Let's Have Another Conversation

[Future]

I get C4C is a different format, allowing for longer posts/more detail/more analytics.

 

But the first two or three paragraphs of a C4C blog (in the past) would have been the start of a thread in BSBH, and sparked a lot of conversation here.

 

So it may be a big ask to have the same people adding content for both C4C and BSBH without either one or the other suffering.

Most of the C4C writers are the guys that start threads. Why are people so put off by the blog? It's basically just a thread starter thats linked rather than posted entirely on BSBH.

[Mike]

Most of the C4C writers are the guys that start threads. Why are people so put off by the blog? It's basically just a thread starter thats linked rather than posted entirely on BSBH.

 

I think that's the exact reason why it's a turnoff for some. People are here everyday, on and off 20 times a day, and started to feel a sense of unity with each other, kinda like a hockey team does. Then that tight, united feeling goes away when you're commercializing it. It was a mom & pop shop until C4C turned it into a Home Depot. For what? Quantity? We can revisit my feelings on that again, but I think you get it.

[Future]

I think that's the exact reason why it's a turnoff for some. People are here everyday, on and off 20 times a day, and started to feel a sense of unity with each other, kinda like a hockey team does. Then that tight, united feeling goes away when you're commercializing it. It was a mom & pop shop until C4C turned it into a Home Depot. For what? Quantity? We can revisit my feelings on that again, but I think you get it.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree at all. It's not like C4C is raking in cash, and it's not additional quantity at all...how many more threads are there now than last year at the beginning of the season? Really, the only change on the board, is that you might have to click an extra link.

 

Like, why would it be a turnoff? How is "Oh this is a good thread by AmericanJesus" any different than "Oh, this is a cool article by Dave." That's as simple as it has to be but, for whatever reason, people seem salty about it. Anyone can make a thread, and anyone can write for C4C. There's literally no change in content on the forum.

[Mike]

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree at all. It's not like C4C is raking in cash, and it's not additional quantity at all...how many more threads are there now than last year at the beginning of the season? Really, the only change on the board, is that you might have to click an extra link.

 

Like, why would it be a turnoff? How is "Oh this is a good thread by AmericanJesus" any different than "Oh, this is a cool article by Dave." That's as simple as it has to be but, for whatever reason, people seem salty about it. Anyone can make a thread, and anyone can write for C4C. There's literally no change in content on the forum.

 

Mike, it's just the feeling of it. I don't disagree with your point, it makes sense, it has logic, but sometimes the feel could be wrong. It's like criticizing a coach for mixing lines up. Why is X with Y? Also, not that it's a huge deal, but articles are generally longer than a thread starting post.

 

In addition, and I'm not being mean here, but reporters are barely respected in all sports by athletes and coaches, how do you think they feel about bloggers? Now, Phil, Ray, Dave, etc ... are all good dudes that I know on a little personal level, some better than others, and I respect their opinions even if I don't agree. That's not the case with everyone else. I'm not talking specifically about C4C, I mean all of them. Phil even said above that "Bloggers and blog readers tend to be a bit more refined than your average Facebook user. They tend to understand a bit more, given the content we cover. Things like the salary cap, CBA, etc." A bit more refined, maybe, but I read the shit online on other blogs, and it's embarrassing. You can have 1 imbecile write something, and 4,000 people jump on board because they have no clue. Here are 2 perfect examples today:

Brooks' article title: Vigneault's Line Experiments Have Only Lead To Rangers Confusion. Really? Nothing in his article suggests that the New York Rangers are confused and HE HAS ACCESS TO THEM ! What happens? 500 people agree with him in the comments. 400 of them didn't read the article, 95 of them can't read at all, and the other 5 tell him he's overreacting.

 

Now here's a headline from a blog today: Alaign Vigneault's Decision Making Is Now Jeff Gorton's Problem. Really? Do I need to explain why this is a fuckin joke, or do you see where I'm going?

[Future]

I don't really see where you're going, to be honest. If it just feels different, fine, I can sort of understand that. But any emotion beyond "Hey, these guys started a blog, cool" and "Shit, I have to click another link" just seems like a stretch to me.

