Miami Kryptonite?

[Mike Sixel]

John, I sympathize.......not sure who the 7 are, but just curious. Are they actually that bad, or is it that some members complain to you and others about negative posts in general? I've tried to change my tone the last week or so, after reading some threads and watching them degrade into directions I did not like. But I'd hate for "generally negative" posters to be banned just because some members don't like what I would call "honest" discussions, and others would call negativity.......

 

that said, I'm re-reading every post I make now, and sometimes just hitting cancel, because sometimes continuing the debate has lost its fun factor.....

[Mike Sixel]

To be clear, I'm not asking who the 7 are (and I bet that's a number like, say, 130 is a number......), I was curious about the other part....

[John Bonnes]

John, I sympathize.......not sure who the 7 are, but just curious. Are they actually that bad, or is it that some members complain to you and others about negative posts in general? I've tried to change my tone the last week or so, after reading some threads and watching them degrade into directions I did not like. But I'd hate for "generally negative" posters to be banned just because some members don't like what I would call "honest" discussions, and others would call negativity.......

 

that said, I'm re-reading every post I make now, and sometimes just hitting cancel, because sometimes continuing the debate has lost its fun factor.....

 

I would say some are negative and some are positive. What I would say that they have in common is that they seem to be driven to "win" a debate, they tend to use a lot of rhetoric that inflames rather than extinguishes.

 

The members I value are the ones who are just the opposite, and there are a lot more of them. They play peacekeeper. The separate themselves personally from debate. They're willing to concede when they are presented alternate evidence. They seek a deeper level of truth from when they joined the thread, rather than trying to win a thread. It has nothing to do with positivity or negativity.

[gunnarthor]

John, I understand your problems and it's your website so arbitrariness is fine. But it is a problem. I've been posting on here over a year without any issues and then I got banned twice in one month. The first time was after I literally cut n pasted a post from 6 months earlier onto a new thread and the second time was after I had discussed things and cleared it with a different moderator but then I was banned by another moderator. In this thread drjim's post seemed perfectly fine to the majority of people and a moderator was flat out insulting to those who put up the question. Tis chaotic. So arbitrariness is fine but you shouldn't be surprised when people feel confused.

 

I would also point out that TD has fun little icons that are almost inevitably insulting if used.

 

and :shoot:

 

I'm trying to ignore most posts now and just hang out in the minor league section which generally has good discussions and good insights from Seth and Jeremy.

[JB_Iowa]

Just to add to what gunnarthor said, I rarely let myself be drawn into a debate (in fact, I often just don't respond to a response to me even if I think the respondant was clearly wrong) -- some of that is because I'm lazy, some of that is because I don't want to seem like a total idiot, some of it is just because I 'm getting old enough that I don't appreciate conflict the way I did 20 years ago.

 

But I also find myself posting here less and less and I find myself censoring myself more -- even sometimes when the comment seems perfectly valid. In some ways, I feel beat up by the constant references to the comment policy, moderation and the types of imbroglios that developed above.

 

In general, I favor less censorship. And just as commenters need to be more careful about what they say, moderators need to think more than twice before jumping in as well.

 

For me, a lot of the "fun" is going out of TD. I guess if you are looking to up your journalistic reputations, that may be good but it isn't why I came to TD in the first place.

[Mike Sixel]

Thanks for the response, John. I mostly enjoy coming here, but I agree with JB, some kind of fun is not here that I think should be here. I can't really describe it.....

 

Overall, good site, enjoy coming here, most posters are good posters.

[jokin]

 

For me, a lot of the "fun" is going out of TD. I guess if you are looking to up your journalistic reputations, that may be good but it isn't why I came to TD in the first place.

 

A lot of fun went out of TD about the same time that "Independent" and "Irreverent" were dropped from the TD motto.

[Guest USAFChief]

 

In general, I favor less censorship.

 

Agree.

[TheLeviathan]

John, I understand your problems and it's your website so arbitrariness is fine. But it is a problem.

 

Exactly. It's like the wild west with 5 sheriffs having their own arbitrary set of rules. 90% of the amusement in game threads could be construed as violations if someone wanted. Like (and I pick on ashbury here because I respect his contributions) one moderator occassionally posting an underage javelin thrower for sex appeal. But yet if no one has an axe to grind, nothing is done. Which I understand, but is no less confusing and frustrating to operate in. Then the policy just becomes blanket justification for to grind those axes.

[drjim]

FWIW, the moderator sent me a private message with an explanation for why he deleted the post. I'm satisfied with what he wrote.

[Riverbrian]

I was asked to be a moderator and I agreed because I love this site. My opinion on moderating is pretty worthless right now because I've been one for about 14 seconds and I'm still learning.

 

However, I am quite experienced in the numbers that John lists below.

 

- We have 2757 users right now on Twins Daily.

- Every day, we have about 300 active posters.

- We keep needing to delete stuff or warn about 5 to 10 members.

 

When about 97% or our community can consistently stay away from the line, I'm confident that the other 3% can figure out a way to, too.

 

 

John has not asked my advice and I'm not speaking for John... This is my opinion... I believe the current efforts is exactly the right direction for this site for future growth.

 

This is what I do for a living and it's all about growth.

 

Consider for a bit the numbers above.

 

Ok... Now consider how many people watch the Twins or attend the Twins or care about the Twins and also consider how many of these people have internet access and use the internet daily.

 

Now add in Twins Daily on-line competition as a factor.

