PDA

View Full Version : Over moderation



SpiritofVodkaDave
03-18-2013, 10:08 PM
I know this is going to be a touchy subject, but Bonnes and some of the others are going a little over the top with moderation these days, I know Fro was banned today and his posts were very tame. I think bans should only be handed out if a guy is actively breaking the rules, not just using some general snark in response to a ridiculous comment.

Again its your site so you guys can do what you want obviously, but I don't think its good for the community to be running off some of the better and longer posters around.

mike wants wins
03-18-2013, 10:32 PM
I think the petty name calling and attacking posters instead of ideas is annoying. I am coming less and less, so I do not think I would agree.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-18-2013, 10:56 PM
Nobody is attacking posters....

joegrzenda
03-18-2013, 11:30 PM
Twins way or the highway...

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-18-2013, 11:41 PM
I know this is going to be a touchy subject, but Bonnes and some of the others are going a little over the top with moderation these days, I know Fro was banned today and his posts were very tame. I think bans should only be handed out if a guy is actively breaking the rules, not just using some general snark in response to a ridiculous comment.

Again its your site so you guys can do what you want obviously, but I don't think its good for the community to be running off some of the better and longer posters around.

Don't tell me Fro got banned for being an overly sarcastic smarty-pants in my OPENING DAY LINEUP thread that turned into an argument about SPEED versus OBP. Because even though I was pretty frustrated with his style of interjection, I certainly didn't feel anything he said even remotely approached deserving of being banned. Unless he posted something I never saw because it was moderated out, I felt I was just equally as smarty-pantsed. I never even got so much as a "heads up, here's a warning".

Lesser Dali
03-19-2013, 12:02 AM
If the noose is pulled too tight on this site - everyone will be hanged. In most scenarios of life, you have heroes, anti-heroes. and the others.

Most of the folks on this site are the others, and that is not a bad thing. The truth is this - maybe uber-bullying posters should be banded, but this site needs a little bit of risque behavior.

Lighten up the reigns - less on policing.

P.S. - I have seen a few posters that I appreciate disappear from this site because of the crack down - a period of lightening up would not hurt.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-19-2013, 12:08 AM
If the noose is pulled too tight on this site - everyone will be hanged. In most scenarios of life, you have heroes, anti-heroes. and the others.

Most of the folks on this site are the others, and that is not a bad thing. The truth is this - maybe uber-bullying posters should be banded, but this site needs a little bit of risque behavior.

Lighten up the reigns - less on policing.

P.S. - I have seen a few posters that I appreciate disappear from this site because of the crack down - a period of lightening up would not hurt.

Agreed, its the internet, people need to be allowed to blow off some steam and nobody is going over the top these days. I share the same sentiment, a lot of good posters aren't coming around much any more and its a real shame.

Personally I think Brock should be left in charge of all bannings/suspensions etc, the guy has been running forums successfully for years now and it prevents a possibly over sensitive mod (whoever it may be) from doling out bannings left and right. Also I know this sounds pretty hypocritical coming from me.

crarko
03-19-2013, 06:39 AM
When you're a guest in somebody's house, you follow their rules. If you can't respect your host(s) enough to do that, you may be shown the door.

It's not too fricking complicated.

Brock Beauchamp
03-19-2013, 07:29 AM
Agreed, its the internet, people need to be allowed to blow off some steam and nobody is going over the top these days. I share the same sentiment, a lot of good posters aren't coming around much any more and its a real shame.

Personally I think Brock should be left in charge of all bannings/suspensions etc, the guy has been running forums successfully for years now and it prevents a possibly over sensitive mod (whoever it may be) from doling out bannings left and right. Also I know this sounds pretty hypocritical coming from me.

We are discussing this internally, to be sure.

But I'm not the best moderator in the world, either. I tend to be too lax on posters. Having admined several forums of varying sizes over a ten year period and noticed my stance on posting versus other mods, I'm the first to admit that. There needs to be someone sterner than me to chase after the people who continually bend the rules.

We're talking it over.

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-19-2013, 08:14 AM
We're talking it over.

I think Dave has a point. The fine line is so arbitrary and in vastly different places for each of you. While I think that in the heat of discussion some can step over the line, that has to be distinguished from someone's general demeanor. It is difficult on here to determine tone and intent. And sometimes I think you just have to call out the fool. I don't think someone should be banned for calling a spade a spade but that also shouldn't be an every day occurrence.

mike wants wins
03-19-2013, 08:40 AM
Frankly, I don't think this community (posters and owners) really knows what it wants to be. There are some pretty serious (non humor) posters, and some posters that post a lot more humor. There are some pretty emotional posters also. It is also pretty clear there are major generational differences in the community.

So while I don't always love some of the tone, I can pretty much live with it, mostly. It is pretty easy to just stop going to threads that have degenerated into two people posting full page quotes yelling at each other. It is pretty easy to just not comment back to some posts. But I will say, there have been many threads that just become emotional train wrecks, and when some of us do just want to have a conversation, it can get frustrating.

While Fro is not my favorite poster, I've not seen a reason to ban him.....that said, there are some rules around here that he/she appears to have just ignored. I'd assume, assume, that Fro was warned before banning, and kept doing it. If you were a guest in someones' home, and they asked you to not smoke, and you smoked, it would not be unreasonable to ask them to leave.....not sur why rudeness should be accepted here, just because it is the internet.

LimestoneBaggy
03-19-2013, 08:49 AM
I realize VD's post comes from a good place/intent (read in: I'm not overlooking your point), but I think the rules are pretty simply to follow. Further, I read quite a bit of what's posted on the forums (I don't post a whole lot) and, correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules were created to keep the forums away from the garbage you read on most comment boards. I don't think anyone wants that hot mess. Manners matter folks, and we can be civil to one another...even if we disagree. It's far better to educate than to derogate. After reading the content from these gentlemen for years, I've come to trust their judgment on passing out blocks, quite frankly, they probably passed on some bad judgment when the poster typically provides reasoned commentary. In the end, I've come to learn much more about baseball reading the forums, and that's why I come back (also the good kind of snark is hil-ar-i-ous...seriously folks there are some gems in the forums).

Finally, I read the likely offending comment yesterday, and while the response was probably pretty accurate, it was a clear violation of the rules. A simple response could have been. "I can't disagree with you more." I wish I would have posted the same.

righty8383
03-19-2013, 09:24 AM
When you're a guest in somebody's house, you follow their rules. If you can't respect your host(s) enough to do that, you may be shown the door.

It's not too fricking complicated.

The OP already pointed out this fact.

Nick Nelson
03-19-2013, 11:34 AM
Let's be clear: Fro's ban was temporary. He has apparently decided he doesn't want to come back and that's his prerogative, but he's certainly welcome to return in 3 days if he likes. We generally enjoy his posts -- I know I do. He's funny, smart and witty.

But a message needs to be sent in instances like this that insults and attacks toward members on the board will NOT be tolerated. I don't care how stupid you think they are. The way to increase the level of intelligence on the board is to write intelligent things, not rattle off snarky ad-hominem attacks that offend people and create a hostile environment.

This forum is designed to be a place for the exchange of ideas, and spirited but respectful debate. It does not exist for people to "blow off steam"; if you want to do that buy a punching bag. Don't use members of our community as a substitute.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-19-2013, 11:52 AM
Let's be clear: Fro's ban was temporary. He has apparently decided he doesn't want to come back and that's his prerogative, but he's certainly welcome to return in 3 days if he likes. We generally enjoy his posts -- I know I do. He's funny, smart and witty.

But a message needs to be sent in instances like this that insults and attacks toward members on the board will NOT be tolerated. I don't care how stupid you think they are. The way to increase the level of intelligence on the board is to write intelligent things, not rattle off snarky ad-hominem attacks that offend people and create a hostile environment.

This forum is designed to be a place for the exchange of ideas, and spirited but respectful debate. It does not exist for people to "blow off steam"; if you want to do that buy a punching bag. Don't use members of our community as a substitute.

Maybe I'm assuming too much, and Fro's ban had nothing to do with the argument he and I got into. But if it was because of our argument, I am puzzled. I went after him pretty hard too but didn't get so much as a warning. I didn't feel either of us deserved so much as a warning either, as I was happy to trade comments with him, and was confident that it was all in good fun (with a bit of tension, but far from too much). Then again, im new here and despite reading the comment standards thread, I'm still not sure how everything works around here.

My posts are all still there to read. Maybe he got way nastier and I never saw it because it was taken down quickly, but my God I could have probably handled it and I certainly don't want to see people that the forum values leaving because of a silly argument between one overly sarcastic dude (Fro) and one overly stubborn and argumentative dude (Me). Plus, now I am incredibly curious about what he might have said, and (deservedly or not) feel bad about the whole thing.

Brock Beauchamp
03-19-2013, 12:21 PM
AFAIK, it had nothing to do with your conversation, BlueSky. Don't worry about that.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-19-2013, 12:28 PM
This forum is designed to be a place for the exchange of ideas, and spirited but respectful debate. It does not exist for people to "blow off steam"; if you want to do that buy a punching bag. Don't use members of our community as a substitute.

Um ok, well that isn't at all what I meant.

Badsmerf
03-19-2013, 03:32 PM
I'm in the same boat Dave. I know it is difficult for me coming from posting on a forum with very few rules to being warned if i call something stupid. It is what it is, I hope Fro comes back.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-19-2013, 04:00 PM
I'm in the same boat Dave. I know it is difficult for me coming from posting on a forum with very few rules to being warned if i call something stupid. It is what it is, I hope Fro comes back.

Yeah, I'm not advocating flame wars or anything, but like oldladytwins fan said, sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade and an idiot and idiot, hell I do it in my every day life, many times with friends of mine, which I consider some of you BYTO posters as now.

I sorta wonder how the board would generally react with all these rules in place if dankind or itstimetotakeit showed back up. I guess we would have to respectfully disagree with all of their drivel? (Not saying that the current poster group resembles them, but there are a couple who have gotten sorta close and honestly has kept a lot of people from coming back as often) I think some people end up just taking everything a bit to seriously and get hurt feelings to easily, hell me and Lev have been going back and forth for a better half of a decade now with several names and insults, it doesn't seem to bother us one bit.

