Open conversation about the state of the forums

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

On 5/2/2024 at 4:34 PM, Linus said:

I disagree that things are “too negative” in articles or comments. First of all it is a very subjective notion. Someone upthread commented that the site has gotten too negative in recent history. If you look at what has transpired with this team after the playoffs and before the recent winning streak it hasn’t been pretty. If you are going to write objectively about those topics it is going to come across as negative to some people. I don’t want someone to whitewash or sugarcoat things to avoid coming across as negative as long as it is objective.   I’m not picking on Seth but I don’t find his assessments of minor leaguers useful because he only writes positive things. I do really appreciate the work he puts into it however. My greater concern is not positive or negative - it is when certain posters repeat the same argument or opinion ad naseum because they have to get the last word or “win” the debate. State your opinion and discuss new angles but move on. 

Many, many comments are far from objective. Similar to your opinion on Seth's articles, a significant portion of commenters seem to view everything the team does in the worst possible light. Every trade is bad, every move Rocco makes is stupid, every player who isn't hitting .300 should be DFA'd. That kind of commenting is rampant and is the other side of the coin to your thoughts on Seth's articles. 

[Linus]

3 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

Many, many comments are far from objective. Similar to your opinion on Seth's articles, a significant portion of commenters seem to view everything the team does in the worst possible light. Every trade is bad, every move Rocco makes is stupid, every player who isn't hitting .300 should be DFA'd. That kind of commenting is rampant and is the other side of the coin to your thoughts on Seth's articles. 

Agreed but I don’t have a problem with - that’s their opinion. I can easily move past a negative comment. What bogs things down is the same comment or slight variation of it over and over in an attempt to “win” the argument. 

[USAFChief]

4 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

Many, many comments are far from objective. Similar to your opinion on Seth's articles, a significant portion of commenters seem to view everything the team does in the worst possible light. Every trade is bad, every move Rocco makes is stupid, every player who isn't hitting .300 should be DFA'd. That kind of commenting is rampant and is the other side of the coin to your thoughts on Seth's articles. 

First of all...Exaggerate much?

But let's say "many many posters" are "far from objective."

How does this impact you in any way?  

 

 

 

[arby58]

On 5/1/2024 at 11:31 PM, LA VIkes Fan said:

This. I subscribe to the Athletic but don’t read the comments on the Twins articles because every thread becomes a “Polhads are cheap”  narrative, followed by the commentators calling each other names. Pretty brutal and pretty pathetic. The commentary is much better and more knowledgeable here. I know we live in a polarized society but let’s keep it out of our sports talk. Let’s stay positive. There’s a lot to be excited about this year. 

Same with me on the Athletic. I also tend to be a 'glass is half full' kind of person - but I also don't want to be Pollyannaish either. I don't mind the critical, as long as there is some 'critical thinking' attached to it. 

[arby58]

On 5/2/2024 at 12:08 AM, bean5302 said:

I think it's pretty hilarious, and it'd have a place.

Obviously, the problem is for people who haven't been frequently visiting the site recently, they might not realize the horse has been severely beaten at length after its demise so I could see it being off-putting to newbies. 

I had a grad school instructor whose favorite saying was 'if you're riding a dead horse, the best course of action is to dismount.'

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

50 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

First of all...Exaggerate much?

But let's say "many many posters" are "far from objective."

How does this impact you in any way?

In the same way that my comment impacted you, it seems.

[old nurse]

On 5/5/2024 at 11:34 AM, dxpavelka said:

who gets to choose what is constructive or not?