 

When you consider all of that... You can easily see the tremendous growth potential of Twins Daily. We have some very metric skilled posters on this site so surely the metric growth of this site is something that all can wrap their arms around.

 

If you have a website... Metrics are very important!!! I know everyone can understand that.

 

If a handful of posters are potentially harmful for growth? What is the sensible solution?

 

#1. First time posters or bloggers are going to be nervous about joining in and increasing numbers if there is a fairly decent chance that someone is going to tear them apart. This limits growth! So bickering and personal attacks have to be stopped completely in my opinion and I believe this is what the entire administration is trying to accomplish! I've personally been a part of that bickering from time to time in the past so I include myself to not be hypocritical.

 

#2. The 2,700 plus readers of Twins Daily can and will tire of excessive negativity and even excessive positivity. If you want to increase numbers... Balance has to be achieved!

 

It is quite possible that the negative side has been over represented lately but let's face it... The team has been struggling and they have a little more ammo but balance needs to be achieved.

 

Just try to be respectful to all. Saying Gardy is stupid, Terry Ryan is worthless, Joe Mauer is a cry baby, Aaron Gleeman is a whatever and Riverbrian smells bad isn't respectful and it curbs growth in the end.

 

Respect all posters and subjects of the posts. With respect... you can state that Gardy messed up... Without respect... It can and most likely will be perceived as excessive negativity and when you have too much of that... it curbs growth.

 

Try to consider what the name calling and bickering looks like for someone who stumbled on the site and is thinking about joining. Take that 10,000 foot view.

 

Encourage participation don't attack it.

 

Let's try clean the slate for all going forward... If you have past issues with certain posters... let go of that baggage and let's see what happens going forward.

 

Right now... As a moderator... that's learning how to moderate... I'm taking baby steps and just looking for the personal attacks because potentially that is the most damaging to the growth of this site.

 

I'm not speaking for John or the adminstrators... I'm speaking for myself and what I'm looking for and what is my impression from what they have explained to the moderators.

 

Over my time on this site... There are so many tremendous posters and I appreciate all of you and I'm on board for growth of this wonderful location that we can all gather.

[jokin]

Exactly. It's like the wild west with 5 sheriffs having their own arbitrary set of rules. 90% of the amusement in game threads could be construed as violations if someone wanted. Like (and I pick on ashbury here because I respect his contributions) one moderator occassionally posting an underage javelin thrower for sex appeal. But yet if no one has an axe to grind, nothing is done. Which I understand, but is no less confusing and frustrating to operate in. Then the policy just becomes blanket justification for to grind those axes.

 

Here's a recent illustration of the confusion:

 

To you larger point, I'm surprised this is a story at all. These meetings happen all the time, especially after the draft and before the trade deadline.

 

Are you sure? Who's your source? Dubay?

 

This was an actual very recent exchange from a very recent thread. I thought it was a great, pithy and fun response. But, it now stands out just a few days later..... the response was made by an administrator. In a very similar vein in this very thread, a pretty inocuous second-hand remark was made about Gleeman and was summarily deleted for violating TD policy. I'm not saying that anyone played favorites towards an admin. over a poster, just that the arbitrariness of the enforcement of the policy is a constant headscratcher.

[JB_Iowa]

Here's another example of the confusion.

 

This was posted by Brock Beauchamp in the thread about trading Perkins:

 

I'd rather punch myself in the face every time I pick up my phone than follow FanaticJack on Twitter. Because, at the end of the day, those two things are pretty much the same thing.

 

How is this not at least as bad as what was posted about AG??? Or is it simply okay because it was posted by a moderator?

 

I've never received even a reprimand or an e-mail here but that doesn't mean that I don't feel the chilling effect of all of this moderation and of the varying standards.

 

While I appreciate your desire to grow the site, you are simply taking most of the fun out of it.

[John Bonnes]

Lots of stuff out here. I'll try to reply to 3 repeated points and make one myself:

 

1) Growing the site is important, but even more important is not being embarrassed of our own site and the discussion in it.

2) As for the arbitrariness of enforcement - it's fine not to like it. But we're going to have to live with it for now. We've got a big site and moderation is a multi-member job and we're going to need to figure some things out as we go along and so are you. And when we screw up, I think you can deal with it. We aren't caning anyone. Just redo your post in a more civil manner or enjoy a timeout.

3) "It's less fun." I heard the same thing from a vocal minority three months ago when we tightened up enforcement of civility here and I didn't have any sympathy then and I don't now. The numbers give me faith. I firmly believe the 97% will find it more fun to not have to read a bickering exchange surrounding insight about their favorite team.

 

Finally, I'll pass along something despite it probably being insulting to some because I want to be very candid.

 

I was speaking to another moderator from a bigger forum about these issues and he confided that his moderators call their problem members "kindergartners." As in "The kindergartners are bickering again."

 

Kindergartners bicker. They are more interested in winning than gaining any insight. They latch onto their issue and whine about it endlessly. They freak out when something isn't fair, even if the consequences are minor. They crave attention. They hold grudges. Being a kindergartner is not about positivity or negativity. It's not about intelligence. It's about emotional maturity. And generally once they identify kindergartners who lack that maturity, they ultimately ban them, because sooner or later it rears its ugly head.

 

I think we could almost rewrite the entire comment policy to read: "If there is a chance that a moderator is going to read this and think 'This guy is a kindergartner' then don't post it. Especially if you think a moderator already likely considers you a kindergartner.