Let's Have Another Conversation

[Phil]

I'm curious, so I'm putting this out there to see if it doesn't draw out some clearer answers. Given the size of the forum and the size of the Staff, is the latter perhaps part of the perception issue? What I mean by that is with the Staff being made up of most of the forum's "heavy" and like-minded users, perhaps that's creating the illusion of oppression? I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of others here and in doing so I can see how that might be intimidating given how difficult it is to participate in a thread without a moderator present and active in it. Worse yet, if your opinion on a topic conflicts with most of the users in a thread, and especially the forum Staff members, I can see how that might lead someone to think that their opinion isn't as welcome if it's not "correct". If it doesn't align perfectly with what might be seen as hive mind.

 

Again, I'm not going to fire everyone over this, but I do wonder if this isn't aiding in the perception of groupthink versus dissenting opinion?

 

 

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

[josh]

Mods are all "birds of a feather"

Sometimes, if an opinion is made, that doesn't go along with your views, it, at times, seems there is an agenda to squash it. Not that there is "oppression", but can be seen as an attempt to censor some opinions... which I mentioned, goes against the initial reason you opened the forum. Sometimes the snippy responses from mods are very condescending, especially when 2 or 3 come in to do the same thing. It comes off as "this post/opinion isn't accepted here", and has a much different vibe than Mikes thread.

 

You have c4c as your structured discussions, so I don't see why the forum can't be a little "looser". I don't mean inappropriate slurs and stuff, but a little more relaxed environment. This has been an escape for people for years, so it sucks to rip toe around things and for mods to get stressed about this place. As I've been saying, open it up, allow and encourage a little more 'open' discussion (within reason), and more structured convo with c4c blogs and corresponding threads. As of right now, you have a blog and a forum that are exactly the same. It's a bit redundant.

 

 

"Penalty box" - nah. I suggested it in the past, but nah.

[Phil]

Well, that's the thing — they're not. Some of us do agree, but that's actually been something I've actively kept in mind when adding new Staff members in recent years, which is why I brought on those with very different political leanings, for example, like Future and Puck Head, the former of whom I routinely disagree with on topics from politics to hockey.

 

But, I can see how the number can lead to the perception that they are (birds of a feather). That, to me, is probably what's happening here more than actual oppression or stifling.

 

The thing is, I could offer a smaller Staff, but would that actually solve an issue like you mentioned? Say a thread opens up on the value of Nick Holden and ten users all think he's effectively worthless and you think he's a reliable depth defenseman. Is it still, let's call it supppression, for lack of a better term, if most of the names aren't bolded?

 

As to the suggestion of looser threads versus stricter ones, I'm not sure we don't already have that. I've seen some threads (whether originally posted as a C4C blog or not) that generate a ton of back-and-forth discussion with charts and graphs and data, and others that are way more jovial. I think that's entirely driven by the subject matter. A thread on determining Zibanejad's contract value is far more likely to be in depth versus one talking about the Rangers needing Tanner Glass back. You know?

[Guest]

I know it's a pain in the ass, but can someone who is trying to point out an issue they see dig up a thread that has a good example of it? I'm still a little confused as to what the problem is.

[SaveByRichter35]

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

The first rule of Fight Club is You Don't Talk About Fight Club!

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

The first rule of Fight Club is You Don't Talk About Fight Club!

I'm curious, so I'm putting this out there to see if it doesn't draw out some clearer answers. Given the size of the forum and the size of the Staff, is the latter perhaps part of the perception issue? What I mean by that is with the Staff being made up of most of the forum's "heavy" and like-minded users, perhaps that's creating the illusion of oppression? I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of others here and in doing so I can see how that might be intimidating given how difficult it is to participate in a thread without a moderator present and active in it. Worse yet, if your opinion on a topic conflicts with most of the users in a thread, and especially the forum Staff members, I can see how that might lead someone to think that their opinion isn't as welcome if it's not "correct". If it doesn't align perfectly with what might be seen as hive mind.

 

Again, I'm not going to fire everyone over this, but I do wonder if this isn't aiding in the perception of groupthink versus dissenting opinion?

 

 

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

This is a conversation that the admin/mod team is having on another board which I help to moderate. I was opposed to the idea. I don't get spooked or feel less inclined to post in a topic just because I might have an opposing view of an admin or mod member who is also participating in the discussion. I am actually very curious to see how others feel about this so please, for the sake of this board and my other one, speak up gents. I'd love to hear feedback on this just as these guys would.