 

It is rather unfortunate that people do not understand being constructive 

[old nurse]

On 5/2/2024 at 4:34 PM, Linus said:

I disagree that things are “too negative” in articles or comments. First of all it is a very subjective notion. Someone upthread commented that the site has gotten too negative in recent history. If you look at what has transpired with this team after the playoffs and before the recent winning streak it hasn’t been pretty. If you are going to write objectively about those topics it is going to come across as negative to some people. I don’t want someone to whitewash or sugarcoat things to avoid coming across as negative as long as it is objective.   I’m not picking on Seth but I don’t find his assessments of minor leaguers useful because he only writes positive things. I do really appreciate the work he puts into it however. My greater concern is not positive or negative - it is when certain posters repeat the same argument or opinion ad naseum because they have to get the last word or “win” the debate. State your opinion and discuss new angles but move on. 

It should be easy to figure out with the minor league players what they do not do well at that time. Seth doesn’t mention it. The players are there to learn and get better. Just because they are not doing something well at some point doesn’t mean they can’t improve. It is pretty easy to figure out who is not improving. They do not get promoted in season or somebody mentions that a player was released. 

[Schmoeman5]

16 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

In the same way that my comment impacted you, it seems.

Your comments. It's funny. You complain about a mugshot being bad taste. It was meant to be humor. And right away here comes the lecture. Your opinions are just that. Yours! And then you always have to get in the last word. And arguing like a 2nd grader last night. Oh it's ok for so and so but not me. Hilarious 

[Brock Beauchamp]

23 hours ago, CCHOF5yearstoolate said:

Many, many comments are far from objective. Similar to your opinion on Seth's articles, a significant portion of commenters seem to view everything the team does in the worst possible light. Every trade is bad, every move Rocco makes is stupid, every player who isn't hitting .300 should be DFA'd. That kind of commenting is rampant and is the other side of the coin to your thoughts on Seth's articles. 

On forums like this, I think people tend to blur individuals into an aggregate. Yes, there are specific individuals who say negative things sometimes and some individuals say negative things all the time... but very few of the latter exist around here anymore. We've worked to drive some of the perpetual downers away or change their behavior because being around a person like that is just deeply unpleasant.

But I say negative things about the team. Most good posters I see say negative things about the team. None of us agree on everything. Chief and I say negative things but we also disagree all the time. Yes, there is some negativity in most topics; that's a byproduct of people disagreeing on things. It's rarely one person saying all the negative things, it's usually a conglomeration of some people agreeing on one thing and disagreeing on another.

[jorgenswest]

Looks like a change in the forum to show more of the content of a topic. Maybe I am wrong. If topic lines are taking more space I wonder if the pinned topics can dominate the screen so that any new topics are pushed too far down. Limiting the pinned topics or posting only the title to pinned topics might help bring to the front any new or updated content.

[DJL44]

25 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

On forums like this, I think people tend to blur individuals into an aggregate.

This is true. Most times when I'm reading comments I don't even pay attention to who said them.

[wabene]

20 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

This is true. Most times when I'm reading comments I don't even pay attention to who said them.

I'm the opposite. Part of being a long time member of a forum like this is you get to know the other members. I not only pay attention to who says what, but when I see a reaction like a heart or thumbs down and a list of responding members, I like to guess who reacted a certain way before clicking on it. After a while you get to know other posters well enough to guess right most of the time.

I'd guess most here are paying attention to what you say and keeping that in mind I try to stay respectful. Some members have mentioned that they have blocked many other members. You don't block somebody unless you are paying attention to the comments of others. 

 

[USAFChief]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

 Chief and I say negative things but we also disagree all the time. 

Nonconcur!!1!

[USAFChief]

But on a serious note, the very few constant negative Nancys are easy to ignore. As are the very few always positive pollyannas.

Interesting discussion requires different viewpoints. Please don't turn the forums into "Twins rule, Sox drool."

 

I mean, that's true of course.

 

[Riverbrian]

34 minutes ago, wabene said:

I'm the opposite. Part of being a long time member of a forum like this is you get to know the other members. I not only pay attention to who says what, but when I see a reaction like a heart or thumbs down and a list of responding members, I like to guess who reacted a certain way before clicking on it. After a while you get to know other posters well enough to guess right most of the time.

