Open conversation about the state of the forums

[insagt1]

On 5/2/2024 at 12:18 PM, Squirrel said:

For sure. But I think bringing in generic comments of dislike into multiple threads versus truly giving detail to a specific topic isn’t too difficult to discern. IMO.

Nice that we have topics like this. Before we had these forums the only way you could communicate your thoughts would be in person over coffee, a beer, or while watching. Occasionally AM radio had post game call-in shows.

For me, I think its fair game to be 'critical' of the team; or the players performance; or how disappointed or upset you are when they lose. What I don't like is when posters get personal and nasty with their comments about what the poster says or feels. And that seems to always be present here. Belittling another's observations or thoughts is childish, even arrogant. I know thats hard to reign in other than to ask everyone to 'play nice'. Having said that I like the forums. I enjoyed when Rochester was the farm of the Twins and because of that I still follow them and cheer for them, unlike the Nationals, a team that has no footprint in our town, our hearts or minds.

Its also nice to share what we see on a day to day basis in AAA as to some of the new rules being tested. For example the ABS, which we all love down here.

Anyway I watched the 1965 WS between LA and Minnesota and was delighted that finally somebody other than the Yankees were in it. Ironic huh!!! The Twins. Thats why we cheer and boo!!

[ewen21]

On 6/8/2024 at 11:29 AM, insagt1 said:

 

For me, I think its fair game to be 'critical' of the team; or the players performance; or how disappointed or upset you are when they lose. What I don't like is when posters get personal and nasty with their comments about what the poster says or feels. And that seems to always be present here. Belittling another's observations or thoughts is childish, even arrogant. 

I’m not as old as you are.  I was born in 1966 so I obviously missed that 1965 season.  
 

That said, I agree with your statement above.  I’ve been a teacher in the NY state public school system for over 30 years.  I’ve seen my fair share of criticism and sometimes I see it as harsh and unfair, but I have to maintain my cool as a professional.  Critics should be allowed to be critics, and homers should be allowed to be homers.  A “harsh” comment about a player here is small potatoes.  If we are going to worry about their feelings so much then perhaps we might want to step back and understand that this is a small outpost on the internet and most players have no idea it exists.

I accept the praise and the criticism working in the public sector doing a highly visible job.  I’d expect these players to do likewise.  If something someone wrote on Twins Daily upset a player they need to man up.  This is for US and not the ball players 

 

Then again, that’s my opinion and the owners have their own opinion 

[Schmoeman5]

On 5/10/2024 at 9:30 AM, Doctor Gast said:

I think many see the thumbs-down symbol as something negative & rude & that is why I avoid using it. IMO to disagree isn't something negative especially if an open debate occurs. I'd like to see the disagree symbol removed & if a person disagrees then open an intelligent debate but if many would like to keep, I suggest changing the symbol.

Next to the thumbs down symbol; it says disagree. It's doesn't say wrong. A lot of times I'll disagree in the moment. After some pondering I sometimes do a 180. It also doesn't spell our that if you disagree with someone that you MUST explain WHY you disagree.  Then it turns into a back and forth. And a moderator steps in and threatens action. Calling it baiting or trolling. I've had it happen. A lot of readers focus on one word and dont/won't comprehend the message. So instead of arguing in print. A simple thumbs down will suffice.

[ewen21]

10 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

Next to the thumbs down symbol; it says disagree. It's doesn't say wrong. A lot of times I'll disagree in the moment. After some pondering I sometimes do a 180. It also doesn't spell our that if you disagree with someone that you MUST explain WHY you disagree.  Then it turns into a back and forth. And a moderator steps in and threatens action. Calling it baiting or trolling. I've had it happen. A lot of readers focus on one word and dont/won't comprehend the message. So instead of arguing in print. A simple thumbs down will suffice.

There are a lot of things that don’t come with directions.  If someone makes a large detailed post, at least a few paragraphs long, I think you have to do better than a simple thumbs down.  
 

I would do that person the courtesy of highlighting what I disagree with and explain.  Otherwise, to me, a simple “disagree” attached to a highly detailed post says you don’t like what was said, probably because you can’t disprove what was said.  This isn’t instagram.

 

I am not calling for anyone to change and this isn’t a complaint to the home office.  It’s a statement of opinion and it belongs in a thread such as this.  If not here then where?

[Schmoeman5]

11 hours ago, ewen21 said:

There are a lot of things that don’t come with directions.  If someone makes a large detailed post, at least a few paragraphs long, I think you have to do better than a simple thumbs down.  
 

I would do that person the courtesy of highlighting what I disagree with and explain.  Otherwise, to me, a simple “disagree” attached to a highly detailed post says you don’t like what was said, probably because you can’t disprove what was said.  This isn’t instagram.

 

 

Just because someone decides to write War in Peace doesn't mean they're entitled an explanation of why someone disagrees with them. And I don't use Instagram. I'm responding to you. I'm not trying to "disprove" what you said. I'm disagreeing. It has nothing to do with not liking what was said.

[ewen21]

21 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

Just because someone decides to write War in Peace doesn't mean they're entitled an explanation of why someone disagrees with them. And I don't use Instagram. I'm responding to you. I'm not trying to "disprove" what you said. I'm disagreeing. It has nothing to do with not liking what was said.

You aren’t understanding what I was getting at.  

[Schmoeman5]

8 hours ago, ewen21 said:

You aren’t understanding what I was getting at.  

What am I missing? I quoted you. Let's hammer this out in a constructive way. I'm all for it. 

[ewen21]

18 hours ago, Schmoeman5 said:

What am I missing? I quoted you. Let's hammer this out in a constructive way. I'm all for it. 

PM me if you’re serious about being constructive.  

[Schmoeman5]

On 6/13/2024 at 10:50 AM, ewen21 said:

PM me if you’re serious about being constructive.  

Yeah. That's what I thought

[Craig Arko]

The preceding several posts are a pretty good summary of the state of most forums; all talk no listen.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Why is this thread still going while discussing absolutely nothing?