[SaveByRichter35]

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.

 

I can agree with some of this. There have been moments where I thought to myself(about a mod) "well that guy seems to think his shit don't stink" or "that guy really seems like he loves to use his mod status when he posts" or "another mod going on a power trip" etc etc. I don't get that feeling much anymore though. I think things have calmed down quite a bit. I don't really recall when it calmed down but it's been a while now. Like I already mentioned in another post, I never felt like I was afraid to post in a topic because a mod was participating or didn't respond because my point of view opposed a mod. Sometimes I just wanna shoot the shit without being drawn into a long back and forth. Sometimes I know I may come off like a dick because I have a pretty sarcastic mentality so I just avoid responding to some topics so I don't provoke anything. I used to post on an RSX board that was a legit free for all. It was fun. I was also a lot younger so those of us who are more, of age, may not think as much. Even going back there sometimes now some of the posts annoy me.

 

I had so much more I wanted to say but this post got spread out over almost an hour as I got a little busy here at work and lost my train of thought.

[Patrick Bateman]

Bring back the hot chix thread!!!!

[Parsley]

Bring back the hot chix thread!!!!

 

ha!!!

 

Those were the days.

 

 

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

[josh]

Probably the still highest viewed thread.

[Respecttheblue]

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.

 

:repped:

 

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.

 

For me, the elistist thing that was such a turn off at times I think has become less of an issue. The forum has evolved, again and again. It's sad to lose folk I dug their presence but they have their lives and reasons for moving on. Happens in a lot of forums as Phil pointed out.

 

People have lives and sometimes really demanding on-perma-call 12-hour day jobs. it's not realistic to expect people to have enormous scads of time to devote to the intense level of research and argument compiling that evolved to become the gestalt here several years ago.

 

t's fine if folk want to discuss things in infinite detail —*and I appreciate the bits and bobs I can draw from that — a forum is a good place for it — but IMO it's just not realistic to expect people not to want to also enjoy a less academic level of conversation mixed in there in those same discussions. It doesn't mean we're dumb, or imbeciles, just we have a lot of other things in the priorities of life chain. A bit of tolerance and cutting some idiosyncratic personalities a bit of slack, or letting less-well researched things slide without harsh condemnation goes a long long way to not losing members. We can't all be the same, fit too tight a mold of hockey knowledge and dedication expectation. Vive la difference.

 

I think we'll be good, I hope, especially as more long-lost friends have come over from WBB. Things have just changed a bit, like a really complex operating system that becomes a bit less demanding of ninja techniques, and the game — it feels to me is really more frustrating and difficult to decode, too, at times. The intent of this is not to reopen old wounds, just to try to help you understand why some folk don't think it "weird" to have been "turned off" in the past, or have in the past felt a certain way.

 

I can agree with some of this. There have been moments where I thought to myself(about a mod) "well that guy seems to think his shit don't stink" or "that guy really seems like he loves to use his mod status when he posts" or "another mod going on a power trip" etc etc. I don't get that feeling much anymore though. I think things have calmed down quite a bit. I don't really recall when it calmed down but it's been a while now. Like I already mentioned in another post, I never felt like I was afraid to post in a topic because a mod was participating or didn't respond because my point of view opposed a mod. Sometimes I just wanna shoot the shit without being drawn into a long back and forth. Sometimes I know I may come off like a dick because I have a pretty sarcastic mentality so I just avoid responding to some topics so I don't provoke anything. I used to post on an RSX board that was a legit free for all. It was fun. I was also a lot younger so those of us who are more, of age, may not think as much. Even going back there sometimes now some of the posts annoy me.

 

I had so much more I wanted to say but this post got spread out over almost an hour as I got a little busy here at work and lost my train of thought.

 

repped and similar thing said a different way. And yes, I think things have calmed down a lot to where all that is not an issue as it kinda sorta felt a bit for a while back a ways.

[SaveByRichter35]

I'm curious, so I'm putting this out there to see if it doesn't draw out some clearer answers. Given the size of the forum and the size of the Staff, is the latter perhaps part of the perception issue? What I mean by that is with the Staff being made up of most of the forum's "heavy" and like-minded users, perhaps that's creating the illusion of oppression? I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of others here and in doing so I can see how that might be intimidating given how difficult it is to participate in a thread without a moderator present and active in it. Worse yet, if your opinion on a topic conflicts with most of the users in a thread, and especially the forum Staff members, I can see how that might lead someone to think that their opinion isn't as welcome if it's not "correct". If it doesn't align perfectly with what might be seen as hive mind.