 

Who do you mean by "everyone else"? Just other bloggers? The guys you mentioned are generally the ones writing on C4C. I actually don't agree with Phil about bloggers in general - a lot of them lack any insight at all - but none of that gets posted here so I don't see why it's relevant. Linking a blog that was started by members here and features their writing is bad because some other blogs are bad? But you also don't like Brooks' articles because of the way people respond? Kinda lost me.

[Mike]

I don't really see where you're going, to be honest. If it just feels different, fine, I can sort of understand that. But any emotion beyond "Hey, these guys started a blog, cool" and "Shit, I have to click another link" just seems like a stretch to me.

 

Who do you mean by "everyone else"? Just other bloggers? The guys you mentioned are generally the ones writing on C4C. I actually don't agree with Phil about bloggers in general - a lot of them lack any insight at all - but none of that gets posted here so I don't see why it's relevant. Linking a blog that was started by members here and features their writing is bad because some other blogs are bad? But you also don't like Brooks' articles because of the way people respond? Kinda lost me.

 

Yes, I mean other blogs/bloggers. You're asking the reasoning, and I'm giving you my opinion on it. Josh wasn't giving you anything at all. I'm trying to explain it as best as I could and there's just disagreement, which is ok, but then don't question Josh when he doesn't want to get into explaining himself. This is probably why he and others do that.

[Future]

Yes, I mean other blogs/bloggers. You're asking the reasoning, and I'm giving you my opinion on it. Josh wasn't giving you anything at all. I'm trying to explain it as best as I could and there's just disagreement, which is ok, but then don't question Josh when he doesn't want to get into explaining himself. This is probably why he and others do that.

Well, the Josh comment was entirely separate from the blog discussion. But I genuinely don't know what he means when he says he's being persecuted for constructive criticism. It's not unfair to ask for some type of clarification or example of that just as it's not unfair for him to hold that opinion if there's any merit to it.

 

Just, hypothetically using your point about line juggling...Let's say I make a post saying Rick Nash should play 20 minutes a night. Here are the responses:

 

A) Nah, he only scored 20 goals in his last billion games.

B) I watch the games, he doesn't put in enough effort to earn that.

C) No, YOU'RE AN EFFING IDIOT. Nash is a pussy and his kids won't survive the winter.

 

Only one of those posts is going to get any response from mods. We all know that.

 

So if Josh, or anyone else, feels the way he does, he/she should probably show us the posts that they got "persecuted" for. Another poster, a mod, or anyone else asking someone to clarify a point 1) isn't persecution, it's discussion and 2) doesn't need to trigger some response about not being welcome. To me, it's a little disingenuous for you to say that quality is more important than quantity of posts, and then have a problem with folks being asked to simply explain a position.

[Guest]

There's a lot to cover here and I'll try to do it quickly.

 

1) People that think they see a problem with the forum are, as we're showing in this thread, very welcome to discuss it.

 

2) Just because you see a problem doesn't mean we'll agree or not have questions about why you think what you do (that's to Mikey's defense of Josh above).

 

3) The blog lets those of us who like writing long form to do it while also bringing in some snippets and a link that, as Mikey pointed out, is very similar to what we would do before the blog.

 

4) The blog is also a different net to throw out that can bring new people to the forum. We push an article on Twitter or Facebook, someone reads it and wants to comment on the article, they have to come here and register to do that.

 

5) As to the blog generated content, would the opinion be different if the articles were posted from our personal forum accounts rather than the generic ClearedForContact bot? Would that help the optics?

[Mike]

Well, the Josh comment was entirely separate from the blog discussion. But I genuinely don't know what he means when he says he's being persecuted for constructive criticism. It's not unfair to ask for some type of clarification or example of that just as it's not unfair for him to hold that opinion if there's any merit to it.

 

Just, hypothetically using your point about line juggling...Let's say I make a post saying Rick Nash should play 20 minutes a night. Here are the responses:

 

A) Nah, he only scored 20 goals in his last billion games.

B) I watch the games, he doesn't put in enough effort to earn that.