I'd guess most here are paying attention to what you say and keeping that in mind I try to stay respectful. Some members have mentioned that they have blocked many other members. You don't block somebody unless you are paying attention to the comments of others. 

 

I think it's very important to pay attention to who typed what. 

If you don't... that's how you end up with the impression of some sort of collective opinion amongst a bunch of individual opinions. 

[Squirrel]

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

On forums like this, I think people tend to blur individuals into an aggregate. Yes, there are specific individuals who say negative things sometimes and some individuals say negative things all the time... but very few of the latter exist around here anymore. We've worked to drive some of the perpetual downers away or change their behavior because being around a person like that is just deeply unpleasant.

But I say negative things about the team. Most good posters I see say negative things about the team. None of us agree on everything. Chief and I say negative things but we also disagree all the time. Yes, there is some negativity in most topics; that's a byproduct of people disagreeing on things. It's rarely one person saying all the negative things, it's usually a conglomeration of some people agreeing on one thing and disagreeing on another.

There's a huge difference between being negative and being critical. I'd say you and Chief do a good job in being critical. Most do. And being critical is necessary to discussion. But there are some ... and there is a bit of it on both sides ... that go off the deep end and are not supplying any critical thought.

I dislike the monikers 'negative or positive' because those are subjective. But I do apply 'negative' to those, for instance, in game threads, who wait for the Twins to falter then choose to enter the threads right then to express how awful everything and everyone is, making sarcastic comments about the team, ownership, management, etc. These are posters who don't participate in any meaningful way in any other instance. The 'drop by venter' only appearing when things go bad.

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

2 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

Your comments. It's funny. You complain about a mugshot being bad taste. It was meant to be humor. And right away here comes the lecture. Your opinions are just that. Yours! And then you always have to get in the last word. And arguing like a 2nd grader last night. Oh it's ok for so and so but not me. Hilarious 

You guys are funny. "It's easy to just ignore posters you don't like" - then turning around and taking most of my comments far more seriously than even I do and making it personal. Of course my comments are my opinions, who would be silly enough to think otherwise?

I do admit that I don't like to let personal comments about myself go without some rebuttal, but if having the last word is so important to you have at it. I won't respond. 

[Craig Arko]

3 hours ago, Squirrel said:

There's a huge difference between being negative and being critical. I'd say you and Chief do a good job in being critical. Most do. And being critical is necessary to discussion. But there are some ... and there is a bit of it on both sides ... that go off the deep end and are not supplying any critical thought.

I dislike the monikers 'negative or positive' because those are subjective. But I do apply 'negative' to those, for instance, in game threads, who wait for the Twins to falter then choose to enter the threads right then to express how awful everything and everyone is, making sarcastic comments about the team, ownership, management, etc. These are posters who don't participate in any meaningful way in any other instance. The 'drop by venter' only appearing when things go bad.

I have some difficulty seeing how the type of poster you’re talking about here add value to the discussion, the community, or the site.

Good thing it’s not up to me, because I’d be showing those folks the door. And I’m sure a few of them have received that option, but maybe return as a different account?

Anyway, as I say, good thing it’s in better hands than mine.

[KirbyDome89]

4 hours ago, Squirrel said:

There's a huge difference between being negative and being critical. I'd say you and Chief do a good job in being critical. Most do. And being critical is necessary to discussion. But there are some ... and there is a bit of it on both sides ... that go off the deep end and are not supplying any critical thought.

I dislike the monikers 'negative or positive' because those are subjective. But I do apply 'negative' to those, for instance, in game threads, who wait for the Twins to falter then choose to enter the threads right then to express how awful everything and everyone is, making sarcastic comments about the team, ownership, management, etc. These are posters who don't participate in any meaningful way in any other instance. The 'drop by venter' only appearing when things go bad.

I can only speak for myself, but I think this is just the nature of the beast with game threads. Baseball is so much about the macro; sometimes it's nice to just live in the moment so to speak. I might ignore 2/3 of what's posted, depending on who posts it, but the overall tone of the thread ebbs and flows with how the game is going, and I'm ok with that. 