John Bonnes
03-19-2013, 04:19 PM
I'm all for this thread. Thank you VD for starting it.

I'll start with this: at the end of the day, we can't run/support/hustle for a site whose forums we can't stomach. That's where things were a month ago for a few of us. I was far more likely to advocate turning them off completely than continuing down that path. And I would have had support among the founders. But before we did that, we decided to try and get it back to a more civil level of discourse, even though that was a lot of work and conflict and self-examination. I think we're pretty close to that.

We can't have self-appointed sheriffs of this site shooting snark around to keep people in place. I think that's how it worked on BYTO to some extent. Whether it did or not, we feel it cannot work that way here and still have a growing and inclusive board.

It was inevitable that shift would affect some loyal members (and good people) more than others. But I think it requires an adjustment for some of those members rather than a betrayal of a personal philosophy.

That leaves open some issues, such as how to deal with posters who lower the level of discourse by posting dumb things. I don't know that I have a recipe for how that is going to work, but my sense is: gently at first, and then more aggressively. At some point, stupidity turns into trolling, and we've tackled that a little with a couple of members. But I'm sensitive to the concern. I share it too. We'll continue to work on it. I think we'll get there as a community.

We've had lots of internal debates about this and I welcome this thread to hear the community's feedback. One thing we've debated is changing rule #1 on our comment policy. I'll bold the change. It would go something like this:


Personal attacks or insults towards other commenters, the post author, journalists, teams, players, members of baseball organizations or agents. (You can be critical, but not personal.)

Furthermore, we expect each member to treat other members with respect. This doesn’t mean just not making personal attacks. It means giving them the benefit of the doubt. It means not being deliberately combative. It means turning the other cheek sometimes, even when you’re not being treated with respect. We expect this because we believe it encourages civil analysis and debate.

I understand the desire to loosen the reins. I'm sure, at some point, they will - bolts always loosen. But to be honest, I'm pretty determined to make sure they stay tight right now. That nauseous feeling that I had by coming to my own forums a month ago is still a little fresh.

TheLeviathan
03-19-2013, 04:37 PM
I made my thoughts known privately on this, but since this is an open dialogue, I'll say them here. I say them with some bitterness (which I will explain) but I'm trying to make it constructive.

In John's last post he has a bolded area which was not previously in the rules and only later did I realize was added after I received a one week ban. For one, this bolded area is an incredibly gray/vague set of standards. I liked what John had told me at one point, "If you think it's probably the wrong thing to say, then don't say it". I think, vague though it is, it's at least understandable.

However, I was warned for telling someone that their argument was "not making sense" and another poster that their line of argument was "obtuse". Given the above standard, I'm totally confused how I was banned. In fact, as I pointed out privately, John Bonnes had recently referred to Reusse as "unhinged" (a much more clear violation according to posted policy) and yet this was apparently ok.

My issue is not necessarily over-moderation - it's unclear, seemingly personal moderation. If the moderators are operating from the same page and the expectations are clear, then I can either choose to live by those rules or not. But this moderation group doesn't appear to have a clear standard nor has it enforced it clearly or fairly. I have a much bigger concern with that.

Also, in fairness, I certainly have been antagonistic in the past. Won't deny that. I had it out with Nick N. in private, I believe we had an understanding and I would think anyone that has looked over my posts for the last few weeks would see that I've been following the policy as closely as I can. That I would receive a one week ban for (as this board has suggested in the past is ok) attacking arguments rather than people - is baffling to me. I called an argument "clownish" and "not making sense" and I was warned. I called another one "obtuse" and received a ban. Not once did I attack the person in any of those posts. Yet I was banned.

I need clarity on what will not get me banned or better clarity on what is the problem. The posted policy does not match current enforcement. So I'm bitter about it being changed mid-stream and then banning me for not following a change that was neither announced nor has been clarified. I have asked (numerous times to numerous moderators) to please illuminate what I should be doing differently. The best I have gotten was to say "not makes sense to me" rather than "not makes sense". Which, not to be glib, does not make sense to me.

I await some actual clarification and hope to god something in here was not considered worthy of a ban. At this point I feel like I need to have eyes in the back of my head.

TheLeviathan
03-19-2013, 04:52 PM
hell me and Lev have been going back and forth for a better half of a decade now with several names and insults, it doesn't seem to bother us one bit.

Well, other than my secret undying hatred of you and your Ponderholicness. :)

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-19-2013, 04:52 PM
I actually think you should let the membership police themselves for the most part, it may result in a rough moment here and there. Or just let Brock dole out all the bans, he has the most expirence running forums in the past and I can't recall one time where anyone really thought he was being unfair (and yes he did ban multiple people from BYTO when it got out of hand), I'm not saying it needs to be the wild wild west...but come on, what Lev says is completely accurate.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-19-2013, 04:54 PM
Well, other than my secret undying hatred of you and your Ponderholicness. :)

Oh God, not to get to off topic but I am not some diehard Ponder fan, I just say let the kid have a chance, the Vikings have broken my heart enough where I almost just try to look at it as glass half full as possible, since they will inevitably do a bunch of crap that defies all logic and reason eventually.

Shane Wahl
03-19-2013, 04:56 PM
Even at my most drunk, I still follow the rules around here . . .

TheLeviathan
03-19-2013, 04:57 PM
Oh God, not to get to off topic but I am not some diehard Ponder fan, I just say let the kid have a chance, the Vikings have broken my heart enough where I almost just try to look at it as glass half full as possible, since they will inevitably do a bunch of crap that defies all logic and reason eventually.

Jesus Dave, sarcasm. Unless your post was sarcasm of my sarcasm in which case I just had a small blood vessel pop in my brain from the awesomeness......

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-19-2013, 05:02 PM
Jesus Dave, sarcasm. Unless your post was sarcasm of my sarcasm in which case I just had a small blood vessel pop in my brain from the awesomeness......
No I know it was sarcasm, I just don't want everyone else thinking I am a Ponderholic :) I have been in PA for 12 months now and the steps have been working!!

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-19-2013, 05:04 PM
Even at my most drunk, I still follow the rules around here . . .

Speaking of Drunk we REALLY need to bring back the Drunken Random Thoughts thread we had, if not for anything more then "RonGardenhire's" tales of trying to pick up chicks and failing miserably.

LimestoneBaggy
03-19-2013, 05:21 PM
Dave and Lev, can we perhaps agree on a policy of "Be excellent to each other." :cool:

Man I hope the membership of this site is old enough to get this.

GCTF
03-19-2013, 05:33 PM
DPJ--Banned
Fro--Banned
Dave--Suspended
Lev--Suspended

Coincidence?

Come to think of it, I haven't seen the Chief around lately. I hope no one stepped on his lawn.

The Wise One
03-19-2013, 06:35 PM
It will be interesting to see if those that contribute mostly snark will be around. Hopefully a Fro without the attitude will come back. For the most part he knows a lot more than those he got frustrated with.

John Bonnes
03-19-2013, 06:39 PM
I actually think you should let the membership police themselves for the most part, it may result in a rough moment here and there. Or just let Brock dole out all the bans, he has the most expirence running forums in the past and I can't recall one time where anyone really thought he was being unfair (and yes he did ban multiple people from BYTO when it got out of hand), I'm not saying it needs to be the wild wild west...but come on, what Lev says is completely accurate.

Well, I understand that's what you think. But that was an old site, and this is a new one. So I'm clear....
- We won't tolerate self-policing by snark and personal attacks. That is not going to change. We will suspend people for that and move towards a ban.
- Brock isn't going to be the only one doling out bans. It isn't fair to put him in that position, plus he's busy, plus there are others who have to live with this site as well.
- It is certainly possible that there will be some inconsistency. First, because we might make mistakes. But also, because we are limited in our bandwidth and at some point being a pain-in-the-butt is just trolling the moderators. So, that might happen, but so far it has been a temporary 3 or 7 day suspension. (The only time we've banned someone outright was when they ignored the suspension, and eventually we lifted that too. ) That seems like a pretty reasonable (maybe even too light) price to pay.

I hope everyone can live within those boundaries.

drjim
03-19-2013, 08:05 PM
BYTO isn't coming back.

I admire the goal of creating intelligent and respectful, I'm just skeptical it can ever exist on an internet message board. If someone posts nonsense and respectful disagreement won't dissuade them, that is what you are left with. And it's a lot less fun in the process.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-19-2013, 08:15 PM
Why is snark considered so bad? That is what I am confused about, making a smart ass remark or snark isn't a personal attack, and frankly if the person its made to isn't offended why should someone decide to be offended for them?

For instance, Lev can call me a homer or Ponderholic or much worse and I really don't care because we go way back several years and some friendly or unfriendly jabs might occur. If neither of us are offended and we don't derail the thread why should one of us be warned or banned?

Also I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, I am generally curious as I know those scenarios will pop up once the season starts and real games are played.

TheLeviathan
03-19-2013, 08:21 PM
frankly if the person its made to isn't offended why should someone decide to be offended for them?

I think this is a good point. I disagree with you Dave that we should let snark self-police. BYTO is gone and I think we can all move on with that. But that bolded text is basically saying "If we think someone might be maybe offended you could be banned" - which is so arbitrary I'm not sure where to start. Again, I'm just waiting for some clarity.

I don't think that's too much to ask and should be the first milestone any moderation effort seeks to establish before going ban-happy. I get not wanting people to call each other idiots, but the moderation here has gone WAY past that. I would almost think it farcical nannyism if it wasn't actually happening.

jorgenswest
03-19-2013, 08:32 PM
The articles bring me to this site. Why not make them more prominent? Keep the forum content distinct from the article content. Keep the front page for the articles. The side bar can feature links to recent articles organized by key writer. Let me see links to the most recent articles by Parker, Seth,... Expect baseball focused discussion related to these articles.

Let the threads in the forum be the place where the standards of discussion are different. Don't relink articles in the forum. Those that enjoy bantering mixed with a little baseball discussion will head there for entertainment. Remove the links to the forum from the front page.

