the joke kind of old? Maybe. But if Zach did go on to win a Cy Young in Toronto, I am sure that Doug would've been heralded as this board's Joe Willie.

But the mob mentality is a definite issue at times. No doubt.

that's one example. princeton once called Mesoraco thumbs because of an injury he sustained in Dayton I believe. He wasn't enamored of the kid. After that instead of attacking his arguments at the time of discussion, whatever the discussion was, all anyone got was shots at princeton and "thumbs" When a thread gets dumbed down like that, it can make reading or responding hard.. mob rules.

I didn't agree with princeton then, and I, doug and a few others posted our arguments without denigrating princeton. Keep in mind, I once had princeton on my ignore list. My opinion was he was a jackass. But in all that, he rarely attacked other posters. He mostly just came off pompous. But he was a knowledgeable poster, and one that wrote well. I miss his writings, like i missed M2, RedStorm and others. I'm glad M2 is back, especially since i am too. woy has always been a great read, and never attacks another poster, always his argument.

Because that is what discussion is.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by klw

I don't remember us having the like section before but what it visually reminds me of is when we could tag terms to the posts,(to make for search organization).

Unless I'm missing something, you should still be able to do that. If you can't, it's nothing we've intentionally disabled.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by TRF

One problem this, and likely every board has, is mob mentality. It is almost like you cannot have an opposing viewpoint. And once the "mob" smells blood, the posts then start sliding in quality. A lot of them become simple zingers at the other side. How many times do we have to read about Zach Stewart and multiple Cy Young awards. Yes, doug said he had the potential to win one, but the denigration of his (and to an extent mine) viewpoint added nothing to the argument. Every post from M2 was well thought out, well reasoned. WOY talking about essentially chemistry and an overall change in philosophy was well reasoned and on point. (talking about the Zach Stewart DFA thread) But we also got 4-5 Cy Young jabs in the first couple of pages and a few sprinkled in after, that offered nothing to the conversation, brought the tone to one where one side feels attacked. That side in opposition relented on certain aspects, but the attacks continued.

So, it makes on feel like he/she cannot bring up an idea that doesn't work in the "mob mind". Good lord what will this place be like when Billy Hamilton arrives? What is the over/under on "CF bats first dude" posts. I put it at 75 the first month.

It isn't like this all the time. But when it does get like this, it's like a train.. gains steam and is hard to stop. And you can bet that is a big reason we lost some posters.

Sometimes you just have to let things roll off your shoulders. I'm no stranger to having opposing viewpoints here and I have experienced this trend. It's just the nature of the beast on all forums I have seen.

[Plus Plus]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

Unless I'm missing something, you should still be able to do that. If you can't, it's nothing we've intentionally disabled.

If memory serves me right, it was disabled because of posters tagging threads inappropriately with tags like "yet another willy taveras thread," "base cloggers," "CF bats first dude," "dustyball," and so on. I remember this pretty distinctly as having happened back when I was called up to the ORG in the early parts of 2009. Some threads would have ~50 tags, and almost every thread would degenerate into witty tagging instead of discussion.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

If memory serves me right, it was disabled because of posters tagging threads inappropriately with tags like "yet another willy taveras thread," "base cloggers," "CF bats first dude," "dustyball," and so on. I remember this pretty distinctly as having happened back when I was called up to the ORG in the early parts of 2009. Some threads would have ~50 tags, and almost every thread would degenerate into witty tagging instead of discussion.

Yes; you just jogged my memory.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

Yes; you just jogged my memory.

I just checked the permissions, and I don't see anything that would prevent users from tagging threads.

[camisadelgolf]

The tags are working fine for me.

[Boss-Hog]

The changes mentioned in the initial post in this thread are now complete. You may now post in the Sun Deck, although you may not start new threads or respond to any threads in the Sun Deck Game Threads sub-forum. We decided that's not the best suited place for mentoring new members.

Please join me in welcoming former Sun Deck members that met the basic criteria of 50 or more posts and at least 45 days of registration time.

With all the changes that I just made, I'd be shocked if I didn't overlook or mess up something, so please reply here if you notice something out of the ordinary or inconsistent with what was mentioned in the initial post.

[camisadelgolf]

Welcome, Sun Deck folks! I'm really looking forward to seeing some of you post.

[Brutus]

Is this the Redszone version of the Berlin Wall coming down?

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Is this the Redszone version of the Berlin Wall coming down?

Mr. Boss-hog, open this gate. Mr. Boss-hog, Mr. Boss-hog, tear down this wall!

[Tuff Nut]

In response to the LIKES....on another forum I frequent, we had the "like" feature, and the individual likes, were in smaller print, at the bottom of the liked posts post box, under the Like icon. Not in a separate post. It only listed a few, then say "and others".... I don't know what software or anything like that, just another suggestion, perhaps.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by Tuff Nut

In response to the LIKES....on another forum I frequent, we had the "like" feature, and the individual likes, were in smaller print, at the bottom of the liked posts post box, under the Like icon. Not in a separate post. It only listed a few, then say "and others".... I don't know what software or anything like that, just another suggestion, perhaps.

I'd much prefer that option if it's available. Would you mind PMing me the link or posting it here?