 

Again, I'm not going to fire everyone over this, but I do wonder if this isn't aiding in the perception of groupthink versus dissenting opinion?

 

This is a conversation that the admin/mod team is having on another board which I help to moderate. I was opposed to the idea. I don't get spooked or feel less inclined to post in a topic just because I might have an opposing view of an admin or mod member who is also participating in the discussion. I am actually very curious to see how others feel about this so please, for the sake of this board and my other one, speak up gents. I'd love to hear feedback on this just as these guys would.

 

I'd really love some feedback on this guys so please share your thoughts.

[The Dude]

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.

 

I just saw this thread.

 

This quote, I feel is a part of an issue. It's transparent now, that a few of the long time posters have a chip on their shoulder because of some kind of longevity complex. Seems like at times mods help this complex.

 

A lot of you guys have known each other in some shape or form for quite awhile, and it is perceived by outsiders (your posters that aren't apart of this long history of friends) like they are new members to a country club. The fact that some of you have been talking for years is a bond that in some way or form allows this certain group of people to treat others like shit. It's blown off as "well that's just how he is, that's how he talks to people". Some posters, some no longer here have a knack for talking down to people and quite frankly being fucking rude and sarcastic, yet got/get away with it because of their long lasting member status and part of this "way back" group.. It's also as if everyone new and old is supposed to know this history of posters and mods.

 

If the main people if this place really only want ten posters who they all know everything about and agree with, then maybe a message board isn't the way to go for you guys? Be elitists. Start over and maybe just have an email club. The place I came from before I posted here, started out that way. A bunch of people left some place and they wound up doing some kind of email thing to discuss the Rangers. It was invite only, and if you didn't fit in, you were asked to leave and blocked. They went on to start another message board which I think is still up, but I got rightfully booted for being an asshole and taking on the mods in curse filled immature rants.

 

I feel like some people need some kind of pat on the back or dick sucking around here because of some kind of ego that people are somehow supposed to be aware of.

 

On the C4C subject, maybe THIS is where the elite should post/write? Maybe that is where some people can find their quality discussion over what they feel is not so great on the BSBH boards? Meaning, maybe they can create this missing quality content, so others can be enlightened as to who they are and what the standard SHOULD be?

 

Maybe have big bios about the writers, and their background and see how that goes and far as interested or interesting readers goes?

[Mike]

There's a reason why they've been saying for a hundred years not to talk about politics and religion, because that's how fights start and enemies are made. Thinking that it could be moderated and controlled is foolish. Whoever is in charge of moderating such things will obviously have a bias opinion. No one has ever changed their political or religious beliefs. Ever. It causes nothing but trouble and divide. It's too late now to fix it, because it's beyond repair here. That's the root of the problem here, and that's the reason people post less or not at all, and that won't change. It has nothing to do with who is friends, who posted where for how long, who knows hockey, who played in the NHL, etc .... Wanna keep friends? Wanna keep a forum friendly? Keep politics and religion out of it.

[The Dude]

There's a reason why they've been saying for a hundred years not to talk about politics and religion, because that's how fights start and enemies are made. Thinking that it could be moderated and controlled is foolish. Whoever is in charge of moderating such things will obviously have a bias opinion. No one has ever changed their political or religious beliefs. Ever. It causes nothing but trouble and divide. It's too late now to fix it, because it's beyond repair here. That's the root of the problem here, and that's the reason people post less or not at all, and that won't change. It has nothing to do with who is friends, who posted where for how long, who knows hockey, who played in the NHL, etc .... Wanna keep friends? Wanna keep a forum friendly? Keep politics and religion out of it.

 

I don't go into those parts of the forum due in part to not wanting to make enemies for political views and what not. It's definitely a road that leads to no good. Gathering an opinion on someone over the internet due in part to what they type about politics and religion, IMO is no way to gauge whether or not you like a person. If that were how it worked in real life (not message board world), I wouldn't have a lot of people in my life that I give a shit about.

 

With that being said, I had no idea that that was the reason people are posting less. Some older PMs to me from a couple (literally) of members who (as far as I know) are not posting anymore, suggest otherwise. Obviously one or two posters aren't a majority. I'm just going off of what they said about a year ago. I thought it was more about that kind of stuff, rather than what you suggest.