Just my two cents. There has been some terrific baseball writing on this site in the last year. There has also been some entertaining banter. Ideally the banter doesn't overshadow the quality of the content.

The Wise One
03-19-2013, 11:10 PM
I think this is a good point. I disagree with you Dave that we should let snark self-police. BYTO is gone and I think we can all move on with that. But that bolded text is basically saying "If we think someone might be maybe offended you could be banned" - which is so arbitrary I'm not sure where to start. Again, I'm just waiting for some clarity.

I don't think that's too much to ask and should be the first milestone any moderation effort seeks to establish before going ban-happy. I get not wanting people to call each other idiots, but the moderation here has gone WAY past that. I would almost think it farcical nannyism if it wasn't actually happening.
If it is clear that you and Dave are friends then it should be obvious and any reasonable person shouldn't have a problem. But others can't see a friendly jab. Make an issue of it. Not every jab out there is between friends. Think Snepp and Nursie are friends?

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-19-2013, 11:30 PM
Think Snepp and Nursie are friends?

I don't really care, if one of them has an issue with the other they should bring it up to the moderators or whatever. It's not my decision nor my desire to decide if one of them should be offended or not.

Ultima Ratio
03-20-2013, 12:00 AM
A ban for 3-7 days is hardly egregious. Accept it, learn from it, come back or don't. It's a great baseball site. Some commenters' snark is well done, fun and refreshing. I appreciate it. Others are either very bad at snark, or are intentionally ill-willed. Kinda like the difference between art and pornography. You know it when you see it. Self-censoring for fear (or to avoid the hassle) of being beat up by other commenters may be a growing problem.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-20-2013, 12:19 AM
That is one of the worst analogies I have ever read/heard. Wow just wow. And I say that with all due respect.

Lesser Dali
03-20-2013, 12:23 AM
A ban for 3-7 days is hardly egregious. Accept it, learn from it, come back or don't. It's a great baseball site. Some commenters' snark is well done, fun and refreshing. I appreciate it. Others are either very bad at snark, or are intentionally ill-willed. Kinda like the difference between art and pornography. You know it when you see it. Self-censoring for fear (or to avoid the hassle) of being beat up by other commenters may be a growing problem.

As far as art & pornography go, I am still trying to figure out where Maplethorpe stands.

The last sentence of your post is the money maker. If there is policing to be done, great efforts should be put towards preventing that.

TwinVike61
03-20-2013, 01:30 AM
There has been some terrific baseball writing on this site in the last year. There has also been some entertaining banter. Ideally the banter doesn't overshadow the quality of the content.

I agree that the baseball analysis has been great and I've learned a lot. But I've also learned from some insightful posters and enjoy the humorous banter.

But I think we can all agree that what gets old is some posters penchant for pushing their predictable responses over and over. I just quickly scroll to the next post.

One thing I noted viewing the forum page (before it was changed) was that there was typically only 50-60 "members" with 10 times as many visitors. I know others are content to read without offering their own ideas...But, I wonder if some want to contribute but don't want to subject themselves to possible scrutiny or ridicule (direct or snarky).

I am always encouraged when a brave new soul enters the discussion and offers a new perspective. I think that's why we need to be civil, especially to new posters. Just my cents worth, my brothers.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-20-2013, 01:39 AM
One thing I noted viewing the forum page (before it was changed) was that there was typically only 50-60 "members" with 10 times as many visitors.
.

That is very common actually and not an indication on the "content" or scariness of posting here (which there is literally next to zero). The majority of people lurk on forums, of the 10-12 I regularly follow this is one of about two (the other being a fantasy baseball one) that I actually post on more than once every 6 months or so.

Brock Beauchamp
03-20-2013, 07:07 AM
That is one of the worst analogies I have ever read/heard. Wow just wow. And I say that with all due respect.

It's actually a great analogy, but for the wrong reasons. The problem with art/porn is that individuals know it when they see it. But show that art/porn to a group of people? Then it's infinitely harder to agree upon its purpose.

Oldgoat_MN
03-20-2013, 08:12 AM
My 2 cents worth (though perhaps overvalued):

There are threads I have stopped reading because more effort was spent bickering over some point or another than the subject of the thread. A lot of it seems to get personal. It is unattractive, sometimes childish and no fun to read.

OTOH - I had someone post a rather snotty remark to a comment I made one time. It occurred as a willful misinterpretation of what I had written and was demeaning. I ripped into him or her a little bit. Went back later to see if they had responded and my comment was gone, so I guess I have created some work for our moderators as well.

And I'm one of the nicest guys I know!

I hate the idea of censorship. However, if the board kept going down the path it has been angling toward I would stop coming to this site altogether. My participation has already fallen off significantly.

Best of luck finding the right balance. For me this is a great Twins baseball site.

Brock Beauchamp
03-20-2013, 08:23 AM
John brings up a good point about bolts loosening on their own over time. We had a real problem this offseason and had to do something about it. It was our first offseason, the Twins had (by and large) a poor offseason in the free agent market, and there was very little positive to talk about moving forward. In that environment, posters tend to turn on one another and it nurtures an environment of pettiness, bickering, and general idiocy.

But, we're back to watching baseball. I always thought the board would straighten up a bit when we actually had something to talk about and it did (along with some very welcome help from the moderation crew in Snepp and Glunn).

In time, we'll probably loosen the reins a bit. But in the short-term, we had to impose some rules that were more Draconian than any of us would have preferred to implement to get the board back on track and not an eyesore to ownership, advertisers, and fans who just want to talk about Twins baseball. In some ways, I feel bad that this had to happen, as several posters who I consider friends have been banned, warned, and generally tread upon more than I'd like. But, above all else, it had to be done for the betterment of the entire site. We're not unreasonable people but looking at the grand scope of things instead of "this is my personal playground", some tough decisions had to be made and some feathers were ruffled.

It is my hope that we won't see this kind of lordship over the forums again and that the board has seen how we plan to steer conversations and attempt to set the tone of the forums going forward.

IdahoPilgrim
03-20-2013, 08:47 AM
I'll start with this: at the end of the day, we can't run/support/hustle for a site whose forums we can't stomach. That's where things were a month ago for a few of us. I was far more likely to advocate turning them off completely than continuing down that path. And I would have had support among the founders. But before we did that, we decided to try and get it back to a more civil level of discourse, even though that was a lot of work and conflict and self-examination. I think we're pretty close to that.


For what it's worth, I hope you continue to keep the forums. While I also sometimes get turned off by some of the nastier comments, I do find things there that help me grow in my own understanding of the games and the Twins. I do support a more active moderation; I hope this never becomes the Strib comment section.

Brad Swanson
03-20-2013, 08:53 AM
I agree that the baseball analysis has been great and I've learned a lot. But I've also learned from some insightful posters and enjoy the humorous banter.

But I think we can all agree that what gets old is some posters penchant for pushing their predictable responses over and over. I just quickly scroll to the next post.

One thing I noted viewing the forum page (before it was changed) was that there was typically only 50-60 "members" with 10 times as many visitors. I know others are content to read without offering their own ideas...But, I wonder if some want to contribute but don't want to subject themselves to possible scrutiny or ridicule (direct or snarky).

I am always encouraged when a brave new soul enters the discussion and offers a new perspective. I think that's why we need to be civil, especially to new posters. Just my cents worth, my brothers.

This last paragraph is worth remembering. I know I was a "member" for a good 6 months before I posted anything. I wasn't really afraid, but I did have reservations. I do think that 99% of the interactions I have had here have been civil and I have no problem pointing out when I think things have gotten personal.

That being said, I think this is a great place and the more people who join the discussion, the better it will be for all of us. If that means a few people get temporary bans when they forget the golden rule, I'm ok with it. They are still welcomed back and all will be forgiven.

IdahoPilgrim
03-20-2013, 09:14 AM
I will throw in one last comment and then exit this topic.

When I was a new member last year, I posted on the forums frequently, and as I didn't have a background in playing the game, my comments were sometimes naive and just plain wrong. That should be expected from a new poster. There were a few times I got slammed and denigrated personally because of my ignorance of the game (and to honest, a few times I slammed back - I try to moderate that impulse now). The net result, though, was I'm now much more careful about what I post in the forums, and am always conscious of what reception it might receive. You can all decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Nick Nelson
03-20-2013, 11:57 AM
Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful input on this thread. It's a work in progress and your feedback helps us shape the rules and enforcement. This is a challenge for us, too -- there are a few members of the TD admin crew who fundamentally disagree with the concept of censorship entirely (myself included) but for the betterment of the site we need to set aside our personal feelings and do what we feel is best for the community.

But let me be very clear on this: snark is NOT being outlawed, or even discouraged. Snepp is one of the snarkiest posters on the board and we made him a moderator. The thing is, it's not that difficult to be snarky without resorting to personal attacks and condescension. If you want to rib on a buddy in good nature, think about how it's going to come off to readers at large before you click "Post." We can't be expected to keep track of which users have history and which insults are inside jokes.

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-20-2013, 12:23 PM
Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful input on this thread. It's a work in progress and your feedback helps us shape the rules and enforcement. This is a challenge for us, too -- there are a few members of the TD admin crew who fundamentally disagree with the concept of censorship entirely (myself included) but for the betterment of the site we need to set aside our personal feelings and do what we feel is best for the community.

But let me be very clear on this: snark is NOT being outlawed, or even discouraged. Snepp is one of the snarkiest posters on the board and we made him a moderator. The thing is, it's not that difficult to be snarky without resorting to personal attacks and condescension. If you want to rib on a buddy in good nature, think about how it's going to come off to readers at large before you click "Post." We can't be expected to keep track of which users have history and which insults are inside jokes.

