GatewayRedbirds.com

The people in charge of the site can and should do whatever they think is in the best interest of the site. And there's really no need for them to over-analyze--no matter what they do, there will always be someone who disagrees.

It's not a democracy, and since its free to us, the "members", we really have no rights whatsoever, nor should we.

Those in charge can do whatever they think is best at any time, and if they have to make hard decisions, well that is part of being in charge.

The most important thing is that someone is running the store. It is most important that decisions about content and control are being made by reasonable humans. Exactly what they decide is less important than the fact that someone is deciding. Censorship? sure. You don't like it, start your own site and post there.

Also, I just want to say that I only asked Colby Rasmus about cheese because his first name is a cheese. I would also ask Angus Young about cattle and/or beef if I got the chance. If I got a chance to interview So Taguchi, since his English is very limited, I would ask him things like: "How does it feel to mambo dogfaced in the banana patch after a victory?"

StatmanCrothers wrote:It's not a democracy, and since its free to us, the "members", we really have no rights whatsoever, nor should we.

Those in charge can do whatever they think is best at any time, and if they have to make hard decisions, well that is part of being in charge.

I don't agree with this at all. A forum is going to succeed or fail fail based primarily on the membership not the moderation. This thread is a perfect example: an interview will be most interesting when members make the effort to ask good questions.

The fact that we have some problems is not an argument for getting authoritarian. I think the moderators have been highly responsive to the wishes of the membership, and that has generally worked to the benefit of everyone. There's no reason to change that now. I'm optimistic that in the future people will have learned from the controversy and think a bit more of the effect of what they post.

Jocephus wrote:i think people are taking things way too personally....

but thats all im gonna say...

and this is why you rock

Jocephus wrote:i think people are taking things way too personally....

but thats all im gonna say...

Yes, what he said.

Elphie15 wrote:Well, there were several people posting in the Kozma questions thread and there are also several more people who think that Baseball Talk has gotten intimidating (whether you want to believe it or not, jim)... so apparently some jokes are funny to more than just the person posting.

I do believe people feel intimidated. It's been expressed enough times that I'm sure it's true. I have two issues with this:

1. Why do people feel intimidated? Is it because of the rude nature in which the information is posted, or is it simply the information posted?

If it's the former, I would like to see a link. I really can't remember a single time when a fact-based post came across as attacking the poster, but I've seen plenty of "knock it off" and "that's just how is" comments that are a direct insult to the poster. Personally I've had references to my pocket protector in response to stat-based posts, and comments about how my "little league games" don't count when drawing on my past experience.

If it's the latter, then it's the persons problem who is intimidated - not the other way around. If you don't understand something and don't care, pass on the thread. If you don't understand something and want to but are afraid to ask - don't be. I'm pretty confident that everyone on here would be more than happy to share the information they have. It's one of the reason I come here, to follow my favorite team and learn a few things.

One of my strongest beliefs is that the game is for the masses. It doesn't matter what level you played at, how much history you know, or how good you are with numbers. As fans, we're all equal. We all enjoy the game slightly differently, but there is no right or wrong way to do it. Nobody should feel intimidated because someone knows a fancy stat, or played at a high level, or has season tickets and gets to see every game. That's not my intention, if I've intimidated someone by a baseball post I would feel horrible. I'd want to fix it. So if it's me, let me fix it by pointing out some posts so that I can go deeper into what I really meant. I'm sure that 99% of the posters feel the exact same way that I do.

2. I'm sorry, but some of the questions in the thread just didn't lend itself well to a serious interview.

But like I said, I'm just staying away from anything now. Especially because I don't appreciate being spoken to in a manner that makes me feel like a bloody five-year-old (and I know I am not the only person who feels this way).

I've never spoken to anyone directly or pointed out anyone in particular, although I admit to having come close to pointing out specific posters by alluding to certain types of posts. I actually didn't have you in particular in mind, so I'm not sure where you are coming from there. But while we are there, why don't we go into a particular example of posts that I don't like. Sometime ago, you started a very good BT thread on Edmonds. I know you are a huge Card/Edmonds fan, and I thought it was a terrific topic (it escapes me right now). The first response was about running mascara and Edmonds being homosexual. I don't remember who posted it, and since I don't know about the behind the scenes friendships I assumed it might offend you. So I deleted it, it served no purpose of the baseball related topic that you brought up, would have just caused the thread to dovetail into some silliness (which is ok, but that clearly wasn't the intent of your post), and may have irked you and kept you from posting in BT in the future. So, was I an overbearing jerk? I'm sure the poster who created that thought so, and maybe you knew the person and would have gotten a chuckle. But I don't know that, and all I was trying to do was to keep a thread started by a very active poster who doesn't start many threads in BT going.

So there you have it. I've deleted probably 2 posts since January, took an f-bomb out of another one, but otherwise left all of the "pocketprotector", "little league", and the "knock it off" and "don't pay attention to him" threads alone. If someone is intimidated, I've left the bullets in the chamber for them. They can keep firing, and chances are unless it's really bad I'm going to leave it alone. Unfortunately, some good posters just don't want to deal with it anymore.

So, who really is being intimidated here?

I was never intimidated. I eventually learned to ignore things that I had no interest in. (Although I may not have always been 100% successful at that.)

And if people don't want to hang around here or post here anymore, well that's too bad for them.

Arthur Dent wrote:

StatmanCrothers wrote:It's not a democracy, and since its free to us, the "members", we really have no rights whatsoever, nor should we.

Those in charge can do whatever they think is best at any time, and if they have to make hard decisions, well that is part of being in charge.

I don't agree with this at all. A forum is going to succeed or fail fail based primarily on the membership not the moderation. This thread is a perfect example: an interview will be most interesting when members make the effort to ask good questions.

The fact that we have some problems is not an argument for getting authoritarian. I think the moderators have been highly responsive to the wishes of the membership, and that has generally worked to the benefit of everyone. There's no reason to change that now. I'm optimistic that in the future people will have learned from the controversy and think a bit more of the effect of what they post.

The forum is going to succeed based on the membership, yes, so it is in the best interest of the site for the moderators to make the right decisions that don't alienate the members that they want to keep... but as individual posters we have no specific rights simply by virtue of being a member. The choice of not getting authoritarian is an authoritarian choice, they can do what they choose, and they choose to do the things that are best for the site-- i.e. the things that are best for most of us and the growth of the site. It's a symbiotic not a parasitic relationship.

The fact that they can do whatever they want just gives them enough rope to either hang themselves or to create a nice net, its all up to them. I see a nice net forming and nobody swinging.

All I'm saying is that I think they are running the site great and should continue to do so and not worry about it if they have to step on a few toes if they are the toes of morons who are hurting the site.

Does it seem odd that in the 'site support / suggestions' forum, we are saying, 'Well, if you don't like it, go somewhere else'?

Maybe it's just me.

Leroy wrote:Does it seem odd that in the 'site support / suggestions' forum, we are saying, 'Well, if you don't like it, go somewhere else'?

Maybe it's just me.

I didn't mean for what I said to sound that way.