[Squirrel]

15 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I can only speak for myself, but I think this is just the nature of the beast with game threads. Baseball is so much about the macro; sometimes it's nice to just live in the moment so to speak. I might ignore 2/3 of what's posted, depending on who posts it, but the overall tone of the thread ebbs and flows with how the game is going, and I'm ok with that. 

We're not talking about the natural ebb and flow. We are talking about those who enter only when things go bad to unload everything. That is not conducive to anything nor constructive nor critical. And there are only a small number who do this. For some, it's easily ignored, whether it's one's own internal ignore feature or the site's, but it does 'dampen the mood' and participation. And since we are talking about the 'state of the forums' here, it's something to be considered.

[KirbyDome89]

13 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

We're not talking about the natural ebb and flow. We are talking about those who enter only when things go bad to unload everything. That is not conducive to anything nor constructive nor critical. And there are only a small number who do this. For some, it's easily ignored, whether it's one's own internal ignore feature or the site's, but it does 'dampen the mood' and participation. And since we are talking about the 'state of the forums' here, it's something to be considered.

And when things aren't going poorly, those posters aren't nearly as prevalent. I think that is the natural flow. I'm not implying in any way this topic isn't worth discussion. Conducive, constructive, ect are just as subjective as positive and negative. No matter your disposition, you'll find a way to be annoyed, or entertained in those threads. I don't view them any differently than the articles/comments on the rest of the site. If you feel that the effort that goes into filtering doesn't provide an acceptable return, fair, I'm not sure I agree though. 

[Squirrel]

6 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

And when things aren't going poorly, those posters aren't nearly as prevalent. I think that is the natural flow. I'm not implying in any way this topic isn't worth discussion. Conducive, constructive, ect are just as subjective as positive and negative. No matter your disposition, you'll find a way to be annoyed, or entertained in those threads. I don't view them any differently than the articles/comments on the rest of the site. If you feel that the effort that goes into filtering doesn't provide an acceptable return, fair, I'm not sure I agree though. 

You hardly participate in them so I'm not sure you really 'get' the issue that many here have raised. This is really different than regular threads, for whatever reason.

[wsnydes]

1 hour ago, KirbyDome89 said:

I can only speak for myself, but I think this is just the nature of the beast with game threads. Baseball is so much about the macro; sometimes it's nice to just live in the moment so to speak. I might ignore 2/3 of what's posted, depending on who posts it, but the overall tone of the thread ebbs and flows with how the game is going, and I'm ok with that. 

It didn't used to be that way though, so I would disagree that it's the nature of game threads.  Hell, they never even used to be about the game!

[ashbury]

6 hours ago, KirbyDome89 said:

And when things aren't going poorly, those posters aren't nearly as prevalent.

That's exactly Squirrel's point.  They lurk until the tide turns, and then they grace us with their wisdom about how "they knew it all along."

One of the game thread regulars departed late in the game yesterday.  So I'm going to use this analogy.  Suppose you went to a ballgame in person with a friend who provides good banter and good discussion of the finer points of the game as it unfolds.  That friend gets a call and has to leave the game.  No sooner does he leave than the other team mounts a rally in their half-inning.  Just then, a drunk sits down in the vacated seat and proceeds to let you know what an awful team you are cheering for.  You move to another seat but he follows you.  Lo and behold, your team turns things around and finishes with a win.  The drunk has magically disappeared during that rally, so there's no one to celebrate with.

That's the effect.

And there's a word for that on the Internet.  It's called trolling.

I'm here for good companionship and bad jokes.  Cheer with me when things are going well for our Twins.  Curse and analyze with me when things go wrong.  Be there for the good times, be there for the bad.  If our left fielder can't haul in a fly at the wall, let me bemoan that one player or that one play, don't make me pivot to defend that the whole franchise isn't rotten to the core.  That's what I'm asking of these certain individuals.  Game threads are not just regular topic threads.