In general I am not a fan of cencorship. I'm not a fan of intentional attacks and uncivility, either. Snark can be quite humorous and has its place as well. But it just seems that everyone's 'line' on this is different, moderators as well as users. For me the rule shouldn't be more moderation but maybe a general 'lighten up' as well. If you are going to post ideas, be prepared for someone to disagree and pick it apart and don't get so serious and defensive about it. I think there are some very fine baseball minds, and some genuine fine minds, period, on here and I enjoy reading it all; but if you are going to take it too personally and too seriously, well, it becomes a problem for all of us. (Moderation in all things, eh?) For me it's not so much the snarky replies that degenerate a thread, it's the lack of being able to see it for what it is and not being able to shrug it off and move on that is the problem. Yes, there are personal attacks in there, and yes, let's just grow up a little and refrain; but some take the general humor as a personal attack when it's not, or can't see beyond for what it is. Not to mention that there are a few times where there is a completely inane post. What I said above, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. If degrees of snark and uncivility are being moderated, I'd hope that inanity might be a bit, too.

biggentleben
03-20-2013, 11:35 PM
See, this is where coming to a Twins site for the 'net friends you made years ago and not really reading the Twins info means you end up missing what ends up irking the community. I view the Twins stuff, but I'd much rather discuss the game as a whole, and my favorite region of the old BYTO is now the Sports Bar region of things, so I spend most of my time there. I don't know what erupted, but I've had my stuff with Fro in the past, and it has never been over personal attacks. It's been when I started getting my emotions too into something and ignoring straight facts. That policing always forced me to be more thoughtful about my posts and not let emotion rule the day. Heck, I was hit pretty hard when I spoke against the former first baseman this offseason, but I'm guessing not a single warning went out there to someone bashing my opinion on the topic. I get offended when someone thinks the man was a hero, and I know I'd never want my child emulating him on or off the field. Does that mean someone should get banned for offending me? Heck no! I presented evidence to why I felt the way I did, and let it sit. You end up forcing yourself to become a more level poster who can anticipate the hook rather than constantly jabbing.

glunn
03-21-2013, 01:23 AM
I am grateful for the discussion in this thread. You have all given me a better perspective on how I should operate as a moderator.

I believe that there was major improvement in the tone of the forums after the sticky thread was posted so that people could read the rules. It seems to me that almost everyone has been making an effort to comply with the policy.

I was saddened by all four of the recent bans, but would note that to my knowledge everyone who was banned received at least one polite warning, then they were banned after committing another violation. I also feel that the word "ban" is misleading, because no one has been permanently excluded, and a "ban" usually means being suspended for 3 to 10 days.

Furthermore, as I have suggested in many private messages and on a few threads, if someone makes a stupid argument, then the policy does not restrict you from shredding the argument. Where I think that some people are still going wrong is attacking the person, not their position, but I understand why this is almost irresistible when it's clear that the person is indeed either a dumbass or just trolling. I would suggest that if anyone feels that a dumbass/troller is tempting them to violate the policy, please click on the "report post" icon (the triangle with the exclamation point inside it) so that the moderators can deal with the situation.

Furthermore, I think that people should know that the moderators and admins have agonized about how to deal with particular situations. In all of those discussions, no one has ever expressed a desire to permanently ban anyone -- the focus is always on how we can persuade Member X to stop violating the policy.

Finally, I like John's comment about the bolt's eventually loosening. Frankly, moderating is distracting and not fun. I would like to be the "Maytag repairman" of moderators.

TheLeviathan
03-21-2013, 06:40 AM
Furthermore, I think that people should know that the moderators and admins have agonized about how to deal with particular situations. In all of those discussions, no one has ever expressed a desire to permanently ban anyone -- the focus is always on how we can persuade Member X to stop violating the policy.

Except that the policy was changed mid-stream. If the effort is truly to persuade someone from not violating the policy, why is there such silence on better explanations of what is being policed? I've made three attempts to get someone to explain how I violated policies I was warned and banned for attacks on arguments, with language like "obtuse" and "not makes sense" apparently serious enough to qualify for a ban which caused discussion on the board for it being ridiculous and those concerns were largely met with silence. If this is truly the efforts of the moderators, perhaps a bit more transparency (even privately) would be nice. Hell, I took a seven day ban for calling an argument obtuse and the very obtuse-argument poster literally called other posters names and was back in three days. Sky posted earlier that he did the same thing to Fro that Fro was banned for and didn't receive a warning. Hell, his post actually got a like from an administrator. How does that happen? For one person the tact gets them a ban and for the other they get an admin like? I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that people are going to start really getting annoyed at this kind of inconsistency.

Part of the issue is people not liking the policy, another is not liking enforcement. I still sit here, three private requests in and multiple requests here, waiting to hear that. I respect you and I know you have tried to do this to varying degrees glunn, but I think your version of the events here is a bit too rose-colored. But I'd be more than happy for someone to do more than pay lip-service to the inconsistencies. That would be swell.

beckmt
03-21-2013, 07:18 AM
Running down people and their arguments is the quickest way to get me to quit coming to a site. Respectful disagreements are allowed as long as you do not demean the posting person. I was told that I lost a person with an argument, that was fair as I have a tendency to do that. As a point I also post on other sites(this group would never find them), I have seen very few personal attacks there, but several disagreements that can be attempted to be supported by facts. That is what I expect from a site.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-21-2013, 07:22 AM
Except that the policy was changed mid-stream. If the effort is truly to persuade someone from not violating the policy, why is there such silence on better explanations of what is being policed? I've made three attempts to get someone to explain how I violated policies I was warned and banned for attacks on arguments, with language like "obtuse" and "not makes sense" apparently serious enough to qualify for a ban which caused discussion on the board for it being ridiculous and those concerns were largely met with silence. If this is truly the efforts of the moderators, perhaps a bit more transparency (even privately) would be nice. Hell, I took a seven day ban for calling an argument obtuse and the very obtuse-argument poster literally called other posters names and was back in three days. Sky posted earlier that he did the same thing to Fro that Fro was banned for and didn't receive a warning. Hell, his post actually got a like from an administrator. How does that happen? For one person the tact gets them a ban and for the other they get an admin like? I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that people are going to start really getting annoyed at this kind of inconsistency.

Part of the issue is people not liking the policy, another is not liking enforcement. I still sit here, three private requests in and multiple requests here, waiting to hear that. I respect you and I know you have tried to do this to varying degrees glunn, but I think your version of the events here is a bit too rose-colored. But I'd be more than happy for someone to do more than pay lip-service to the inconsistencies. That would be swell.

To be fair, I said I went after him pretty hard, not that I did the same thing as him. If Fro was banned for something he said to me it was probably because he attacked my argument with borderline non-sequitur sarcasm. I on the other hand, posted a satirical sarcastic statement as a way to illustrate how he was coming across to me. Semantics, maybe.... but if Fro took two seconds to rephrase some of his comments as being generalized he probably would have gotten away with them. And I assume that the like I got from an admin had to do with my comments on general attitudes regarding SABR minded thinkers and SABR adherents.

And honestly Leviathan, I would say that generalizing comments is a useful tool for you to use as well. It helps in scenarios where you would like to say something a bit rude, but don't want to be outright mean and inviting of a ban or warning. Say for instance that you think somebody is acting like a bit of a cry baby because they're being told they can't say whatever their sound judgement deems appropriate on a message board. You could perhaps comment that you understand the moderators caring less about that person having their way with all of the really fun and brilliant insulting sarcasm they come up with, and care more about growing and fostering an environment that is both good for civil discourse and good for business.

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-21-2013, 09:13 AM
I am grateful for the discussion in this thread. You have all given me a better perspective on how I should operate as a moderator.

I believe that there was major improvement in the tone of the forums after the sticky thread was posted so that people could read the rules. It seems to me that almost everyone has been making an effort to comply with the policy.

I was saddened by all four of the recent bans, but would note that to my knowledge everyone who was banned received at least one polite warning, then they were banned after committing another violation. I also feel that the word "ban" is misleading, because no one has been permanently excluded, and a "ban" usually means being suspended for 3 to 10 days.

Furthermore, as I have suggested in many private messages and on a few threads, if someone makes a stupid argument, then the policy does not restrict you from shredding the argument. Where I think that some people are still going wrong is attacking the person, not their position, but I understand why this is almost irresistible when it's clear that the person is indeed either a dumbass or just trolling. I would suggest that if anyone feels that a dumbass/troller is tempting them to violate the policy, please click on the "report post" icon (the triangle with the exclamation point inside it) so that the moderators can deal with the situation.

Furthermore, I think that people should know that the moderators and admins have agonized about how to deal with particular situations. In all of those discussions, no one has ever expressed a desire to permanently ban anyone -- the focus is always on how we can persuade Member X to stop violating the policy.

Finally, I like John's comment about the bolt's eventually loosening. Frankly, moderating is distracting and not fun. I would like to be the "Maytag repairman" of moderators.


First, let me just say, I appreciate the time and effort you (and everyone) puts into this site. I really do appreciate it and I thank you all.

But ... at least one? I would hope, unless it is an extremely egregious case (which I haven't seen), that individuals would be getting more than one warning before a ban, temporary or otherwise. One warning: "Come on man, don't go there with this like that." Two: please, I told you this isn't how to respond here. Three: sorry, three strikes you're out. (It is baseball, afterall.) Unless it's completely out there (and, as I've said, I have yet to see something that egregious) I would hope there is a system of 'punishment' as there is a system of 'rules.' Otherwise it just seems completely arbitary how this is doled out. By giving more than one warning, it allows the person time to adjust and acknowledge and understand where he/she went 'wrong.' If a particular individual is being banned often, well, then that's a discussion to have amongst yourselves. Or maybe we could have a 'vote off the island' a la Survivor? (okay, yes, I'm kidding)

As to inanity, there was a thread, since locked and deleted, that should never have started. The subject title as well as the original post was COMPLETELY MORONIC and it didn't take much to know exactly where that would head, and did go. While I hate censorship as a rule, that was a thread that should have been deleted, or edited at the very least, at the onset. I don't even remember the subject of that particular thread or even who started it, but the ugliness that followed could have been avoided. I think it was the thread that ultimately triggered the rules and moderation. It wasn't started to bait anyone, either, it was just a completely stupid thread and the discussion that followed basically said so and then degenerated from there. It's those instances I wish for moderation, not on snark.

