Article: The Blizzard of Oz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

How about "makes no sense"? I'm now under the impression that such a reference is also not acceptable.

As for "clownish" - it was intended as "not to be taken seriously" - a bit more harsh than that, no disagreement. But I didn't refer to the individual at all - I was clearly referencing the projection. And I made that clear multiple times. This entire post by you is lost in the fact that what is being accused of being poor discourse was in no way a personal attack.

---

It seems to me that telling someone that what he's saying "makes no sense" is an invitation to feud. But telling someone that what he's saying "makes no sense to me" is an invitation to engage in further discussion. And if the response is not persuasive, then you can completely disagree and explain why you still believe that they are totally wrong.

You are clearly very articulate. I have no doubt that you can adjust enough to say all that you want to say without violating the policy. Indeed, I think that you may eventually come to love the challenge of totally destroying an idiotic position while showing the greatest possible respect for your fellow Twins fans who you believe are mistaken.

So, I can say "makes no sense to me" but not "makes no sense" without a threat to be banned? Yeah, wow.

In any case, I'll just repeat it again: There was never a personal attack in here for this to start with. I'm deeply troubled by this seemingly new standard that is required. I went out of my way, three times, to clarify there was no personal attack. If the test is "not to start a feud" - I'm baffled.

It's one thing to avoid personal attacks, totally understandable. This, whatever this garbled mess you're passing off as a standard, is not. So guess I'll just expect random threats for references to poor arguments that are...too mean? Not sensitive enough? I'm not sure how to refer to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

I'm deeply troubled by this seemingly new standard that is required.

It's one thing to avoid personal attacks, totally understandable. This, whatever this garbled mess you're passing off as a standard, is not. So guess I'll just expect random threats for references to poor arguments that are...too mean? Not sensitive enough? I'm not sure how to refer to it.

---

Maybe you never intended to attack me personally, but I would understand either way and promise to respect you moving forward, but I have to ask....

Deeply troubled? By the rules of a baseball fan forum?

What is so incomprehensible about a "standard of respect" for others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glunn

It seems to me that telling someone that what he's saying "makes no sense" is an invitation to feud. But telling someone that what he's saying "makes no sense to me" is an invitation to engage in further discussion. And if the response is not persuasive, then you can completely disagree and explain why you still believe that they are totally wrong.

You are clearly very articulate. I have no doubt that you can adjust enough to say all that you want to say without violating the policy. Indeed, I think that you may eventually come to love the challenge of totally destroying an idiotic position while showing the greatest possible respect for your fellow Twins fans who you believe are mistaken.

---

The problem is that this nonsense from him has popped up regarding nearly every prospect this winter. Berrios should absolutely be in Ft Myers this year. Rosario is MLB ready offensively right now. I can't remember all of his exact quotes but these are just a few of the other examples. Not only allowing him to post this crap but allowing him to write articles is sinking the credibility of this site. That sucks because this is becoming a very popular site.

I also believe that I only attacked the analysis and never made a personal comment while showing substantial research and facts regarding how poor the analysis was. The thread did turn a little ugly but mnfanforlife has been dishing out just as much crap as anyone else in this thread and he acts innocent. This is completely uncalled for by someone complaining about people attacking him.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

http://twinsdaily.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by FrodaddyG http://twinsdaily.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png

If you want to tailor the site rules to exclusively the lowest common denominator, guess what you'll be left with.

---

hundreds of decent people?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kab21

The problem is that this nonsense from him has popped up regarding nearly every prospect this winter. Berrios should absolutely be in Ft Myers this year. Rosario is MLB ready offensively right now. I can't remember all of his exact quotes but these are just a few of the other examples. Not only allowing him to post this crap but allowing him to write articles is sinking the credibility of this site. That sucks because this is becoming a very popular site.

I also believe that I only attacked the analysis and never made a personal comment while showing substantial research and facts regarding how poor the analysis was. The thread did turn a little ugly but mnfanforlife has been dishing out just as much crap as anyone else in this thread and he acts innocent. This is completely uncalled for by someone complaining about people attacking him.

---

Just to be fair, I have to present this from my Berrios article you "quoted" :

"So the real question now is this: Will the organization fast-track this kid in 2013, and allow him to move multiple levels? I am sure his performance will determine this, but the guy will only be 19. So, perhaps the organization will play it safe and limit his innings and appearances? Berrios has been described as physically mature beyond his age (whatever that means), so maybe he gets a heavier workload than someone else his age."

Is this "way off base"? Is this "crap" as you have suggested? No where in the entire article are the words "Berrios should absolutely be in Ft Myers this year" as you suggested.