C) No, YOU'RE AN EFFING IDIOT. Nash is a pussy and his kids won't survive the winter.

 

Only one of those posts is going to get any response from mods. We all know that.

 

So if Josh, or anyone else, feels the way he does, he/she should probably show us the posts that they got "persecuted" for. Another poster, a mod, or anyone else asking someone to clarify a point 1) isn't persecution, it's discussion and 2) doesn't need to trigger some response about not being welcome. To me, it's a little disingenuous for you to say that quality is more important than quantity of posts, and then have a problem with folks being asked to simply explain a position.

 

It's just my opinion. I can't speak for Josh. Maybe he feels he has enough history here that the other mods and long time members know what he's talking about.

[Guest]

It's just my opinion. I can't speak for Josh. Maybe he feels he has enough history here that the other mods and long time members know what he's talking about.

 

Right, but those who have talked to him here have been pretty clear that they're not sure what he's talking about.

[Mike]

1) People that think they see a problem with the forum are, as we're showing in this thread, very welcome to discuss it.

 

2) Just because you see a problem doesn't mean we'll agree or not have questions about why you think what you do (that's to Mikey's defense of Josh above).

 

3) The blog lets those of us who like writing long form to do it while also bringing in some snippets and a link that, as Mikey pointed out, is very similar to what we would do before the blog.

 

4) The blog is also a different net to throw out that can bring new people to the forum. We push an article on Twitter or Facebook, someone reads it and wants to comment on the article, they have to come here and register to do that.

 

5) As to the blog generated content, would the opinion be different if the articles were posted from our personal forum accounts rather than the generic ClearedForContact bot? Would that help the optics?

 

 

 

There's a lot to cover here and I'll try to do it quickly.

 

 

 

1) .... and happy to discuss/help

 

2) Understood, and fair. It's just my opinion though. I'm not disputing the reply, so disagreeing with what I'm saying while asking for reasons why X,Y, and Z feel this way is not helping. I'd rather have "We'll look into it". No one can tell another person that their inner feelings are wrong.

Q:"Why do you feel this way"

A: (lists reasons)

Q: "Disagree"

A: "Ok" lol

 

3 & 4) I get that, and you guys do a good job, no doubt, but like you said "they have to come here and register to do that." That's what attracts potential blog followers and other bloggers.

 

5) On the exterior, probably, because then it's just another article. Internally, we know the path it could take.

 

For the record, I like C4C. I think you guys do a good job for the most part. Just don't turn into the others.

[Guest]

I looked at the "posting from our user accounts rather than the generic C4C one" and it's a pretty big hassle in the software. It would have to be reconfigured every time we posted an article on the blog. So it's probably not going to be possible after all.

 

As to #2, yeah, I get that. And if we haven't made it perfectly clear, every time we get some feedback as to the forum, we discuss it among the moderation group separately even as we discuss it here with the people making the suggestions. And we've adopted plenty of suggestions when we've agreed that they have merit.

 

I'm guessing that all the active members know we spend a lot of time/effort (and in Phil's case money, too) in keeping the forum going. Our primary interest is content/discussion quality. All the decisions we make about this place have that in mind. It really isn't a traffic thing, because the forum and the blog too aren't money making enterprises, they're money losing ones. What we want is a quality place to discuss topics that interest us. Phil has often said, if it ends up being 10 people having a really great discussion, then that's fine with him. It's fine with me, too. And hopefully with everyone.

 

We of course would prefer 10,000 people all actively having really great discussions, but that's probably not going to happen.

[Mike]

I'll pay for the forum if Phil gives me full control of the ban button.