Lastly, the tightened bolt analogy. Sigh. This is the exact advice my mom gave my sister before her first middle school teaching job. Start tough, show them who's the authority in the classroom, be swift and consistent with the 'punishment' so that the kids know what is expected of them, and then you can loosen up later in the year. Seriously. But I guess if there is a small handful who will behave like middle school kids, then I guess we all have to 'pay' by having a finger shaken at us.

But, in the end, I come back to read about baseball. It's really nice to have a place to do that and to 'connect' to Twins fans when I live among a sea of White Sox fans. I even once had a parking space in my building next to Kenny Williams. He since moved but he's an ass when you are a 'nobody' to him. And he almost ran over me and my niece with his Hummer. And that says it all.

TheLeviathan
03-21-2013, 09:28 AM
And honestly Leviathan, I would say that generalizing comments is a useful tool for you to use as well. It helps in scenarios where you would like to say something a bit rude, but don't want to be outright mean and inviting of a ban or warning. Say for instance that you think somebody is acting like a bit of a cry baby because they're being told they can't say whatever their sound judgement deems appropriate on a message board. You could perhaps comment that you understand the moderators caring less about that person having their way with all of the really fun and brilliant insulting sarcasm they come up with, and care more about growing and fostering an environment that is both good for civil discourse and good for business.

Except under current rules being rude without naming names would in fact be a violation. As I continue to try and make clear - my issue is not their intent to foster better dialogue, my issue is inconsistent execution, refusal to elaborate and clarify, hypocrisy, and changing expectations. None of which your condescending post seems to have acknowledged. Please don't oversimplify my point to belittle it.

Brock Beauchamp
03-21-2013, 09:34 AM
Except under current rules being rude without naming names would in fact be a violation. As I continue to try and make clear - my issue is not their intent to foster better dialogue, my issue is inconsistent execution, refusal to elaborate and clarify, hypocrisy, and changing expectations. None of which your condescending post seems to have acknowledged. Please don't oversimplify my point to belittle it.

Levi, this is a relatively new board. I know you're a little sour on what happened to you and I do sympathize a bit with your situation. I also understand other admins/mods frustration and why they imposed the ban.

We're continually having discussions about this situation and how to make it more consistent for everyone involved. And that takes time. It will never be perfect but as we get a better feel for things (both the admins and the moderators), I think we'll sort it out and become more consistent.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-21-2013, 09:35 AM
First, let me just say, I appreciate the time and effort you (and everyone) puts into this site. I really do appreciate it and I thank you all.

But ... at least one? I would hope, unless it is an extremely egregious case (which I haven't seen), that individuals would be getting more than one warning before a ban, temporary or otherwise. One warning: "Come on man, don't go there with this like that." Two: please, I told you this isn't how to respond here. Three: sorry, three strikes you're out. (It is baseball, afterall.) Unless it's completely out there (and, as I've said, I have yet to see something that egregious) I would hope there is a system of 'punishment' as there is a system of 'rules.' Otherwise it just seems completely arbitary how this is doled out. By giving more than one warning, it allows the person time to adjust and acknowledge and understand where he/she went 'wrong.' If a particular individual is being banned often, well, then that's a discussion to have amongst yourselves. Or maybe we could have a 'vote off the island' a la Survivor? (okay, yes, I'm kidding)

As to inanity, there was a thread, since locked and deleted, that should never have started. The subject title as well as the original post was COMPLETELY MORONIC and it didn't take much to know exactly where that would head, and did go. While I hate censorship as a rule, that was a thread that should have been deleted, or edited at the very least, at the onset. I don't even remember the subject of that particular thread or even who started it, but the ugliness that followed could have been avoided. I think it was the thread that ultimately triggered the rules and moderation. It wasn't started to bait anyone, either, it was just a completely stupid thread and the discussion that followed basically said so and then degenerated from there. It's those instances I wish for moderation, not on snark.

Lastly, the tightened bolt analogy. Sigh. This is the exact advice my mom gave my sister before her first middle school teaching job. Start tough, show them who's the authority in the classroom, be swift and consistent with the 'punishment' so that the kids know what is expected of them, and then you can loosen up later in the year. Seriously. But I guess if there is a small handful who will behave like middle school kids, then I guess we all have to 'pay' by having a finger shaken at us.

But, in the end, I come back to read about baseball. It's really nice to have a place to do that and to 'connect' to Twins fans when I live among a sea of White Sox fans. I even once had a parking space in my building next to Kenny Williams. He since moved but he's an ass when you are a 'nobody' to him. And he almost ran over me and my niece with his Hummer. And that says it all.

Not surprised about your run-ins with kenny williams. I've heard he's a jerk, and he just seems plain old crazy. I did hear once that his doctors told him that he needs to work out while watching or listening to games so that his insane blood pressure spikes aren't happening while he is otherwise sedentary (apparently its more dangerous, idk...).

I actually have tried it myself. I must admit, I get pretty worked up about our Twins.

Seems like your Mom gave good advice. Supervisors in corporate settings often find themselves needing to set a pleasant, yet still firm tone in order to let everybody know that they mean business. The urge to be the nice or fun boss can sometimes lead to a staff of employees who just can't take their superior seriously enough as a disciplinarian. Once everybody has been familiarized with the fact that the boss isn't screwing around when it comes to expectations, then they can start to lighten up a bit.

Read any recent restaurant reviews out of the Twin Cities? You're missing out on so many great places starting up around here recently!!

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-21-2013, 10:13 AM
Except under current rules being rude without naming names would in fact be a violation. As I continue to try and make clear - my issue is not their intent to foster better dialogue, my issue is inconsistent execution, refusal to elaborate and clarify, hypocrisy, and changing expectations. None of which your condescending post seems to have acknowledged. Please don't oversimplify my point to belittle it.



I did acknowledge your charges of hypocrisy and inconsistent execution, at least in the case of my interaction with Fro that you mentioned. In regards to inconsistency, I discussed why my post might have been let to slide while his wasn't. Maybe I'm wrong about why it was handled that way, but I did attempt to address the aspects of it that involved me.

I also addressed hypocrisy with my speculation regarding the reason an admin might have Liked my post.

So, my condescending post did acknowledge at least some of your concerns. Dont know why you would pretend I didn't, unless you were trying to over simplify my point--something which you clearly disapprove of doing.

Also, I don't think I oversimplified your post at all. If anything, one could argue that I gave it more consideration than it possibly deserved based on the somewhat absurd nature of somebody being SO FRUSTRATED by an entirely voluntary message board. I do appreciate that you care about how your fellow posters are treated. Well, you seem to care about how some of them are treated, at least.

Condescending and belittling? I'll admit to condescension in my "generalized comments", but that was the point--to illustrate how to avoid attacking somebody directly. I think I succeeded, based on you getting the message despite the fact that in no way did I criticize you directly. As far as belittling you, I apologize that you felt offended. The intention was to illuminate the point while at the same time needling you for being so frustrated about something that I'm sure even you would admit is a bit silly. I thought it was funny and that you would probably think the same and dish it back out the same way you got it.

Instead you seemed to get sensitive and cried foul, an approach that some people in this thread have recently spoken out against.

Brock Beauchamp
03-21-2013, 10:37 AM
DEEP BREATHS.

There is absolutely no reason to be combative about this, folks. This is one of the problems we're trying to stop with the new rules in place. There is absolutely no damned reason to turn this into an inane argument over semantics.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-21-2013, 10:55 AM
DEEP BREATHS.

There is absolutely no reason to be combative about this, folks. This is one of the problems we're trying to stop with the new rules in place. There is absolutely no damned reason to turn this into an inane argument over semantics.


I just explained what I meant with my post, and I think I did a good job of it.

I even offered an apology.

I think a lot of the problem is that other people don't just say they're sorry when somebody lets them know they've been offended. To me, that's self-policing in a positive and beneficial way.

Not sure how that counts as semantics, but I'll take the deep breaths anyway, just for the yoga benefit.

CDog
03-21-2013, 11:00 AM
I played in a basketball league for years. The same core of guys on eight teams played for pretty much a decade, with each team obviously having some turnover here and there on the fringes. There were no referees, just a gym supervisor and an assistant that rolled out the balls and kept score and ran the clock, etc. So we were essentially self-policed with a "moderator" around for if/when things got testy. Things only got past the point of typical bickering on occasion. These almost always involved one particular player on my team. He'd get into it with some guy. Then he'd get into it with some other guy. Then someone else. He was the constant, but he just couldn't figure out why everyone was "out to get him." Eventually the gym supervisor said he couldn't play anymore, and he couldn't figure out why he had been singled out over his most recent altercation, which hadn't really been all that bad.

Anyway, I can't think of a single instance where the conversation was hurt here by "over moderation." And even if I could, I'm pretty sure the "It's their house and they can run it how they see fit" line of reasoning trumps almost any complaints to the contrary. This site is amazing compared to others I've seen that strive for similar content. Keep up the good work. The combination of restraint and firmness, along with some moments of extremely impressive objectivity have impressed me greatly.

TheLeviathan
03-21-2013, 11:26 AM
I don't need a deep breath I'm sharing honestly, openly, and respectfully. I am frustrated by inconsistencies that others share and I now know are being worked through. That's the only thing I was requesting.

But the irony of that reply above in this thread is amusing, I will leave it at that and bite my tongue about what I really think.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-21-2013, 11:26 AM
I just explained what I meant with my post, and I think I did a good job of it.

I even offered an apology.

I think a lot of the problem is that other people don't just say they're sorry when somebody lets them know they've been offended. To me, that's self-policing in a positive and beneficial way.

Not sure how that counts as semantics, but I'll take the deep breaths anyway, just for the yoga benefit.

And--we're allowed to say "damned"? Damn, I would have been saying it this whole time.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-21-2013, 11:37 AM
I don't need a deep breath I'm sharing honestly, openly, and respectfully. I am frustrated by inconsistencies that others share and I now know are being worked through. That's the only thing I was requesting. But the irony of that reply in this thread is amusing, I will leave it at that.