I stand by my opinion that Rosario is an advanced hitter capable of moving multiple levels in 2013. He has no shot of playing in MN this year, but I stand by my opinion that I would be more entertained by his rookie-struggles than by the usual suspects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glunn

...

---

Hey, glunn, delete some PMs in your inbox, because I can't reply to the PM you sent me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mnfanforlife

TheLeviathan, could I please start a gentlemanly discussion with you?

Do you believe the Hicks - Hunter comp to be valid? Why or why not?

---

Invalid. These are two completely different players other than the ability to play elite CF. Offensively, they are nothing alike. Torii has and always will be a free swinger. Hicks has much better plate discipline and SB potential. While Hunter developed into a pretty good basestealer, it is more a reflection of his baseball IQ and personality as a no-holds-barred type of player. I'm really not convinced about Hicks's power potential. Torii developed his as he grew into his frame, its yet to be seen if Hicks will do the same. I'm not convinced about Hicks hitting in the least. He is terrible against RHP and strikes out too much. Hunter wasn't a sure thing either, but he also reached the majors at 22 and didn't post his best numbers until he was 33 in Anaheim. Also, he OPS'd 1.130 in 209 AB's as a 24 yo in AAA. You can't predict or expect a player to develop from a career .751 OPS in the minors to a career .801 OPS in the majors. It just doesn't happen very often which is why Torii is so special. Hicks currently has a career .801 OPS in the minors (helped by his lucky 2012 season and BABIP of .379 which is waaaay high). If you'd like I'm sure people can throw out much more reasonable comparisons... except they will be ones that struggled to hit and OPS as well as they did in the minors. I am much more skeptical of Hicks than most, so I've found this thread fun to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Hey, glunn, delete some PMs in your inbox, because I can't reply to the PM you sent me!

---

Sorry about that -- I have now freed up some space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badsmerf

If you'd like I'm sure people can throw out much more reasonable comparisons... (for Hicks)

---

Please do. I am all eyes.

Did anyone catch Molitor's comments on Arcia?

He restated the concern about him showing up a little out of shape. But what really caught my attention was how Molitor broke down his approach. He said Arcia does most his damage early in counts and panics a little as he gets deeper in the count. That strikes me as a big deal and something that might take more time than we appreciate strictly from Arcia's numbers. He has clear talent but might be a little further away than I thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drjim

Did anyone catch Molitor's comments on Arcia?

He restated the concern about him showing up a little out of shape. But what really caught my attention was how Molitor broke down his approach. He said Arcia does most his damage early in counts and panics a little as he gets deeper in the count. That strikes me as a big deal and something that might take more time than we appreciate strictly from Arcia's numbers. He has clear talent but might be a little further away than I thought.

---

If anyone would be able to make that distinction, it'd be Molitor. A little concerning but not entirely unexpected given Arcia's stats and his rapid advance through the system at a young age.

Damn, I can't believe I missed this thread. For what it's worth I think we're going a little overboard on the whole civil obedience thing, if someone can't take having their feet held to the fire for making fairy tale projections that can't logically be substantiated then they should think twice about posting such things.

I've read every post in here and really can't define much that could be interpreted as "personal attacks". I agree with some posters here that it is important to maintain the credibility of the site with properly researched and substantiated projections and ideas. Tossing out fantastic, fanboy predictions and trying to justify them as legitimate projections doesn't lend itself to this site being a place for reasoned, in-depth baseball analysis, it's just making stuff up.

I thought there was a chance that Arcia could struggle with over aggressiveness in his first go around in the majors. These comments aren't necessarily the same but similar. On the other hand I have a feeling that Hicks will struggle with under aggressiveness and frustrate Twins fans. both should be good players eventually though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinsnorth49

Damn, I can't believe I missed this thread. For what it's worth I think we're going a little overboard on the whole civil obedience thing, if someone can't take having their feet held to the fire for making fairy tale projections that can't logically be substantiated then they should think twice about posting such things.

I've read every post in here and really can't define much that could be interpreted as "personal attacks". I agree with some posters here that it is important to maintain the credibility of the site with properly researched and substantiated projections and ideas. Tossing out fantastic, fanboy predictions and trying to justify them as legitimate projections doesn't lend itself to this site being a place for reasoned, in-depth baseball analysis, it's just making stuff.

---

I'll add to this. I get that personal attacks need to be monitored as it can drive away people. On the same token, reaction to that (i.e. the word police) can accomplish the same thing. I am not a mod here, and if I'm overstepping my bounds I apologize, but the offense in this thread struck me as more as people being too thin skinned when it came to their opinions being criticized than personal attacks.

