Help Us Build The Next Twins Daily - Let Us Know Your Thoughts

[Twinsrtheworst]

If so many dislike the Pollyanna term, please advice why so many are using it. Of course it’s the same group that refers to me as to Pollyanna. Very curious why it’s being bantered around on a thread looking for suggestions. Yes, I do know the answer already but I’d like to hear from others that are using the term that I have only used because I was called it. Thank you. 

[Twinsrtheworst]

If my comments suggesting more ways to improver moderating the forums were removed because as I was told this is not a forum to discuss that. Why are so many other comments not removed, discussing the same subject? Are my opinions and suggestions less desired by the group mentality or was it an error?

[Squirrel]

6 hours ago, Twinsrtheworst said:

If my comments suggesting more ways to improver moderating the forums were removed because as I was told this is not a forum to discuss that. Why are so many other comments not removed, discussing the same subject? Are my opinions and suggestions less desired by the group mentality or was it an error?

None of your posts were removed. Although, they are egregiously off topic so maybe they should have been. @Brock Beauchamp asked you to PM him and not carry on here. If you don’t want moderator attention, stick to the topic and quit making your posts personal about other posters being positive or negative.

[Cory Engelhardt]

1) I'd love a thread that is JUST dedicated to either rumor or even blueprint building for the next season. That kind of talk can be fun in its own right, but I don't know that it ever really belongs in the actual team discussion that is on the field at that point.

2) This idea is probably crazy, but I'm an elder millenial, so please work with me. I miss the days of aol messenger, and I'm NOT saying we need that. But sometimes the game threads are more of a thread instead of a chat board, if that makes sense? It does make sense in my head. IF the site had an ability to make it a chat board, where you could see in real time who was online and chat with people instead of thread-ing it, I wouldn't at all hate that change. But if that's not an option, just figured I'd throw it out.

Thank you for having this site. It very much is a daily go to for me, and I appreciate it. Thank you. 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

11 hours ago, Cory Engelhardt said:

2) This idea is probably crazy, but I'm an elder millenial, so please work with me. I miss the days of aol messenger, and I'm NOT saying we need that. But sometimes the game threads are more of a thread instead of a chat board, if that makes sense? It does make sense in my head. IF the site had an ability to make it a chat board, where you could see in real time who was online and chat with people instead of thread-ing it, I wouldn't at all hate that change. But if that's not an option, just figured I'd throw it out.

I've visited the chat idea soooooo many times. It's a technological problem, mostly. Adding chat functionality while keeping it within our login system, ban system, etc. is a challenge. It's something I always have twirling in the back of my mind, but there's no easy path forward on it.

[Whammy]

On 9/1/2026 at 9:13 AM, Twinsrtheworst said:

If my comments suggesting more ways to improver moderating the forums were removed because as I was told this is not a forum to discuss that. Why are so many other comments not removed, discussing the same subject? Are my opinions and suggestions less desired by the group mentality or was it an error?

If it makes you feel any better, they removed my comment in this thread regarding people blocking certain users (which I'm fine with, BTW. It was snarky, unnecessary, and didn't add to the topic). Perhaps you believe only your posts are being removed because you never see the posts from other people that have been removed. 

[bean5302]

Speaking of moderation. I'd like "ignore" to function a lot more like "block" where users cannot interact with me or the content I share (i.e. cannot react to my posts, perhaps can't see them)

[Whammy]

Personally, I think the mute option that they have is enough.

If someone is being such a problem that interacting with or even seeing your content is causing a problem, then that's a problem for the moderators to deal with (banning if necessary).

Outright blocking of people, in my opinion, shouldn't be necessary in a moderated discussion board situation. 

[ashbury]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Speaking of moderation. I'd like "ignore" to function a lot more like "block" where users cannot interact with me or the content I share (i.e. cannot react to my posts, perhaps can't see them)

This goes beyond a tool that lets me control my own experience, to a tool to control others' behavior.  I can't get behind that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, ashbury said:

This goes beyond a tool that lets me control my own experience, to a tool to control others' behavior.  I can't get behind that.

And this isn't social media. It's not designed to be social media. This isn't a "there are people so entirely toxic that I need them removed from existence" type of experience. It kinda of goes against what makes us different from the rest of the ****hole that is the internet, and we want it that way.

[Craig Arko]

1 hour ago, Whammy said:

Personally, I think the mute option that they have is enough.

If someone is being such a problem that interacting with or even seeing your content is causing a problem, then that's a problem for the moderators to deal with (banning if necessary).

Outright blocking of people, in my opinion, shouldn't be necessary in a moderated discussion board situation. 

Agreed. I wouldn’t mind the ability to put a few of the ‘content creators’ on ignore, but, you know, baby needs a new pair of shoes. :)

[howeda7]

I'm only a moderately frequent user but I find having the "Twins Talk" and "Front Page News" forums separate to be a bit redundant/confusing. There always end up being duplicate threads on trade deadline day etc in both places.