Leaving it at that might be a good idea, because I think an explanation of irony would probably come across as condescending to you.

You didn't respond regarding the ways that I actually did address your points, despite you saying I didn't.

Also, and most arguably most damning, you didn't address the polite apology I offered for offending you.

Strange... The only responses you have given me are to respond to things you perceive to be slights toward you, but none of the contrition or genuine attempt to clarify some of your concerns.

cwzimmerman
03-21-2013, 11:54 AM
Does anyone else think that we've now beaten this thread nearly to death? I agree with Brock's thoughts above to a "T".

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-21-2013, 11:58 AM
Does anyone else think that we've now beaten this thread nearly to death? I agree with Brock's thoughts above to a "T".

I have never once been forced to click on a thread and read what it says. As for Brock and other moderators, that's why they get paid the big bucks....:)

glunn
03-21-2013, 01:10 PM
Except that the policy was changed mid-stream. If the effort is truly to persuade someone from not violating the policy, why is there such silence on better explanations of what is being policed? I've made three attempts to get someone to explain how I violated policies I was warned and banned for attacks on arguments, with language like "obtuse" and "not makes sense" apparently serious enough to qualify for a ban which caused discussion on the board for it being ridiculous and those concerns were largely met with silence. If this is truly the efforts of the moderators, perhaps a bit more transparency (even privately) would be nice. Hell, I took a seven day ban for calling an argument obtuse and the very obtuse-argument poster literally called other posters names and was back in three days. Sky posted earlier that he did the same thing to Fro that Fro was banned for and didn't receive a warning. Hell, his post actually got a like from an administrator. How does that happen? For one person the tact gets them a ban and for the other they get an admin like? I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that people are going to start really getting annoyed at this kind of inconsistency.

Part of the issue is people not liking the policy, another is not liking enforcement. I still sit here, three private requests in and multiple requests here, waiting to hear that. I respect you and I know you have tried to do this to varying degrees glunn, but I think your version of the events here is a bit too rose-colored. But I'd be more than happy for someone to do more than pay lip-service to the inconsistencies. That would be swell.

Leviathan, I think that you have some legitimate points and I am always glad to respond to any private messages that you may send. Yes, I have a rose-colored outlook, but I understand your concerns and greatly appreciate your efforts to obtain clarification.

ashburyjohn
03-21-2013, 02:15 PM
I have never once been forced to click on a thread and read what it says.

I'm never forced to go to a public park or to a store (depending on whether you view this site as a shared resource or a private venture) if it's overrun with litter or graffiti that "someone" thought was OK, either. But the world is a slightly less good place for me when it happens.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-21-2013, 02:51 PM
I'm never forced to go to a public park or to a store (depending on whether you view this site as a shared resource or a private venture) if it's overrun with litter or graffiti that "someone" thought was OK, either. But the world is a slightly less good place for me when it happens.

True, Ashburyjohn. Though I think the analogy is a bit of a stretch. This is a message board. This is a thread that is discussing moderation of a message board. To call the conversation within it litter or graffiti seems a little harsh. I do take your point about "nobody forced you to come here" not being a very well thought out approach.

Honestly, it seems like many people on this board are perfectly happy to claim somebody else is insulting, but then aren't willing to admit when they have been insulting themselves.

There is recent controversy regarding another thread that I and a couple of other people participated in. The conversation may seem to get stuck in spots without resolution, and i can understand that being frustrating. I tried to tie it all up, even making an apology for what was perceived as belittling another poster. The fact that the other person wouldn't just say something to the effect of "I disagree with you but I appreciate the apology" seems strange.

But you don't seem like the kind of dude who wants to hear any more about this, Ashburyjohn, so I'll quit bothering you with it.

ashburyjohn
03-21-2013, 03:35 PM
To call the conversation within it litter or graffiti seems a little harsh.

It might have come out harsher than it should have, my brother. Carry on.

GCTF
03-21-2013, 05:36 PM
This may be why people were getting that Summer Eve banner ad.

GCTF
03-21-2013, 06:18 PM
Fantastic, now my post makes no sense without the quote.

Farewell and good luck magikcat. We'll never forget how your post over at the byto about a Beatles tribute band led to one of the greatest meltdowns in message board history.

ashburyjohn
03-21-2013, 06:42 PM
We'll never forget how your post over at the byto about a Beatles tribute band led to one of the greatest meltdowns in message board history.

You can be my, be my, be my Yoko Ono.

Jim H
03-21-2013, 07:57 PM
I have followed the 4 major founders of this site, pretty much since each started their own blog. When they started this site, I was glad in the sense that now I could go to one place to find good Twins content. I was also worried that I would have to wade through a lot of crap to get to the good content. Many of the discussions that followed posts on the old sites generated better content than the original post(no insult intended). That still happens, but too often the comment section gets hijacked by the kind of stuff that the moderators are trying to control. Keep it up moderators, there is no harm in civility and if people have to stop and think a little before hitting the post button, so much the better.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-22-2013, 08:10 AM
Wha was the deleted post?

Musk21
03-22-2013, 12:21 PM
Fantastic, now my post makes no sense without the quote.

Farewell and good luck magikcat. We'll never forget how your post over at the byto about a Beatles tribute band led to one of the greatest meltdowns in message board history.

Hey, that was my post!

luke829
03-22-2013, 02:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6aixCBzn3s

GCTF
03-22-2013, 03:31 PM
Hey, that was my post!

Did you start the thread or poke the bear to get things rolling? Can't remember.

glunn
03-22-2013, 06:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6aixCBzn3s

How could this lead to a meltdown? BYTO sounds like a very contentious place.

B Richard
03-22-2013, 06:22 PM
How could this lead to a meltdown? BYTO sounds like a very contentious place.

I am dying to find out how that video caused a meltdown. I'm actually giggling. Please someone share, this sounds phenomenal

Brock Beauchamp
03-22-2013, 06:24 PM
I don't even remember how it started, I only remember the non-stop face-palming for several days.

Brock Beauchamp
03-22-2013, 06:57 PM
I just read through the meltdown thread. I was crying, I was laughing so hard. A couple of drinks and that thread are a perfect combination.

Too bad it can't be posted here, as it would break very forum rule we have on TD, along with a few we haven't thought up yet.

TheLeviathan
03-22-2013, 07:36 PM
There is no excuse great enough to deny humanity that thread RP. Link it up.

glunn
03-22-2013, 07:40 PM
There is no excuse great enough to deny humanity that thread RP. Link it up.

I would like that link as well.

JB_Iowa
03-22-2013, 08:31 PM
Well, I take a break for a few days and feel like I've missed everything but I do have a few observations.

1. I think Brock's post earlier about "in season" vs. off season has a lot of merit. And frankly, despite the fact that there are spring training games going on, to me these last couple of weeks before the season are actually worse than the earlier off-season. Frankly my own level of snarkiness (in general but not really expressed on this board) simply increases as we get closer to opening day. I'm ready to see what this Twins team REALLY looks like to start the season. I guess I would urge the mods to chill a little until the season starts.

2. While I don't enjoy reading pages of snarkiness, a little back and forth doesn't bother me. I'd rather have some kind of report button where people can complain if they think something is severely getting out of hand or too personal. As an outsider, it's hard for me to judge sarcasm vs true mean-spiritedness when I don't know the backgrounds of the relationship between the people who may be snarking. I usually just ignore it. Maybe the mods are familiar enough with all the posters to know what's really going on but I'd still feel better if they had some input by way of a report button (because LACK of input would also tell them something.)

3. In general, it seems to me that there has been less activity on the site in recent weeks (I have no idea if the site traffic numbers bear that out). Snarkiness may play a little factor in that. The site re-design may play a factor in that. But I sincerely believe that most of it has to do with the fact that the off-season just seems to be dragging.

Personally, I rarely get involved in much back and forth but unless it gets truly mean-spirited, it doesn't bother me and at times it is amusing. While this board is business for the founders, for most of us, it's just a place to hang out. And I like my hangouts to be relaxed and pretty tolerant.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-23-2013, 12:44 AM
Post the itstimetotakeit thread!!!!!!

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-23-2013, 08:14 AM
Post the itstimetotakeit thread!!!!!!
Or at least send it to us all privately if you'll get into too much trouble posting it

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-23-2013, 09:03 AM
Did we ever find out who McBeef was?

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-23-2013, 09:06 AM
I don't even remember how it started, I only remember the non-stop face-palming for several days.

The meltdown happened and then the better meltdown happened once the better video was posted.

Perhaps my favorite part is when he came back to the site as "justanotherfAn" the lawyer from Maine and we all played along knowing it was him all along since the IPs matched up.

Also rocket pig can u just link us to the thread?

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-23-2013, 11:11 AM
Did we ever find out who McBeef was?

Who was your best guess? I thought it was Kobs.

luke829
03-23-2013, 11:31 AM
I am dying to find out how that video caused a meltdown. I'm actually giggling. Please someone share, this sounds phenomenal

Basically it started as a simple post by a member who had gone to see the band featured in the video (not the video itself) in concert. How it evolved into a multiple page meltdown of historic proportions is anyone's guess.

Brock Beauchamp
03-23-2013, 11:35 AM
I need to make some changes to the install before I can post a link. I'll do it some time this week.

GCTF
03-23-2013, 11:35 AM
Or at least send it to us all privately if you'll get into too much trouble posting it

This would probably be best.

GCTF
03-23-2013, 11:36 AM
Did we ever find out who McBeef was?

It was you!