[josh]

Open it up

Laissez faire

 

Let the boys be boys

 

 

 

And have the blog/blog threads for more serious discussion

[Shane Falco]

I was debating whether or not to chime in here because some, if not a lot of what I wanted to say already has been addressed. But here goes:

 

It's inevitable that this forum would evolve over time. They all do. But one of the problems I saw happening for a while now was this almost elitist approach to how people should express themselves. I usually have no issues with how people chose to post. Whether it be a mini essay or terse response to each his own. However, there were plenty of members here who didn't appreciate that kind answer. And I get it. Intelligent conversation was something this forum always wants to inspire/provoke. But you know what, that's not always what you'll get. Especially from sports fans. There are the well educated to the overly emotional. It just comes with the territory. Now, please don't interpret that as having to lower ones standards or approach to conversation. That's not what I'm saying at all. I just think tolerance is something that escaped this place for a while. Not with everyone but with more than enough members to make it a problem. An example: This place became incredibly difficult/annoying to deal with once advanced stats became the thing. I don't know about other people, but I honestly felt opinions weren't well received without empirical evidence to support it. Again, I don't mind the fact that these conversations and approach to the game exist. But it doesn't mean posts that aren't supported in such a way should be so heavily challenged or frowned upon always. Not everyone is inclined or looking to get into a 10 page debate.

 

I realize this alone is a complex issue especially considering how well versed and passionate many of the members are here. But at the very core of what this forum was meant to be (at least to me) that got lost somehow. I wish I had specific solutions to offer but I don't other know advising people to put their ego aside and know when to step back. It's okay to get at each other's throats from time to time, but humility and maturity should not disappear as a consequence.

 

For the most part, we are all adults here. A bit more acceptance and lax attitude towards differences will go a long way.

 

I honestly had more to say, but got distracted in the process. If and when more comes to me, I'll add to this.

[Future]

I don't know about other people, but I honestly felt opinions weren't well received without empirical evidence to support it. Again, I don't mind the fact that these conversations and approach to the game exist. But it doesn't mean posts that aren't supported in such a way should be so heavily challenged or frowned upon always. Not everyone is inclined or looking to get into a 10 page debate.

I feel like you're not the first person to say this, but I don't understand it. Someone asking "why" or asking a poster to prove a statement isn't an insult or a challenge. It's generating discussion. If you don't want to get into a long debate, you don't have to respond. Idk, it just seems like a weird thing to be turned off by.

 

I'm also failing to see the connection between this and "acceptance towards differences." What is not being accepted?

[Phil]

I was debating whether or not to chime in here because some, if not a lot of what I wanted to say already has been addressed. But here goes:

 

It's inevitable that this forum would evolve over time. They all do. But one of the problems I saw happening for a while now was this almost elitist approach to how people should express themselves. I usually have no issues with how people chose to post. Whether it be a mini essay or terse response to each his own. However, there were plenty of members here who didn't appreciate that kind answer. And I get it. Intelligent conversation was something this forum always wants to inspire/provoke. But you know what, that's not always what you'll get. Especially from sports fans. There are the well educated to the overly emotional. It just comes with the territory. Now, please don't interpret that as having to lower ones standards or approach to conversation. That's not what I'm saying at all. I just think tolerance is something that escaped this place for a while. Not with everyone but with more than enough members to make it a problem. An example: This place became incredibly difficult/annoying to deal with once advanced stats became the thing. I don't know about other people, but I honestly felt opinions weren't well received without empirical evidence to support it. Again, I don't mind the fact that these conversations and approach to the game exist. But it doesn't mean posts that aren't supported in such a way should be so heavily challenged or frowned upon always. Not everyone is inclined or looking to get into a 10 page debate.

 

I realize this alone is a complex issue especially considering how well versed and passionate many of the members are here. But at the very core of what this forum was meant to be (at least to me) that got lost somehow. I wish I had specific solutions to offer but I don't other know advising people to put their ego aside and know when to step back. It's okay to get at each other's throats from time to time, but humility and maturity should not disappear as a consequence.

 

For the most part, we are all adults here. A bit more acceptance and lax attitude towards differences will go a long way.

 

I honestly had more to say, but got distracted in the process. If and when more comes to me, I'll add to this.

 

The analytics thing is a very fair point, and thank you for making it (publicly). I've actually had a few private conversations about it, too, which is why, if you've noticed, it hasn't been as dominant a theme. At least in my posting. I still value them, arguably, more than others, but I recognize the barrier to entry with them, which is why when I use them now, I tend to build them into a C4C article as part of a bigger angle than just posting up a HERO chart here to try and prove a point.