FWIW guys, the issue I was being threatened with bans for was dropped very quickly after a few finer points were made. I like to believe the moderating police realized their error, hence the silence after this. If nothing else, this was a fine lesson in going too far in policing dialogue. So maybe something positive came out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

I'll add to this. I get that personal attacks need to be monitored as it can drive away people. On the same token, reaction to that (i.e. the word police) can accomplish the same thing. I am not a mod here, and if I'm overstepping my bounds I apologize, but the offense in this thread struck me as more as people being too thin skinned when it came to their opinions being criticized than personal attacks.

---

Believe it or not, he monitors spend considerable time discussing among themselves how best to minimize feuds and personal attacks while not impeding passionate debate. But let's be absolutely clear that you can be as forceful as you wish as long as you are attacking a wrong idea, without personally attacking another member. Example -- "I believe that Member X's position on Issue X is completely wrong,because ...." Then you can destroy the other poster's position point by point. This approach makes for interesting baseball reading, and leaves open the possibility that you may change people's minds. But if you refer to another poster's position as idiotic, then the possibility that he/she will be open to your point of view becomes nil, because you have suggested that he/she is an idiot. Even worse, the other poster will then be tempted to suggest that you are the idiot, then things often get out of hand.

This is not about policing words -- it's about keeping the focus on baseball and avoiding feuds that distract from that focus. There are plenty of places on the internet where people can shout at each other. TD is a place where we can passionately disagree, but we battle using evidence and reasoning.

Obviously, we had a situation in this thread where a poster was being irrational and it annoyed some folks. And for the most part, other members showed admirable restraint. But there were a couple of instances in which we sent out polite private messages in the hope of alerting members to our concerns. Some people may think of us as word police, but to the extent that such characterization is accurate, then we are the most tolerant police on the planet. We issue a few very polite warnings by way of private messages, and I have yet to encounter a situation where I have even considered threatening to ban someone.

Moderating is not an easy job. Like basketball referees, we don't want to call fouls unless we feel that we have to. We don't want to slow down the game. Fortunately, we are blessed with great members. Violations have been few and far between. And the overall quality of the posts has been excellent. So please feel free to tell us how you think that we could do better, taking into account that no one paid for us to go to moderator school.

The irritating thing about people associated with the team telling writers that a minor leaguer showed up out of shape is that it's too easy to make jumps about a player's attitude or diligence. Arcia got nearly 200 plate appearances in Venezuela this winter and slugged .475, so it's not like he decided that a good AA season meant there wasn't any more work to be done so he could sit around and get a headstart spending his future MLB earnings on cheeseburgers. It means he's a pretty big 21 year old who's still figuring out how his body works.

All well and good Glunn but no matter how politely a threat is issued it is still a threat:

Quote:

---

Again, please try and be respectful to other members, even those you feel are morons. (We'll trust the morons to weed themselves out eventually.) Otherwise, we will need to ban you.

---

All, mind you, for a non-violation. If calling a position (note: not the person) "clownish" is somehow a violation and (far worse still) saying someone is "not making sense" are ban-able offenses is a far cry from the posted policy and more than a bit ridiculous. If you are going to allow " not makingsense to me" as some bastion of higher debate form you are guaranteed of only two things: lower quality posting (by way of driving off adults who can handle it) and constant moderating hypocrisy by way of this completely obscure standard. You will NOT eliminating feuding, nor should this be a goal. Debates, at their essence, are feuds. Your role should be preventing them from becoming personal. Which, I will repeat, did not happen here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

All well and good Glunn but no matter how politely a threat is issued it is still a threat:



All, mind you, for a non-violation. If calling a position (note: not the person) "clownish" is somehow a violation and (far worse still) saying someone is "not making sense" are ban-able offenses is a far cry from the posted policy and more than a bit ridiculous. If you are going to allow " not makingsense to me" as some bastion of higher debate form you are guaranteed of only two things: lower quality posting (by way of driving off adults who can handle it) and constant moderating hypocrisy by way of this completely obscure standard. You will NOT eliminating feuding, nor should this be a goal. Debates, at their essence, are feuds. Your role should be preventing them from becoming personal. Which, I will repeat, did not happen here.

---

So if I were to call your position "absolutely ridiculous, poorly thought out and insincere", you would not view this as a personal attack, or disrespectful?

Levi, you are one of our most intelligent members and I appreciate your ability to articulately question the enforcement of the policy. Please reconsider what I wrote above and feel free to private message me to discuss this further. Or if you want to debate this publicly, let's do it in the sticky thread that states the policy. I do not agree that debates are essentially the same as feuds, and would happily debate this with you in the relevant thread.