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-23-2013, 11:48 AM
3570

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-23-2013, 11:59 AM
Here are some highlights, obviously nsfw kinda

(http://www.picstation.net/show-image.phpid=5ee1cfa6c89c9036e07384718b7a9ef5)
http://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=5ee1cfa6c89c9036e07384718b7a9ef5

(http://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=8992c334abb3035d2b5e650a46296163)http ://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=411026ad746adeb82b25fc7833470537

http://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=8992c334abb3035d2b5e650a46296163
I will figure out a way to post the whole thread later.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-23-2013, 12:09 PM
The thread that started it all

PicStation.Net - Free Image Hosting (http://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=3bf474726f676828b143c152872c92d3)
PicStation.Net - Free Image Hosting (http://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=19f2f292363a456cd421a77bca4a6f17)

johnnydakota
03-23-2013, 12:09 PM
I am dying to find out how that video caused a meltdown. I'm actually giggling. Please someone share, this sounds phenomenal

Im not sure former Pat Boone supporters would under stand , how it all happened =)

ashburyjohn
03-23-2013, 12:55 PM
Or at least send it to us all privately if you'll get into too much trouble posting it

Yes, this idea is intriguing to me and I also wish to subscribe to the newsletter.

glunn
03-23-2013, 02:46 PM
Here are some highlights, obviously nsfw kinda

(http://www.picstation.net/show-image.phpid=5ee1cfa6c89c9036e07384718b7a9ef5)
PicStation.Net - Free Image Hosting (http://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=5ee1cfa6c89c9036e07384718b7a9ef5)

(http://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=8992c334abb3035d2b5e650a46296163)PicS tation.Net - Free Image Hosting (http://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=411026ad746adeb82b25fc7833470537)

PicStation.Net - Free Image Hosting (http://www.picstation.net/show-image.php?id=8992c334abb3035d2b5e650a46296163)
I will figure out a way to post the whole thread later.

So this is what can happen when there is a low level of moderation?

iastfan112
03-23-2013, 03:08 PM
Levi, this is a relatively new board. I know you're a little sour on what happened to you and I do sympathize a bit with your situation. I also understand other admins/mods frustration and why they imposed the ban.

We're continually having discussions about this situation and how to make it more consistent for everyone involved. And that takes time. It will never be perfect but as we get a better feel for things (both the admins and the moderators), I think we'll sort it out and become more consistent.

PC more please!


I'll throw in my 2 cents: Moderation is too strict. I'm willing too concede that BYTO style (lack) of moderation might not work but its gone too far here. The chorus of people saying "I don't like censorship, but...." reminds me of the large number of people who think taxes should be lower but stubbornly resist anyone cutting program that benefits them. If someone repeatedly makes outrageous, silly, unsourced arguments I'm completely fine with them being called out on it.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-23-2013, 03:12 PM
So this is what can happen when there is a low level of moderation?

There wasn't a low level of moderation at all, the mods (and the members as a whole) agreed to let that meltdown play out, it only got better, and better, and better. It actually brought the community together.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-23-2013, 03:19 PM
There wasn't a low level of moderation at all, the mods (and the members as a whole) agreed to let that meltdown play out, it only got better, and better, and better. It actually brought the community together.

You guys must have been intolerably mean to that 'itstimetotakeit' guy....

Makes me think I might have made a mistake in choosing my new best friends....

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-23-2013, 03:45 PM
Oh we weren't that mean at all, the guy was straight up unhinged.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-23-2013, 03:49 PM
Oh we weren't that mean at all, the guy was straight up unhinged.


Clearly. He seemed unhinged and like the most awesome person ever, both at the same time.

If the mods had a good sense of humor I would get banned for agreeing that he was unhinged.

fairweather
03-23-2013, 03:56 PM
As a true American I believe the all communication should be allowed short of threats of violence. Why do people everywhere think they have the right to not be offended? In the words of a very close friend of mine "If you can be offended...you should be!"

fairweather
03-23-2013, 04:00 PM
Without some offensive banter so much is lost from Rhetoric.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-23-2013, 04:01 PM
As a true American I believe the all communication should be allowed short of threats of violence. Why do people everywhere think they have the right to not be offended? In the words of a very close friend of mine "If you can be offended...you should be!"

Clearly you are saying that members who would prefer a bit of moderation aren't true Americans.... Offensive!! :)

PseudoSABR
03-23-2013, 06:58 PM
Oh we weren't that mean at all, the guy was straight up unhinged.We were mean. We made cracks about the guys capacity to be a parent. He was foolish to share so much of his personal life, but many of us were unnecessarily cruel.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-23-2013, 07:08 PM
The cracks about his parenting were pretty minor, and usually after he made a joke about "punting a baby" etc

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-23-2013, 07:48 PM
The cracks about his parenting were pretty minor, and usually after he made a joke about "punting a baby" etc

Not to mention his hatred of women. He was disgusting.

cmathewson
03-23-2013, 08:16 PM
I am relatively new here. So I will just post a short observation: Since I joined a few months ago, I have noticed a significant improvement in the quality of the debate. I have seen a lot of "I respectfully disagree" posts, which tend to improve the tenor and substance of debate.

When I started posting here, I was afraid it was just the second coming of the BYTO site, from which I got banned for simply because I respectfully disagreed with the moderators, who routinely bullied people who disagreed with them. This time, it wasn't the moderators, but self-appointed experts who rejected opinions out of hand if they didn't agree with their own. I haven't seen that kind of behavior in weeks.

TheLeviathan
03-23-2013, 08:19 PM
We were mean. We made cracks about the guys capacity to be a parent. He was foolish to share so much of his personal life, but many of us were unnecessarily cruel.

I don't know how you guys remember those details. Then again, I only found the thread after it had been aflame for awhile already. The youtube links were the best.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-23-2013, 08:59 PM
Not to mention his hatred of women. He was disgusting.


Not that it justifies hatred of women, because it certainly doesn't, but from what I can tell the dude's baby momma took off for fricking Alaska. I'm betting he was a little scarred and bitter from that relationship. And he probably turned to you guys to vent and interact with friends. And, true to message board form, you guys nuked him with every bit of information he was naive enough to share.

My poor Russian grandmother always warns me about being too open and trusting. My older brother is in Alcoholics Anonymous, and he says I would fit right in with those over-sharers.

Come to think of it.... His baby momma took off for Alaska. Safe to bet he was unhinged.

fairweather
03-23-2013, 09:30 PM
Who got banned and what things exactly were said that led to all this hoop-la? Woman hating? Alaska Nebraska?

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-23-2013, 10:13 PM
You're not helping.

Come on... Let me have this. With the whole.... You know.....

Come on....

glunn
03-23-2013, 10:48 PM
Please just drop this discussion about someone who is now a member of TD. We don't want to repeat history here.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-23-2013, 10:54 PM
Please just drop this discussion about someone who is now a member of TD. We don't want to repeat history here.

Ugh. You destroyed such a funny joke.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-24-2013, 08:35 AM
I am relatively new here. So I will just post a short observation: Since I joined a few months ago, I have noticed a significant improvement in the quality of the debate. I have seen a lot of "I respectfully disagree" posts, which tend to improve the tenor and substance of debate.

When I started posting here, I was afraid it was just the second coming of the BYTO site, from which I got banned for simply because I respectfully disagreed with the moderators, who routinely bullied people who disagreed with them. This time, it wasn't the moderators, but self-appointed experts who rejected opinions out of hand if they didn't agree with their own. I haven't seen that kind of behavior in weeks.
Yeah..I'm going to call b.s. on that one At BYTO we banned very few people and it certainly was never because someone who "respectfully disagreed" with anyone. Not that it really matters though and you are getting off topic...anyways back to epic meltdowns in message board history, who is next? Granny Baseball? Yarny?

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-24-2013, 08:37 AM
Please just drop this discussion about someone who is now a member of TD. We don't want to repeat history here.
He's not a member here....and if he is I suggest banning him on site, just ask Brock.

crarko
03-24-2013, 08:56 AM
It would be a fine and dandy thing if the folks here who can't let go of the past would create a site of their own where they can relive it ad infinitum. The rest of us who weren't involved with it thank you profusely.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-24-2013, 08:59 AM
It would be a fine and dandy thing if the folks here who can't let go of the past would create a site of their own where they can relive it ad infinitum. The rest of us who weren't involved with it thank you profusely.
Yeah, shame on us for posting memories of an epic meltdown thread, I totally forgot that we were talking about it on every other thread besides this one...

B Richard
03-24-2013, 09:19 AM
I personally wasn't a part of BYTO but reading that thread and seeing some of the characters... honestly that was pretty damn funny. My favorite part was that the guy claimed to call homeland security and the FBI :roll:

edit: also the sheer fact that some dude lost it over another guy commenting on a beatles' tribute band experience :roll: :roll: :roll:

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 09:22 AM
Yeah, shame on us for posting memories of an epic meltdown thread, I totally forgot that we were talking about it on every other thread besides this one...


The confusion is my fault. Somebody asked what happened and who got banned. I answered "Fro".... And made up a crazy story to be funny. Glunn misunderstood and thought Fro was really "itstimetotakeit". Moderated my joke right out of here, and posted the warning. Sorry guys, didn't mean to draw the attention of the authorities....

raindog
03-24-2013, 09:37 AM
This site is owned and moderated by some cool folks. Their standards for commenting are pretty, pretty lax. Everyone is free to disagree, snark is fine. Anybody that's been banned has been overwhelmingly negative or combative. They all seem to get warnings first. Usually a ban is for three freakin days.

How is this a problem? Our first-amendment rights are not being infringed upon, guys.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-24-2013, 09:48 AM
The confusion is my fault. Somebody asked what happened and who got banned. I answered "Fro".... And made up a crazy story to be funny. Glunn misunderstood and thought Fro was really "itstimetotakeit". Moderated my joke right out of here, and posted the warning. Sorry guys, didn't mean to draw the attention of the authorities....

Oh ok, yeah when posts get deleted it ends up a bit confusing.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-24-2013, 09:50 AM
I personally wasn't a part of BYTO but reading that thread and seeing some of the characters... honestly that was pretty damn funny. My favorite part was that the guy claimed to call homeland security and the FBI :roll:

edit: also the sheer fact that some dude lost it over another guy commenting on a beatles' tribute band experience :roll: :roll: :roll:

Oh man it only got better, he did a countdown of the 10 posters he "hated" the most and people got really excited/interested if they would be in the top 3 or not.