 

I guess we forgot the war against Pete, who said he would only stay if he could remain a moderator. That time period was the major blow out that seemed to make a lot of people leave, including Pete. If it had more to do with that part of the forum I apologise for my ignorance of that issue.

[Mike]

I don't go into those parts of the forum due in part to not wanting to make enemies for political views and what not. It's definitely a road that leads to no good. Gathering an opinion on someone over the internet due in part to what they type about politics and religion, IMO is no way to gauge whether or not you like a person. If that were how it worked in real life (not message board world), I wouldn't have a lot of people in my life that I give a shit about.

 

With that being said, I had no idea that that was the reason people are posting less. Some older PMs to me from a couple (literally) of members who (as far as I know) are not posting anymore, suggest otherwise. Obviously one or two posters aren't a majority. I'm just going off of what they said about a year ago. I thought it was more about that kind of stuff, rather than what you suggest.

 

I guess we forgot the war against Pete, who said he would only stay if he could remain a moderator. That time period was the major blow out that seemed to make a lot of people leave, including Pete. If it had more to do with that part of the forum I apologise for my ignorance of that issue.

 

No need to apologize. Everything bad has stemmed from those threads. So yes, maybe a couple of people who pm you are correct on their feelings about certain issues, but all the bullshit comes from arguing in political and religious threads. So much so that it spilled into hockey discussions. People were arguing just to argue. Tbh, it probably started with the police threads, as we have several police officers here and all those heated debates killed this forum.

[Phil]

There's a reason why they've been saying for a hundred years not to talk about politics and religion, because that's how fights start and enemies are made. Thinking that it could be moderated and controlled is foolish. Whoever is in charge of moderating such things will obviously have a bias opinion. No one has ever changed their political or religious beliefs. Ever. It causes nothing but trouble and divide. It's too late now to fix it, because it's beyond repair here. That's the root of the problem here, and that's the reason people post less or not at all, and that won't change. It has nothing to do with who is friends, who posted where for how long, who knows hockey, who played in the NHL, etc .... Wanna keep friends? Wanna keep a forum friendly? Keep politics and religion out of it.

 

People like to say this as a means of dissuading others from talking about those topics, but it's a completely false statement. People change their beliefs and their political affiliations all the time through discussion, reason, and argument. No one ought to change their minds after a single session, but talking about these topics is what changes minds over time. Like me with gun control.

 

The idea that these being allowed here are the cause of user battles is equally untrue. The vast majority of fights occur over hockey opinions and have absolutely nothing to do with politics or religion or even social ideas.

 

 

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

[Mike]

People like to say this as a means of dissuading others from talking about those topics, but it's a completely false statement. People change their beliefs and their political affiliations all the time through discussion, reason, and argument. No one ought to change their minds after a single session, but talking about these topics is what changes minds over time. Like me with gun control.

 

The idea that these being allowed here are the cause of user battles is equally untrue. The vast majority of fights occur over hockey opinions and have absolutely nothing to do with politics or religion or even social ideas.

 

 

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

 

Agree to disagree.

[Future]

I'd really love some feedback on this guys so please share your thoughts.

Feedback on what, exactly? Not feeling spooked? I've never felt spooked and I've spent 90% of my time on this board debating with mods lol. I never understood the "elitist" thing either and don't really think it matters if someone is a mod or not in terms of discussion.

 

Part of the reason I'm that way, maybe, is that I rarely even know who I'm responding to (or at least, it was like that at first). I turn off signatures and avatars so most comments feel anonymous, that probably helps for new members. Guys who have been here a while can probably match a comment with a poster regardless, but I think a more text-heavy page makes things a lot more anonymous.

[The Dude]

No need to apologize. Everything bad has stemmed from those threads. So yes, maybe a couple of people who pm you are correct on their feelings about certain issues, but all the bullshit comes from arguing in political and religious threads. So much so that it spilled into hockey discussions. People were arguing just to argue. Tbh, it probably started with the police threads, as we have several police officers here and all those heated debates killed this forum.

 

Honestly had no idea that that was going on. I remember the Kaepernick thing set some people off when it first happened. I got into it and then realized how pissed it made people on both sides, including myself. I argued probably got in trouble or reported someone for some bullshit thing, and that was that. Never again. Its way different if you actually KNOW the person you are arguing against. .