[Schmoeman5]

Call them out. They're like bullies. People disagree with me all the time. A lot of stuff I post is for reaction anyhow. Yet I can still add positive or negative posts according to the action. And when I call out the you know who they are, the moderators delete it. Why? For fear of upsetting them. 

[Shaitan]

Earlier I spoke to the negatively of the site. To be honest, I was speaking to the Front Page, not the forums. Forums by nature should be a community element that doesn't editorialize. There is good moderation here. Keep it up.

But the tone on the Front Page is is very disproportionate. I respect different voices, but it's clear that pay-per-click payment leads to poor content. Articles that literally end with "what do you think?" are the epitome of this. A strong article doesn't end with an open-ended question. It makes a statement. Half of the Front Page articles literally steal an idea from the forum 3 days later and rephrase it as a question. 

I started following this site because of well written, thoughtful analysis. Now, many of the blogs I purposely didn't follow have moved their writers here. Long ago, I started following TD because it was an alternative to the Twins Hub on Star Tribute. It's become the Twins Hub all over again.

Sorry for any typos. Either I've had too many beers, or the site is bogged down so much I can't proofread.

[dxpavelka]

On 5/6/2024 at 5:20 PM, old nurse said:

It is rather unfortunate that people do not understand being constructive 

we all might have differing opinions on that.  would be nice to be allowed to share them.

[joefish]

On 5/5/2024 at 9:55 AM, wabene said:

What sort of phone? I use an android and don't have much trouble with it, maybe 10-15% of the time I'll get an ad I have to scroll past once or twice. It's similar on my android tablet. I don't use any anti virus or ad blocker software. Just an FYI.

I only use my phone. Android. I listen to the games on my phone. Often I watch the games on my phone.  I seldom read the long posts. I skim the articles. I use the thumbs. I smile. I laugh. 

[KirbyDome89]

16 hours ago, ashbury said:

That's exactly Squirrel's point.  They lurk until the tide turns, and then they grace us with their wisdom about how "they knew it all along."

One of the game thread regulars departed late in the game yesterday.  So I'm going to use this analogy.  Suppose you went to a ballgame in person with a friend who provides good banter and good discussion of the finer points of the game as it unfolds.  That friend gets a call and has to leave the game.  No sooner does he leave than the other team mounts a rally in their half-inning.  Just then, a drunk sits down in the vacated seat and proceeds to let you know what an awful team you are cheering for.  You move to another seat but he follows you.  Lo and behold, your team turns things around and finishes with a win.  The drunk has magically disappeared during that rally, so there's no one to celebrate with.

That's the effect.

And there's a word for that on the Internet.  It's called trolling.

I'm here for good companionship and bad jokes.  Cheer with me when things are going well for our Twins.  Curse and analyze with me when things go wrong.  Be there for the good times, be there for the bad.  If our left fielder can't haul in a fly at the wall, let me bemoan that one player or that one play, don't make me pivot to defend that the whole franchise isn't rotten to the core.  That's what I'm asking of these certain individuals.  Game threads are not just regular topic threads.

If the Twins are getting blown out and playing like ****, am I trolling if I finally chime in to point out that random reliever X had a good inning in the 8th? I'd vote no. 

If you think they're posting comments they themselves don't believe to elicit a reaction from others, ok. I doubt that's the case often, if ever. I think the "fire Rocco," crowd actually wants him fired.  Ditto for any other tiresome talking point or in game criticism. TD is a pretty niche spot to troll. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the ROI for devoting your own time to trolling game threads has to be pretty terrible. 

You can put that drunk in a soundproof box, and make him invisible, whether through site tools or your own filtering. The flick of a middle finger works wonders. I don't find the experience as grating, or oppressive, but different strokes for different folks, there are certainly posters, comments, or articles on this site that annoy me to no end. You're right, game threads aren't regular topic threads, which is why I expect them to be more volatile.