He then came back as a different name/new persona but everyone knew it was him but let it play out, sure enough about a month later he had another meltdown. It sounds childish but it was some of the most hilarious stuff I had ever read, and made "long days" just a little bit better.

cmathewson
03-24-2013, 10:28 AM
Yeah..I'm going to call b.s. on that one At BYTO we banned very few people and it certainly was never because someone who "respectfully disagreed" with anyone. Not that it really matters though and you are getting off topic...anyways back to epic meltdowns in message board history, who is next? Granny Baseball? Yarny?

Sorry, I got the acronyms mixed up. I was thinking about the DTFC. That was the one I was banned from.

FWIW, I did not write anything in that forum involving ad hominem arguments. My comments were purely about players. In particular, I got into a strong disagreement with a well-known troll over the Castro/Bartlett incident. It lasted for several months. At one point, I publicly walked away from the forum because I got tired of the moderators curbing my comments and supporting the troll.

I was also disgusted by a moderator who threatening to burn down Seth's house. When I briefly returned to make one comment, I was unceremoniously banned. I was perversely pleased when they shut the board down.

I am so glad we now have a forum that walks the fine line between letting discussions go and curbing ad hominem attacks.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-24-2013, 10:29 AM
I am relatively new here. So I will just post a short observation: Since I joined a few months ago, I have noticed a significant improvement in the quality of the debate. I have seen a lot of "I respectfully disagree" posts, which tend to improve the tenor and substance of debate.

When I started posting here, I was afraid it was just the second coming of the BYTO site, from which I got banned for simply because I respectfully disagreed with the moderators, who routinely bullied people who disagreed with them. This time, it wasn't the moderators, but self-appointed experts who rejected opinions out of hand if they didn't agree with their own. I haven't seen that kind of behavior in weeks.

What is DTFC?

Brock Beauchamp
03-24-2013, 11:07 AM
What is DTFC?

Dickie Thon Fan Club, an old message board.

Brock Beauchamp
03-24-2013, 11:08 AM
Sorry, I got the acronyms mixed up. I was thinking about the DTFC. That was the one I was banned from.

FWIW, I did not write anything in that forum involving ad hominem arguments. My comments were purely about players. In particular, I got into a strong disagreement with a well-known troll over the Castro/Bartlett incident. It lasted for several months. At one point, I publicly walked away from the forum because I got tired of the moderators curbing my comments and supporting the troll.

I was also disgusted by a moderator who threatening to burn down Seth's house. When I briefly returned to make one comment, I was unceremoniously banned. I was perversely pleased when they shut the board down.

I am so glad we now have a forum that walks the fine line between letting discussions go and curbing ad hominem attacks.

That makes way more sense. A poster really had to go above and beyond to get the ban on BYTO. In six years, maybe ~15 people were banned from that site and I think I only banned 3-4 of them.

GCTF
03-24-2013, 11:17 AM
It would be a fine and dandy thing if the folks here who can't let go of the past would create a site of their own where they can relive it ad infinitum. The rest of us who weren't involved with it thank you profusely.

What is the name of the person who forced you to read this thread?

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 11:23 AM
What is the name of the person who forced you to read this thread?


FrodaddyG. Yea, he gets real crazy and forces us to.... Ah, never mind.

crarko
03-24-2013, 11:24 AM
What is the name of the person who forced you to read this thread?

Oh, sorry, did I forget to ask permission first before expressing a thought? Excuuuuse me.

One thing the other two sites mentioned above have in common is that they're both gone now. I support and applaud the desire of the founders of this site to avoid the same fate.

GCTF
03-24-2013, 11:32 AM
Oh, sorry, did I forget to ask permission first before expressing a thought? Excuuuuse me.

One thing the other two sites mentioned above have in common is that they're both gone now. I support and applaud the desire of the founders of this site to avoid the same fate.

Yeah, that's what I said. That you needed permission to post a thought. You know what's going on in here. If you're not interested, that's fine. There are dozens of other topics to read and post on.

TheLeviathan
03-24-2013, 11:35 AM
FrodaddyG. Yea, he gets real crazy and forces us to.... Ah, never mind.

3572

crarko
03-24-2013, 11:37 AM
Yeah, that's what I said. That you needed permission to post a thought. You know what's going on in here. If you're not interested, that's fine. There are dozens of other topics to read and post on.

Yes, it's a thread about the moderation of this site.

Brock Beauchamp
03-24-2013, 12:06 PM
One thing the other two sites mentioned above have in common is that they're both gone now. I support and applaud the desire of the founders of this site to avoid the same fate.

Except that BYTO is "gone" in the same sense that Twins Geek, Seth Speaks, Nick's Twins Blog, and Over The Baggy is gone... Really, it just changed domains.

Whereas DTFC is gone, period.

Anyway, this isn't worth arguing about.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 12:16 PM
Except that BYTO is "gone" in the same sense that Twins Geek, Seth Speaks, Nick's Twins Blog, and Over The Baggy is gone... Really, it just changed domains.


Whereas DTFC is gone, period.


Anyway, this isn't worth arguing about.


If anything has been proven to me during my short time so far on this board, it's that everything, EVERYTHING, is worth arguing about....


Which brings me to my thread about #24....

http://twinsdaily.com/minnesota-twins-talk/5679-should-plouffe-give-bruno-24-a.html

Fatt Crapps
03-24-2013, 12:25 PM
That thread is not very interesting, I would not recommend clicking on it.

Does anyone else still type in battleyourtailloff.com when they log onto TD? I can't quit you

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 12:30 PM
That thread is not very interesting, I would not recommend clicking on it.

Does anyone else still type in battleyourtailloff.com when they log onto TD? I can't quit you

Wow. Didn't even say it was interesting. Just that it's something very tame that is still likely to be argued about. I look forward to characterizing how interesting your posts are, however, and tip my cap to you for finding something else to argue about.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 12:33 PM
That thread is not very interesting, I would not recommend clicking on it.

Does anyone else still type in battleyourtailloff.com when they log onto TD? I can't quit you


How's this one then, Sir? Any interest in this subject matter?

Chaussures bateau d - Blogs - Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum (http://twinsdaily.com/blogs/abbylucy/2694-chaussures-bateau-d.html)

crarko
03-24-2013, 12:41 PM
Anyway, this isn't worth arguing about.

Agreed that doing it in here is an exercise in futility. It will be interesting to read what the admins ultimately decide.

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-24-2013, 03:37 PM
Oy. <eyeroll>

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 04:24 PM
Oy. <eyeroll>

Is that you in your avatar picture? If so, what is that on your shirt?

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-24-2013, 05:50 PM
Is that you in your avatar picture? If so, what is that on your shirt?
Yes. It's a 1965 American League Champs Twins sweatshirt

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 05:53 PM
Yes. It's a 1965 American League Champs Twins sweatshirt

I thought that might be it. I love it.

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-24-2013, 06:45 PM
I thought that might be it. I love it.

Yes, thanks. I'm quite adorable.

PseudoSABR
03-24-2013, 07:05 PM
Yes, thanks. I'm quite adorable.
What happened?

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-24-2013, 07:59 PM
What happened?

I had surgery.

freshinthehouse
03-25-2013, 06:03 AM
I forgot about itstime have trouble with the ladies. He blew up on the other female poster on BYTO as well. Any remember her name?

ChiTownTwinsFan
03-25-2013, 06:27 AM
I forgot about itstime have trouble with the ladies. He blew up on the other female poster on BYTO as well. Any remember her name?
Shorty

The Wise One
03-25-2013, 09:36 PM
So what is the polite way to ask somebody why they post on something they have absolutely no clue about? Sometimes I really would like to know the answer to that question.
Almost kinda miss Leviathian be a salty dude towards others.
(Not about this thread)

TheLeviathan
03-25-2013, 09:51 PM
Almost kinda miss Leviathian be a salty dude towards others.(Not about this thread)

*Tries to think of something salty*

I got nothing.....:(

glunn
03-25-2013, 10:28 PM
So what is the polite way to ask somebody why they post on something they have absolutely no clue about? Sometimes I really would like to know the answer to that question.
Almost kinda miss Leviathian be a salty dude towards others.
(Not about this thread)

I think that the best course is to ignore such posts (and possibly permanently ignore the poster). If you are annoyed to the point that you almost cannot resist attacking the poster, then you can report the post by clicking on the triangle icon that has an exclamation mark inside it.

Alternatively, you can politely give reasons why you believe that the poster's position is completely wrong, so long as you don't attack him or her personally.

Example: "With all due respect, I believe that you are completely wrong, because ..."

Example: "What you are saying makes no sense to me, because ..."

As long as you can refrain from directly or indirectly attacking the poster, you are free to rip apart any reasoning or positions that you think are stupid.

Let's say that someone posts something completely stupid, such as a theory that the Twins should sign Butera to a 5 year contract because good defensive catchers are hard to find and he is a good clubhouse guy. If it seems to you that the poster is merely trolling to create conflict, then just report the post and we will look at it. But if you believe that the poster is uninformed and/or not intelligent, then feel free to blast their ridiculous theory.

Example: "I believe that signing Butera to a 5 year contract would be a terrible move, because his defense cannot even begin to make up for the fact that his offensive production is abysmal. Your idea seems ridiculous and I wonder whether you are being sincere or just trying to rile people up."

Kobs
03-25-2013, 11:04 PM
That makes way more sense. A poster really had to go above and beyond to get the ban on BYTO. In six years, maybe ~15 people were banned from that site and I think I only banned 3-4 of them.

I'd be surprised to find we banned that many non-pornbots. If you banned 3-4, I would assume we didn't ban many more than that.

SpiritofVodkaDave
03-25-2013, 11:40 PM
I'd be surprised to find we banned that many non-pornbots. If you banned 3-4, I would assume we didn't ban many more than that.

To be fair, 7 of the 15 were itstimetotakeits personalities.. the ones I can remember where: Brock1978, Itstimetotakeit, Justanotherfan, DPJ (Temp), and Dankind (temp)

Brock Beauchamp
03-26-2013, 07:14 AM
I'd be surprised to find we banned that many non-pornbots. If you banned 3-4, I would assume we didn't ban many more than that.

I know there were a few bouts of stupidity here and there that I didn't ban but you're right, the number probably didn't even go to 15... More like 10.