Brock Beauchamp

This thread is locked but I just saw this. The answer is absolutely not. The differences between Stu and posting guidelines are entirely based on editorial rules versus community rules. Whether a person is a caretaker has nothing to do with it, as they are still under the umbrella of community guidelines, just like all other community members (including myself, even as a site owner). If anyone wishes for more clarification, I am always available via private message and am willing to discuss it with you.

Oh, I understand why it’s happening but it’s still frustrating as hell to see.

The fact that Chi-Chi Gonzalez is starting a game for a first place team in June makes me want to burn down Target Field.

There is no denigration of users happening here. There's a difference between "there are literally thousands of users on this site, most of which I do not know personally" and "there are two dozen writers on the site, all of which are known personally by the owners". I'm not saying users are untrustworthy, I'm saying I rarely know if a specific user is trustworthy because there are literally ten thousand of you. Whereas the couple of dozen *paid* writers for the site are very well known entities. The difference between those groups is obvious for obvious reasons. In no way, shape, or form am I saying anyone here is "bad" or "untrustworthy" but the scope of community management is wildly different than curated content creation by a select few.

There's a lot of misunderstanding here. There are different parts of Twins Daily and not all of them fall strictly under the same umbrella. The front page news stories have guidelines and are managed by other owners. The forums (and, to an extent, blogs) are my domain as community manager and technical lead. The various parts of the site aren't perfectly synchronized because they're run by different people with slightly different agendas and different opinions. Would I personally have published Stu's story? Yes, because I believe Stu's reputation as a satirist deserves more leash; it's part of his schtick as a writer. Equally so, I have a community to run and cannot allow the same leeway to Random Joe off the street, whose reputation and motives have earned no such leeway.

See, okay, now this is funny.

Seth and John do the majority of content management.

If it was funny, probably. I’m vaxxed and pretty cautious about COVID and know plenty of people around me whose precautions are beyond ridiculous to the point of them almost satirizing themselves. Satire is almost always funny when you approach the fringes of any opinion or stance. That’s the point of it, really.

I was blissfully unaware of Stu’s piece until half an hour ago so you’ll have to talk to someone else about that. People seem to be under the impression that TD is some monolithic entity and that is far from the case. I am the community manager, most of the rest of the site is someone else’s problem.

Stu is paid to sometimes push boundaries through satire. It's basically his professional reputation. When we start paying someone with a similar reputation to do the same, they can be like Stu. Until then, they can keep their poor attempts at satire and boring agendas to themselves. I don't care how that comes across, that's the reality of the situation. Some people, due to reputation, experience, and ability are given different slack than the typical user.

Cool story, Stu is not a moderator or even a part of this community, really. He's paid to write for the site.

For all of you complaining about why you can't write what Stu just wrote, it's because Stu is paid by the site to write whatever he thinks is funny. You're not, get over it. If you don't like Stu's content, feel free to... *gasp* NOT READ IT.

I'm pretty lukewarm on Obi-Wan after two episodes but, as expected, McGregor is killing it in the role. He's so ****ing good as Kenobi.

I see this said a lot and the Twins have zero control over what's happening here and when their contract is up, I suspect they're going to have some pretty harsh words to Bally over what has happened. Remember, the Twins signed their television contract with an entirely different entity, Fox Sports. Bally bought Fox Sports several years later, well into the Twins contract, and that's when most of these shenanigans started happening. The Twins have little to no recourse to take action against Bally until their contract is up for renewal, which happens... after next season, maybe? It's not immediate but not that far away, either. The Twins would love nothing more than for everyone in the area to be able to reasonably access their content. It's Bally that's doing this, not the Twins.

Or, it should be noted in this case, we often make our decisions based on our lack of individual experiences. And in this case, that’s a *huge* part of the problem with American society.

For funsies, I do IP geolocation checks on many of the people who make these comments and so far: 0 from Minneapolis A few from the suburbs Overwhelming majority from outside metro areas So yeah. As with so many things in life, the most ignorant people in the situation are yelling the loudest.

Thanks, I’ll get that sorted!

People are relatively confident in Miranda because last year's breakout came with increased contact skill, bat speed, and ability to drive the ball. Those things don't really "go away"; the hope behind Miranda is largely scouting-based, not necessarily stat-based. Obviously, he could still fall flat on his face against major league pitching but that applies to any prospect. With that said, some are all too willing to directly translate MiLB success to the expectation of immediate MLB success. It usually doesn't work that way, which is why smart front offices don't routinely bank on unproven prospects, especially at multiple positions at once.

Interesting. Thanks, I'll get it fixed.

When you say Chrome, I assume you mean desktop?

Again, thank you for sharing. We’re all about community here and you are now a more involved part of this community. If that’s the only thing this new feature brings, I consider it a success!

That's so great to hear and thank you for sharing. I've been reluctant to implement dark mode because it's a ton of work and I don't like dark mode. I don't want to use it and it creates 50% more work whenever I have to make a change. Hearing comments like this reinforces not only my commitment to keeping this feature but also that I should have done it quite some time ago. Again, thank you.

This has been one of the most-requested features for a long time and I'm happy to announce that Dark Mode is finally a thing you can use across the site! Dark Mode is a new way to use Twins Daily, especially at night or in darkened rooms. Instead of the background being black text over white background, it's the inverse: white text over black background. Some people find sites easier to use and read in this inverted scheme and now it's really easy to toggle back and forth as needed. At the top right of each page, you will see four icons in the red bar; the first icon is a half-filled circle. Click that to toggle back and forth from light to dark modes on the site. That's it! Now, the site has become quite sprawling and while I tried to check every aspect of how this renders on each page, I surely missed some things. Therefore, dear user, you are my quality assurance team. If you see anything that's hard to read, doesn't work right, or just plain looks weird, add a comment below and I'll get it fixed as soon as possible. For those of you who have been asking for this feature for so long, sorry it has taken this long. What seemed like a pretty simple feature actually turned into an overly-complex problem that I couldn't solve without quite a bit of effort. Once again, I'd like to give a big thanks and shout out to our caretakers of Twins Daily; without their continued support, small-but-important features like Dark Mode would be much more difficult to implement. The added freedom to hire additional staff allows me to spend more time focusing on these types of projects. Thanks again!

Hey, let’s be fair here. There were *two* jabs at them in the article.