 

In general I think there are too many separate forums. It seems like 4 are needed at most: Twins Talk, Minors, Other MLB and The Sports Bar for everything else.

[Mike Sixel]

5 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

I'm only a moderately frequent user but I find having the "Twins Talk" and "Front Page News" forums separate to be a bit redundant/confusing. There always end up being duplicate threads on trade deadline day etc in both places. In general I think there are too many separate forums. It seems like 3 are needed at most, Twins, Minors and Other MLB.

I think that's partly the "need" for articles.... But it amazes me how many duplicate threads we get that aren't articles. But I generally agree. 

I do like the draft section been separated....

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

I think that's partly the "need" for articles.... But it amazes me how many duplicate threads we get that aren't articles. But I generally agree. 

I do like the draft section been separated....

If someone uses the rumor function, or one of the staff writers post an article in the Twins Talk forum, usually after a poster has already started a thread, it can’t be merged. There’s one TD writer in particular who often posts articles well after a thread has become popular with lots of comments. Make of that what you will. I sometimes wish the writers wouldn’t post an article after a poster has gone to the trouble of getting a forum discussion going, but I don’t think limiting the writers is the answer, either. I will sometimes post a link in the article comments to the original forum thread, but that gets a little tedious.

[ashbury]

26 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

If someone uses the rumor function, or one of the staff writers post an article in the Twins Talk forum, usually after a poster has already started a thread, it can’t be merged. There’s one TD writer in particular who often posts articles well after a thread has become popular with lots of comments. Make of that what you will. I sometimes wish the writers wouldn’t post an article after a poster has gone to the trouble of getting a forum discussion going, but I don’t think limiting the writers is the answer, either. I will sometimes post a link in the article comments to the original forum thread, but that gets a little tedious.

We've all seen sites infested with people anxious to post "FIRST!" in every thread's comment section.  Hurrying to be the first to post a bit of news that is hitting the major sources of team news anyway (even if I have done the same a time or three because it's fun) seems similar.  It doesn't have to be stamped out entirely, but it's not to be encouraged either.

I know what you mean about TD articles coming some time after a member has started a substantive thread that isn't simply breaking news.  That's harder to draw bright lines for; people can come up with the same basic idea independently and publication of articles can be on a long timeline.  TD does (or did?) have a policy of elevating "regular" threads to articlehood, which makes the member feel good.  Conversely letting a paid writer step in like that leaves a bad taste and is a bad look (how many other senses can be affected?).

All that said, it helps to be pragmatic about who TD is really for.  1) Its owners and other principals, 2) the writers they contract with and pay, and 3) the general membership.  If the priorities were ordered differently, the article writers would gradually drift away, and the revenue would dry up causing the owners to drift away.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

If someone uses the rumor function, or one of the staff writers post an article in the Twins Talk forum, usually after a poster has already started a thread, it can’t be merged. There’s one TD writer in particular who often posts articles well after a thread has become popular with lots of comments. Make of that what you will. I sometimes wish the writers wouldn’t post an article after a poster has gone to the trouble of getting a forum discussion going, but I don’t think limiting the writers is the answer, either. I will sometimes post a link in the article comments to the original forum thread, but that gets a little tedious.

We're actually working on a fix for this. It will be procedural, and involves a few more steps. Basically, we can now convert a forum topic to an article or rumor, thereby keeping the original comments intact. It involves more testing, which I'll get done sometime before the earth turns into a ball of flame and we all die.

[jctwins]

3 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I think that's partly the "need" for articles.... But it amazes me how many duplicate threads we get that aren't articles. But I generally agree. 

I do like the draft section been separated....

I've been here since the merger with BYTO and I still don't understand how this works. I keep wondering why I'm on the board and no one is talking about the headline of the day. Too much clicking to get what I want to see.

[bean5302]

5 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

And this isn't social media. It's not designed to be social media. This isn't a "there are people so entirely toxic that I need them removed from existence" type of experience. It kinda of goes against what makes us different from the rest of the ****hole that is the internet, and we want it that way.

There's always a special clique of users who follow people around the board searching for posts they can "react" to as a form of sanctioned taunting for weeks or months on end. While folks may not get the "notification" if their post is quoted or reacted to by the /ignored user, the reaction is right there front and center.

If there's somebody I consider to be a troll, I can just /ignore when they waste my time. Not everybody is so inclined.

Owners/administrators/moderators have a ban hammer at your disposal. Your users do not.

[The Great Hambino]

6 hours ago, Whammy said:

Personally, I think the mute option that they have is enough.

If someone is being such a problem that interacting with or even seeing your content is causing a problem, then that's a problem for the moderators to deal with (banning if necessary).

Outright blocking of people, in my opinion, shouldn't be necessary in a moderated discussion board situation. 

I agree.  On mute, let them spew all they want, they're effectively barking into an empty void.  To me, that's more satisfying than a block where they can know they got to you