Site Feedback/Questions

[KittyDuran]

OK - I checked other baseball sites (three) and here is what they have:

SOSH (Red Sox):
MLB Discussion - Yankees Discussion
(The one thing that Sox and Yankees fans can agree on: Suzyn Waldman is a man)
Subforums: Yankees Game Threads
Adopt-a-Team
(SoSH's MLB foster parent program)
Radomski Lounge
(Sit down, put your feet up and enjoy a nice, cold glass of Primobolan crushed up and mixed with water.)

Motown Sports (Tigers):
Major League Baseball
(Talk about Major League Baseball!)

CardsClubhouse (Cardinals):
The Game of Baseball
(The rest of the Major Leagues and the game of baseball in general. Discuss the players, teams, rivalries, even the rules of the game itself.)

[remdog]

Maybe RZ needs to have a separate forum for topics on the rest of major league baseball - including former Reds. The description for ORG is "The premier discussion forum for Reds baseball." (bold and italics added for emphasis).

Thoughts?

I don't see a need for a seperate forum. (This board is too splintered as it is.)

Was not Adam Dunn a part of Reds history? Just as were Rose, Morgan, Perez, O'neil and many other players that left Cincinnati. The current rules don't prohibit us from discussing those players----why prohibit discussing AD in ORG?

I'm certain that there will be people that want to talk about Adam over the course of the year; whether he's successful or has a poor season. He's both part of Reds history and he's part of a discussion that some want him back and it will be interesting to see what kind of season he has.

If the Dunn threads bore someone, then don't read them. But, don't inhibit those that do want to talk about the subject from enjoying that discourse. That's what a BB is all about---and, when you cut it down to size, Redszone is simply a BB where people go to talk about their favorite baseball team. They shouldn't be inhibited by arbitrary rules. This is, as much as some of us would like to believe otherwise, simply a small blipp on the internet where the participants try to talk about the Cincinnati Reds.

Personally, I've moved on from Adam Dunn. I enjoyed his time here, I wish he were still a Red but I'm focused on where this team is going in '09 and '10. If someone wants to discuss AD's '09 season, I may read it---or I may not. Just depends. But I think that the reader should be the one to make that decision, not the mods.

JMO.

Rem

[*BaseClogger*]

I don't see a need for a seperate forum. (This board is too splintered as it is.)

Was not Adam Dunn a part of Reds history? Just as were Rose, Morgan, Perez, O'neil and many other players that left Cincinnati. The current rules don't prohibit us from discussing those players----why prohibit discussing AD in ORG?

I'm certain that there will be people that want to talk about Adam over the course of the year; whether he's successful or has a poor season. He's both part of Reds history and he's part of a discussion that some want him back and it will be interesting to see what kind of season he has.

If the Dunn threads bore someone, then don't read them. But, don't inhibit those that do want to talk about the subject from enjoying that discourse. That's what a BB is all about---and, when you cut it down to size, Redszone is simply a BB where people go to talk about their favorite baseball team. They shouldn't be inhibited by arbitrary rules. This is, as much as some of us would like to believe otherwise, simply a small blipp on the internet where the participants try to talk about the Cincinnati Reds.

Personally, I've moved on from Adam Dunn. I enjoyed his time here, I wish he were still a Red but I'm focused on where this team is going in '09 and '10. If someone wants to discuss AD's '09 season, I may read it---or I may not. Just depends. But I think that the reader should be the one to make that decision, not the mods.

JMO.

Rem

[KittyDuran]

Was not Adam Dunn a part of Reds history? Just as were Rose, Morgan, Perez, O'neil and many other players that left Cincinnati. The current rules don't prohibit us from discussing those players----why prohibit discussing AD in ORG?

Rose, Morgan, Perez, and O'Neill are not ACTIVE players who the Reds play against. To me, Dunn is now a foe. I wasn't all that fond of the "BENder" updates in the past but they were tolerated because there was no other place to put them.

I'm just offering a possible solution to the problem
[famous shrug]

- AND it will be a problem once the season starts, IMHO - old Dunner was and still is a lighting rod on RZ. :

[TeamCasey]

The latest drama piqued my interest so I took a look at Old Red Guard. There are tons of threads about baseball players who are not current Reds. It makes no sense.

I just have one thing to say. Ban me if you will.

Sean Casey is still babelicious!

[KittyDuran]

The latest drama piqued my interest so I took a look at Old Red Guard. There are tons of threads about baseball players who are not current Reds. It makes no sense.

I just have one thing to say. Ban me if you will.

Sean Casey is still babelicious!

Sean's not an active player is he now?

[TeamCasey]

Sean's not an active player is he now?

Is the rule ..... no discussion of active players from other teams?

So Pete Rose is in, Albert Pujols is out and I can resume my imaginary Sean Casey affairs as long as he remains in retirement?

[KittyDuran]

Is the rule ..... no discussion of active players from other teams?

So Pete Rose is in, Albert Pujols is out and I can resume my imaginary Sean Casey affairs as long as he remains in retirement?

Seriously, I don't have a problem of discussing other active players on other teams on ORG because as of right now there is no other way to discuss them - I just offered a alternative that other baseball forums use.

I gave my 2 cents suggestion so I'm done. But thanks for letting me play...

[TeamCasey]

I'm just playing around, Kitty. I haven't been following the discussion. I just saw an opportunity for Sean-lust.