 

But I think what's really being pointed out here is intimidation, not persecution (or any of the other terms we've seen used). And that I can personally appreciate. Becuase I was equally intimidated by them for years. I'm still intimidated by the newer ones that come out every year that I have to re-learn just to understand what I'm looking at and why it's relevant.

[Shane Falco]

I feel like you're not the first person to say this, but I don't understand it. Someone asking "why" or asking a poster to prove a statement isn't an insult or a challenge. It's generating discussion. If you don't want to get into a long debate, you don't have to respond. Idk, it just seems like a weird thing to be turned off by.

 

I'm also failing to see the connection between this and "acceptance towards differences." What is not being accepted?

 

I agree, and there lies the complication. In regards to differences I'm referring to difference of opinion or even something as trivial as posting style. How often do you see two or more (stubborn) people go at it for pages unable to simply say "agree to disagree." There's also people are for example sarcastic by nature and often respond that way. Which I get can strikes a cord. But when it's not blatant trolling but just someone "shootin the shit" I don't think it's too much to ask to just let it slide.

 

Again, I'm not singling the mods out here, plenty of members do it too. I'm just stating observations I've made over the years. I'm a pretty lax person when it comes to most things so I often don't get involved in issues such as these. But if I'm not getting my point across, by all means continue to ask. I'll do my best to respond.

 

The analytics thing is a very fair point, and thank you for making it (publicly). I've actually had a few private conversations about it, too, which is why, if you've noticed, it hasn't been as dominant a theme. At least in my posting. I still value them, arguably, more than others, but I recognize the barrier to entry with them, which is why when I use them now, I tend to build them into a C4C article as part of a bigger angle than just posting up a HERO chart here to try and prove a point.

 

But I think what's really being pointed out here is intimidation, not persecution (or any of the other terms we've seen used). And that I can personally appreciate. Becuase I was equally intimidated by them for years. I'm still intimidated by the newer ones that come out every year that I have to re-learn just to understand what I'm looking at and why it's relevant.

 

Eh, it can easily go from one to the other depending on the person. You don't have to look very hard in discussions over the years to see when people jumped down each other's throats. I wish I had solutions to give ya but I suppose discussing all of this is a good start.

[fletch]

I agree, and there lies the complication. In regards to differences I'm referring to difference of opinion or even something as trivial as posting style. How often do you see two or more (stubborn) people go at it for pages unable to simply say "agree to disagree." There's also people are for example sarcastic by nature and often respond that way. Which I get can strikes a cord. But when it's not blatant trolling but just someone "shootin the shit" I don't think it's too much to ask to just let it slide.

 

Again, I'm not singling the mods out here, plenty of members do it too. I'm just stating observations I've made over the years. I'm a pretty lax person when it comes to most things so I often don't get involved in issues such as these. But if I'm not getting my point across, by all means continue to ask. I'll do my best to respond.

 

 

 

Eh, it can easily go from one to the other depending on the person. You don't have to look very hard in discussions over the years to see when people jumped down each other's throats. I wish I had solutions to give ya but I suppose discussing all of this is a good start.

 

I've seen threads die because two users hijack the conversation like this, and other users won't post for a day or two in the thread until things calm down. If you've been around awhile, not as big of a deal as for new users, who are more likely to be intimidated.

 

If people get angry, I wish they would take a few hours or a day away from the blog.

[fletch]

There's a lot to cover here and I'll try to do it quickly.

 

1) People that think they see a problem with the forum are, as we're showing in this thread, very welcome to discuss it.

 

2) Just because you see a problem doesn't mean we'll agree or not have questions about why you think what you do (that's to Mikey's defense of Josh above).

 

3) The blog lets those of us who like writing long form to do it while also bringing in some snippets and a link that, as Mikey pointed out, is very similar to what we would do before the blog.

 

4) The blog is also a different net to throw out that can bring new people to the forum. We push an article on Twitter or Facebook, someone reads it and wants to comment on the article, they have to come here and register to do that.

5) As to the blog generated content, would the opinion be different if the articles were posted from our personal forum accounts rather than the generic ClearedForContact bot? Would that help the optics?