 

I like the fact that this place has that forum to discuss things. But it just can't be controlled. People are so damn sensitive about social issues, on both sides. I agree it can't be moderated, but if people are going to be so immature to hold someone's social beliefs against them full time... A level head has to prevail. Therefore we rely on the mods. Are they an issue in this regard? Has that been complained about?

[Guest]

I just saw this thread.

 

This quote, I feel is a part of an issue. It's transparent now, that a few of the long time posters have a chip on their shoulder because of some kind of longevity complex. Seems like at times mods help this complex.

 

A lot of you guys have known each other in some shape or form for quite awhile, and it is perceived by outsiders (your posters that aren't apart of this long history of friends) like they are new members to a country club. The fact that some of you have been talking for years is a bond that in some way or form allows this certain group of people to treat others like shit. It's blown off as "well that's just how he is, that's how he talks to people". Some posters, some no longer here have a knack for talking down to people and quite frankly being fucking rude and sarcastic, yet got/get away with it because of their long lasting member status and part of this "way back" group.. It's also as if everyone new and old is supposed to know this history of posters and mods.

 

If the main people if this place really only want ten posters who they all know everything about and agree with, then maybe a message board isn't the way to go for you guys? Be elitists. Start over and maybe just have an email club. The place I came from before I posted here, started out that way. A bunch of people left some place and they wound up doing some kind of email thing to discuss the Rangers. It was invite only, and if you didn't fit in, you were asked to leave and blocked. They went on to start another message board which I think is still up, but I got rightfully booted for being an asshole and taking on the mods in curse filled immature rants.

 

I feel like some people need some kind of pat on the back or dick sucking around here because of some kind of ego that people are somehow supposed to be aware of.

 

On the C4C subject, maybe THIS is where the elite should post/write? Maybe that is where some people can find their quality discussion over what they feel is not so great on the BSBH boards? Meaning, maybe they can create this missing quality content, so others can be enlightened as to who they are and what the standard SHOULD be?

 

Maybe have big bios about the writers, and their background and see how that goes and far as interested or interesting readers goes?

 

Here's what I wrote because I want it right up next to what you responded:

 

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.

 

I think you're taking what I wrote and attaching a lot of extra meaning that is simply not there. I didn't say we only want 10 people. I didn't say we only want people that agree with us. I didn't say that we only want 10 long participating members. None of that is said or implied in what I wrote.

 

What I said was about quality of discussion. We'd rather have 10 people who are respectful of each other's opinions even when they disagree but think about what they want to say and try to communicate it clearly to discuss the Rangers in an intelligent manor. We'd take that over 100 or 1,000 people who simply want a place to go insult each other and the team, for instance. We don't want an echo chamber at all either, as there's nothing to that. We want diverse opinions. We want people who see things differently so we can have interesting discussions.

[Guest]

Honestly had no idea that that was going on. I remember the Kaepernick thing set some people off when it first happened. I got into it and then realized how pissed it made people on both sides, including myself. I argued probably got in trouble or reported someone for some bullshit thing, and that was that. Never again. Its way different if you actually KNOW the person you are arguing against. .

 

I like the fact that this place has that forum to discuss things. But it just can't be controlled. People are so damn sensitive about social issues, on both sides. I agree it can't be moderated, but if people are going to be so immature to hold someone's social beliefs against them full time... A level head has to prevail. Therefore we rely on the mods. Are they an issue in this regard? Has that been complained about?

 

It can be controlled and quite easily. Because we have clear rules about the appropriate way to discuss things on the forum. We can't make anyone like anyone else, but from a moderation standpoint, we simply view whether a rule was broken and how best to respond when it happens. We don't moderate opinions. Period.

 

That's not to say mods don't engage in political discussions and might disagree with someone elses' opinion, but that's the point of debate whether a mod is involved or not.

 

I can see how it might appear that if someone is discussing a topic with a mod and that person breaks a rule and gets a response, it might seem that it was the difference of opinion that created the response. But that is just appearance. For example, I'm not sure many mods are pro-Trump. But pro-Trump posts won't get anyone infracted. Only breaking rules does.

[The Dude]

Here's what I wrote because I want it right up next to what you responded:

 

 

 

I think you're taking what I wrote and attaching a lot of extra meaning that is simply not there. I didn't say we only want 10 people. I didn't say we only want people that agree with us. I didn't say that we only want 10 long participating members. None of that is said or implied in what I wrote.

 

What I said was about quality of discussion. We'd rather have 10 people who are respectful of each other's opinions even when they disagree but think about what they want to say and try to communicate it clearly to discuss the Rangers in an intelligent manor. We'd take that over 100 or 1,000 people who simply want a place to go insult each other and the team, for instance. We don't want an echo chamber at all either, as there's nothing to that. We want diverse opinions. We want people who see things differently so we can have interesting discussions.

 

I didn't mean to insult you with that comment. But in an older thread, I believe the "airing of grievance" thread, had some posters pretty much saying stuff like that. Felt maybe you were leaning towards that opinion, but safely backing it with "but of course we want everyone to be intelligent and know as much as the ten or so super knowledgeable that we do obviously have..".

 

Really not trying to put words in your mouth, but I'm trying to tell you how it can be perceived.

 

I see it as " fuck everyone that doesn't know everything or hasn't coached and can't figure out analytics. Hopefully we can weed out the less knowledgeable and have a super group of say ten or more, buuuuttt obviously we want more know it all than that. "

 

I feel like that's the portrayed attitude that scares people off. You're saying that's not how it really is and I'm glad. I'm just telling you from the outside looking in, as a guy that DOESN'T know systems, doesn't have coaching background, and only played at the lowest of low levels of the game, and NOT having any sort of relationship with the main posters that are or where here, that that's how it feels sometimes. SOMETIMES.

 

I've been here a few years and I know the different personalities. It has changed around here. There's more attitude than there is sharing of opinion. I mean there's a thread called "Do you even watch the game" Yes it is a sticky for informational links, but doesn't that title in itself, come off as snobby?

 

I get that the goal isn't to have a bunch of threads where everyone is cursing each other out over typical sports message board and social media shit. I don't recall this place being like that. We seem to have lost a bunch of people who would have good discussion. I'm giving you my perspective. I don't know the solution if we can't all agree on if there is a problem, or what the problem is.

 

I honestly say it's attitude, and the thought that all the posters know each other as well as some of the long timers do..

[The Dude]

It can be controlled and quite easily. Because we have clear rules about the appropriate way to discuss things on the forum. We can't make anyone like anyone else, but from a moderation standpoint, we simply view whether a rule was broken and how best to respond when it happens. We don't moderate opinions. Period.

 

That's not to say mods don't engage in political discussions and might disagree with someone elses' opinion, but that's the point of debate whether a mod is involved or not.

 

I can see how it might appear that if someone is discussing a topic with a mod and that person breaks a rule and gets a response, it might seem that it was the difference of opinion that created the response. But that is just appearance. For example, I'm not sure many mods are pro-Trump. But pro-Trump posts won't get anyone infracted. Only breaking rules does.

 

But would you agree that a mod or a long time posters gets more leeway than say JoeSchmoe (if there's a real JoeSchmoe, I apologise) who signed up 3 year's ago and has 59 posts? I feel like reputation goes a bit too far sometimes. Some people can say and threat people kind of shitty around here and the posts stay up, while others would get infracted/warned and or have the post removed. I have to say mods have really been excellent the last year or so. There aren't those old battles in the hockey section, where accusations could be made about power trips.. But some posters seem to get by with the "that's just how they are" label and get to treat people rudely and make posts similar to the ones we are trying to keep out of here.

[josh]

I'll admit, the users that were put on ignore list years ago show up in the political threads. I peaked, and yeah, they're staying on ignore. But, I also don't care for their hockey related posts. I just don't like certain personalities and purposely avoid them.

 

What I dislike is when you're practically forced into a side discussion regarding something you said, and "personalities" come out in force. We all do it, I think it just seems like a bigger emphasis on this if you have a different opinion.

[josh]

But would you agree that a mod or a long time posters gets more leeway than say JoeSchmoe (if there's a real JoeSchmoe, I apologise) who signed up 3 year's ago and has 59 posts? I feel like reputation goes a bit too far sometimes. Some people can say and threat people kind of shitty around here and the posts stay up, while others would get infracted/warned and or have the post removed. I have to say mods have really been excellent the last year or so. There aren't those old battles in the hockey section, where accusations could be made about power trips.. But some posters seem to get by with the "that's just how they are" label and get to treat people rudely and make posts similar to the ones we are trying to keep out of here.

 

I wouldn't say I get away with things. You can see my PMs, infractions and deleted posts if you'd like.

 

Some times it's conversations we've been having for years, so, it's not a "that's how he is", it's usually a reader misinterpreting or assuming I was trying to imply something, even though I'm not.