[camisadelgolf]

Imho, we should be allowed to talk about Adam Dunn as long as it's a topic we haven't specifically talked about before. For example, we've had a million discussions about his production as a Red, so I wouldn't want to see those threads here, but what's so bad if someone starts a thread containing an interview with Dunn in which he mentions the Reds' management or something? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Scott Hatteberg were to be interviewed and have praise/criticism of the Reds, the thread probably wouldn't be locked. I know people want to move on past Dunn, but I don't like the double standard. Dunn was a Red for several years, so I think it's going to take people a while to move on, and part of that moving on involves discussing him.

[KittyDuran]

Imho, we should be allowed to talk about Adam Dunn as long as it's a topic we haven't specifically talked about before. For example, we've had a million discussions about his production as a Red, so I wouldn't want to see those threads here, but what's so bad if someone starts a thread containing an interview with Dunn in which he mentions the Reds' management or something? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Scott Hatteberg were to be interviewed and have praise/criticism of the Reds, the thread probably wouldn't be locked. I know people want to move on past Dunn, but I don't like the double standard. Dunn was a Red for several years, so I think it's going to take people a while to move on, and part of that moving on involves discussing him.

Dunner is a double-standard because the guy is/was a lighting rod I predict that things are going to get UGLY on RZ if he puts up good numbers or beats up on the Reds when they play the Nationals. I feel for Chip and the other mods when that happens.

I'm just playing around, Kitty. I haven't been following the discussion. I just saw an opportunity for Sean-lust.

I know, I'm just backing Chip and being a regular brown-noser...

BTW... how many kids are Sean and Mandi (and her fertile eggs) up to now? Four???

[KittyDuran]

Dunn was a Red for several years, so I think it's going to take people a while to move on, and part of that moving on involves discussing him.

I prefer the cold turkey method myself...

[westofyou]

I know people want to move on past Dunn, but I don't like the double standard.

Yep

I predict that things are going to get UGLY on RZ if he puts up good numbers or beats up on the Reds when they play the Nationals.

Nature of the beast

I feel for Chip and the other mods when that happens.

If we couldn't discuss it then they'll end up fielding all the other issues involved in it. Questions why, locking threads that start to talk about him etc... either way they'll still be moderating.

[Boss-Hog]

At what point will I again be allowed to discuss my favorite baseball player, Adam Dunn?

Thanks

To answer your question, if that is the, or a major, reason you come to the site, I doubt you ever will be able to do so here again since Adam Dunn is no longer a member of the team that this site exists to discuss. That absolutely does not mean that all discussion here must be Reds-related, but I know that I, and all the moderators, spent a lot of time unnecessarily moderating in Adam Dunn-related threads because they nearly always turned nasty in short order. I was willing to let some of that slide while he was a member of the team, but given the amount of time and threads that have already been spent discussing said player, and the fact that the topic is no longer related to the team, I do not think it's fair to continue to ask the moderators to donate their free time to deal with threads that were rarely good for the board in the first place. To many, it's such a black or white issue (he's either really good or he's not) and, too often, anyone in the other camp was automatically wrong. If it's legitimately new information regarding a topic, that's one thing, but if a thread is started with information that essentially leads to rehasing the same debates that have already taken place numerous times, that's not in the board's best interests.

Kitty, thanks for pointing that out re: the forum descriptions; I've since fixed that.

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

[savafan]

If it's legitimately new information regarding a topic, that's one thing, but if a thread is started with information that essentially leads to rehasing the same debates that have already taken place numerous times, that's not in the board's best interests.

Legitimate new information isn't even getting a chance to develop anymore. As soon as Dunn's name comes up, the lock goes on the thread.

I love the Reds, and I love baseball. I love the history of the team and the future of the team. I also love the history of the sport, as do many others that post here. We still talk about Austin Kearns. We still talk about Dmitri Young. We still talk about Josh Hamilton. I love discussing all of these guys, and others do as well. I know I'm just one fish in this great big sea, but one of the reasons I rarely post here anymore is the splintering of the board has made the existence of intelligent or entertaining discussion virtually null and void. What started with banning political and religious speech has continued on down a slippery slope. I know the internet is a global community, and not governed by the laws of the country, but we have freedom of speech here, no one has the freedom to not be offended. Obviously, others want to discuss the player in question as well, otherwise, the threads wouldn't have been so popular. He's among the Reds' all-time home run leaders after all, and may someday be among the MLB all time home run leaders as well. We're talking about words. Discussion. Ideas. These things have never hurt anyone, so I fail to see the problem. Why is it just because someone has the tag "moderator" that gives them the right to decide when discussion has ended and a conclusion has been reached? We're all on the same level here, at least we used to be, fans of a baseball team. I thought the creation of the Old Red Guard was initially for the moderators to have to do less moderating, but it's turned into the opposite, and now the part of the board where the best discussion used to take place is now the most heavily moderated, and dare I say, censored. Once you start censoring discussion, where do you stop? At what point do we come to a board where we can only discuss the current year's team?

Geez...I'm not one to ruffle feathers, or cause problems, but that tirade has been building up in me for a while. I'm not saying I'm a better fan or better poster than anyone else here, I don't think you can put rankings on those type of things, but I do feel that there isn't always common sense being taken into account on decisions, and rushes to judgment are made, and we sit by quietly and say, "Welp, that's the way things are." This is still the best Cincinnati Reds' fan message board on the internet, but at the pace we're going, will it still be in 5 years? Many of us came here from cincinnati.com because it was too liberally ran, but we're going toward the opposite extreme.

I never thought I'd agree with Rem on anything. I probably won't sleep for at least a week now.

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Every human being has a right to hear what other wise human beings have spoken to him. It is one of the Rights of Men; a very cruel injustice if you deny it to a man! ~Thomas Carlyle