 

If there's a difference in perceived quality (ClearedforContact better than BSBH) that would probably be the main issue. If well-researched, thoughtful posts were reserved for ClearedforContact and BSBH became focused on Game Day threads, injury announcements, demotions, etc. that would be the biggest problem.

 

As long as there is cross-posting in both it shouldn't be a problem. But it might be a perception problem for some users, who don't understand the motivation (traffic etc)

[Nicky Fotiu]

This is something forums across the entire internet are struggling with. Even the giants. Twitter, Facebook, even Disqus have taken over.

 

I have seen that on many boards but I meant that they literally could not add new posters. People couldn't sign up to be new posters even though they wanted to join that board.

[Nicky Fotiu]

This board was strong when it was allowed to be.

Added a ton of mods, all wanting say, and it censored the discussion and ... then it got boring and people left. No longer unique and original.

 

Same thing with WBB, too. Once it gets popular, admin wants to change it up. It's been an epic failure for both.

 

That could be true but new posters literally could not join that board despite trying to join it.

[siddious]

We should just go back to the chat style way the original board was with the topics on the left and the discussion on the right :rofl:

 

But in all seriousness I am surprised so many people feel like the discussions on here are being curtailed.. Maybe its because I attempt to avoid overly confrontational discussions (and its not because I am better than anyone but because I secretly fear being that guy who gets pissed off over a comment he read online lol) but I also always felt the mods did a decent job of not letting topics get off rail with angry and often demeaning posts. I mean its inevitable that people will have differences of opinion but there are certainly ways in which things can be discussed without it becoming a sh*t show. Hell, even at its worst this is above and beyond any other hockey/rangers platform out there. Even the posters that I dont particularly like or agree with I can easily put up with because at the very least the majority of the responses are intelligent (even if I find them to be wrong). Like others have said its hard to maintain a forum from a user perspective and even harder for it not to evolve in some shape or form.

 

Compound that with the fact that Phil runs this place on his own accord when he could essentially just say f*ck it and let it go to hell. Mind you he does this without some of the obnoxious advertising that is spammed all over other forums.

 

Maybe the alternative is to have a separate "No holds barred" section where can vent their frustrations out on one another with fewer restrictions?

 

I dunno- just my 2 cents.

 

[fletch]

We should just go back to the chat style way the original board was with the topics on the left and the discussion on the right :rofl:

 

But in all seriousness I am surprised so many people feel like the discussions on here are being curtailed.. Maybe its because I attempt to avoid overly confrontational discussions (and its not because I am better than anyone but because I secretly fear being that guy who gets pissed off over a comment he read online lol) but I also always felt the mods did a decent job of not letting topics get off rail with angry and often demeaning posts. I mean its inevitable that people will have differences of opinion but there are certainly ways in which things can be discussed without it becoming a sh*t show. Hell, even at its worst this is above and beyond any other hockey/rangers platform out there. Even the posters that I dont particularly like or agree with I can easily put up with because at the very least the majority of the responses are intelligent (even if I find them to be wrong). Like others have said its hard to maintain a forum from a user perspective and even harder for it not to evolve in some shape or form.

 

Compound that with the fact that Phil runs this place on his own accord when he could essentially just say f*ck it and let it go to hell. Mind you he does this without some of the obnoxious advertising that is spammed all over other forums.

 

Maybe the alternative is to have a separate "No holds barred" section where can vent their frustrations out on one another with fewer restrictions?

 

I dunno- just my 2 cents.

 

 

I would love a 'Fight Club' thread where two users would just agree to slug it out.

:popcorn:

 

Unfortunately would probably would result in users getting disciplined, but would be great entertainment value for the neutral observers, and the combatants could blow off steam

[Phil]

On paper that makes sense, but think practically about this. What are the chances that whatever happens in the Fight Club would stay in the Fight Club and not bleed out and follow users around? Especially those who "lose" a fight? I simply don't trust it for exactly that reason. Not to mention, what happens when two users disagree and only one wants to "fight"? Or worse yet, what happens when seven strongly disagree with one and all want to fight? We are already fighting the idea of dog piling. How would this help, at all?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk