Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Look at the state of this forum


Recommended Posts

It’s dead and full of spam. Might as well let discussion around potentially fantasy relevant rookies (Harris, Etienne, Chase, Smith, Williams, Pitts, Lawrence, Fields, etc.) in the main Fantasy Football forum.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, einstein2u said:

Homer.  Nobody cares?

4-5 years ago [the Adolis thread] would have been 50 pages long. Not an exaggeration, might be underselling it.  Gausman is an ace and is thread is barely on page 2.  I looked at all his threads from like 2013-2016 and they were over 20 pages long without him doing much.

Edited by tonycpsu
Moved "forums are dying" derail to Fantasy Feedback
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, brockpapersizer said:

4-5 years ago this thread would have been 50 pages long. Not an exaggeration, might be underselling it.  Gausman is an ace and is thread is barely on page 2.  I looked at all his threads from like 2013-2016 and they were over 20 pages long without him doing much.

It’s a dying community, very sad. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ryansm11 said:

It’s a dying community, very sad. 

The move to NBC sports started the demise.  All these popup videos, auto play videos, etc.  Less well written columns. More places online to get information.  The forum is the only real reason I visit the site anymore.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ryansm11 said:

It’s a dying community, very sad. 

I agree.  And there are a couple of obvious reasons for that

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jfazz23 said:

I agree.  And there are a couple of obvious reasons for that

I don’t disagree - also would say forums in general are not as popular. Reddit, discord and other services are filling the gap. 
 

With regards to Garcia - the HR last night was on a 1-2 changeup, which is the pitch he has done the least damage on. The adjustment to off speed pitching continues. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brockpapersizer said:

4-5 years ago this thread would have been 50 pages long. Not an exaggeration, might be underselling it.  Gausman is an ace and is thread is barely on page 2.  I looked at all his threads from like 2013-2016 and they were over 20 pages long without him doing much.

On a positive note, there are definitely less posts like these that contributed absolutely nothing...

”BOOM!” (Or any other single word exclamation).

”Insert cute nick name you just made up”

”So glad I got this guy on my team”

While overall traffic is down, the posts seem to have much more substance to them, more useful information and more debate.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jfazz23 said:

I agree.  And there are a couple of obvious reasons for that

The overmoderation certainly didn't help. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, absknicks said:

The overmoderation certainly didn't help. 

I think a lot of good posters quit over it. At least a few I know, not sure how many.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably a productive discussion to be had here about the tradeoffs between more activity for more activity's sake vs. maintaining a higher signal-to-noise ratio where people can find info they need to help them be better fantasy sports players, and I for one, am happy to have that conversation for as long as it remains respectful and grounded in what's best for the community.

The first thing I think people need to understand is that the site is different things to different people.  Those who check multiple times per day, participate actively in the GDTs, etc. tend to want a more raucous, free-form discussion venue akin to a chat room or a subreddit, while those who are just here to track player updates and assess a player's fantasy outlook would rather not scroll through page after page of repetitive comments, bickering, etc.

This community has, for as long as I've been a member (I joined in 2007) always operated in between these extremes, in the hopes of capturing a demographic that wants some guard rails around the conversation, but also wants to have some fun.  The best explanation I've heard was from another staff member who said we don't want to be a library where everyone has to remain silent and just read drab prose about fantasy sports, but we don't want to be a dive bar where people are screaming and shouting all of the time, either.  The specific point on that spectrum where we are at any given moment changes over time  in response to industry and site-wide trends, user expectations, etc., and we are happy to accept and respond to feedback from folks who believe the balance should shift in one direction or another.  Both perspectives have been offered here, and we see both of them expressed in the reports we respond to each day as well.  I think both have merit, and we do aim to please as many people as possible.

With that said, I don't think it's controversial to note that there are other factors at play besides how strictly some of the threads on some of the forums here are moderated.  The season-long fantasy sports "industry" as a whole was on a decline in favor of DFS and gambling well before the pandemic, and the pandemic has only served to exacerbate those trends, pushing a lot of activity into spaces that The Entity Formerly Known as Rotoworld didn't have as many equities in.  I can't speak to NBCUniversal's strategy to deal with this decline, but I can say for certain that "more posts == more revenue the bean counters" is not an equation that has ever been relevant to us as a moderating team.  If there is someone concerned about the number of visitors and wanting to increase that number at all costs, that someone hasn't talked to any of us.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that there is one set of standards that has to apply to everyone.  A poster who brings valuable insight with regards to fantasy sports but also likes to demean and degrade others doesn't get a free pass for the latter because of the former, nor do we look the other way if they want to wax poetic about their fantasy team.  The few rules we do have didn't materialize out of thin air -- they were in direct response to anti-patterns in the discussion that tend to crowd out the value that people gain from visiting the site.  We are always willing to discuss specific cases in which someone feels things are going too far in one direction or another, but ultimately, the threads in the main forums have to be on topic, and that means derails get pruned / moved elsewhere.

Citing unnamed individuals who decided the community wasn't for them doesn't add much value since they're not here to speak for themselves, but certainly, we recognize that people have other ways to spend their online fantasy sports talking time, and don't have any interest in directly competing with other spaces who do the unmoderated (e.g. Twitter) or peer-moderated / up-voting (e.g. Reddit) approach.  We are what we are, and aren't going to change our stripes just to squeeze some additional life out of the community. If this community isn't what more people want, then we'll continue to operate for as long as we have the resources to do so to make it enjoyable for those who do prefer this approach.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a downswing in online poker, decided to drop down in stakes and focus back on playing some live local cash games instead to get my passion for the game back (a good decision 🤑)

To kill some of the extra time at home I'm posting here a lot more this season, and it does seem the traffic is very low. Its nice that most of the posters on here have solid viewpoints and knowledge, and there are of course the many who rant about nothing and everything at once. Some of them are good comic relief, but we need more loose cannons.

I really like it when I see a solid contribution from someone with probationary member or less than 200 posts, but I don't care about the post count as much as others. New blood is always the key to keeping a thing going-just like online poker needs more fish, but the fish are learning to swim better. I do think we are a dying breed here, but as to why I'm not 100% sure. There certainly isn't much discussion towards DFS which is increasingly popular, and not much gambling conversation either.

The over moderation does come at a price. I had to come to terms quickly with what the expectations were and its still hard to refrain from "bench coaching." Plenty of regular posters blatantly ignoring the rules too seem to know they will get edited but perhaps this is how they keep contributing. I got very annoyed with tony for editing my cool story comment about a Jacob deGrom wins prop bet I made this year, because it was a cool story, but in the context of the comment was necessary to explain my outlook on him. (FTR-I took the over on 16 Wins this year and still feel confident I can get at least a push on it, but it's going to be a close one. Got it in there!) 

I feel like we should maybe try posting our own "best lineups" or "hot hitters/streaming pitchers" for some of the gameday threads, even just taking turns at it might draw in a few more of the DFS players who are looking for stack advice, etc. I'm not much into DFS myself but I can see it will eventually consume the landscape and recognize the need to start shifting towards it. I gave up on dynasty a few years ago and prefer redrafts, and even now I'm getting tired of the grind. There are so many parallels in fantasy sports to the poker world, honestly, as this is a game theory/game selection diatribe. There should be more of these philosophical or just for fun threads for debate too. I'm going to keep throwing some out there and updating the ones I've been working on. I know no one actually cares about hitting pitchers, but it's a fun one IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

Another important thing to keep in mind is that there is one set of standards that has to apply to everyone.

I think you do a very good job of this as well as I have said. Regarding your post a minute before mine, thanks for unpacking so much of your outlook on the forum.

So I take it that gearing things slightly more toward DFS as I'm arguing is a non-starter for this forum? I had assumed as much, and also in regards to comparisons from forums like Reddit. I have a few really funny Reddit stories that I won't go into here, but you're right the grass isn't always greener on the other side. I always thought the best way to diss a mod here though would be to call them minor leaguers compared to Reddit mods, just in good fun 😄

P.S. if it makes you feel better I still type Rotoworld and let the URL take me to the other entity of Hexus the Living Corporation.

Edited by Richard Kimble
Added PS
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/25/2021 at 8:58 AM, smeeze said:

It’s dead and full of spam. Might as well let discussion around potentially fantasy relevant rookies (Harris, Etienne, Chase, Smith, Williams, Pitts, Lawrence, Fields, etc.) in the main Fantasy Football forum.

This post was originally in the (dead) college football forum, but I do want to say thanks to @tonycpsu & the rest of the mods who decided to allow pre-draft discussion of rookies in the main football forum. It really livened up the offseason & hopefully was universally well-received.

Edited by smeeze
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say the over moderation has almost made me leave on multiple occasions. I understand the need to avoid pages on pages of bench coach posts. That said I don’t come here for player news - that is readily available elsewhere. I come here to understand how other fantasy baseballers are evaluating players, running their teams and approaching strategy. 
 

I think trade conversation, within limits, is entirely relevant within an individual player thread as long as it is constructive. It is helpful for me to know how you are valuing your players, evaluating offers and setting lineups. To me that  makes much more sense in the context of the individual player thread as opposed to an entirely separate thread in the bench coach help forum. I think a good guardrail with regards to trades is to leave completed trades within the individual player thread and not moderate those but keep “trade help” posts in the separate bench coach forum. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, absknicks said:

The overmoderation certainly didn't help. 

I'm really glad I wasn't the one who said it first.

It pretty much kills enthusiasm when conversations are culled/curtailed to such a drastic extent.  Heck, I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to talk about specific issues such as [COOL STORY BRO REMOVED] even though they are directly relevant to fantasy analysis.

Edited by Overlord
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tonycpsu said:

There's probably a productive discussion to be had here about the tradeoffs between more activity for more activity's sake vs. maintaining a higher signal-to-noise ratio where people can find info they need to help them be better fantasy sports players ...

Yeah, I'm not so sure there is a productive discussion/middle ground to be had.  This sentence, to me at least, appears to be indicative of a fundamental difference between views on how moderation should work.  

View One:  My belief has always been moderators should enforce the site rules.  If it ain't a clearcut violation of a rule, it shouldn't be moderated.  If a moderator looks at a post and there is even one second of doubt as to whether it has violated a rule, it shouldn't be moderated.  Once a moderator is taking it upon themselves to nebulously keep a "signal to noise ratio" on track they've started down the slippery slope of dictating discussion content, in my opinion.  

View Two:  Now, some don't feel that way.  Some see the role of a moderator is to keep discussions "on track," much like how moderators at a debate work.

Both of these are valid views, but despite both being valid I see them as irreconcilable.  You either have moderators out there calling balls and strikes, or you have them as shepherds herding posters into "acceptable" channels of communication ... there's not a lot of gray area to be had.

*There is no tablet from on high that's been handed to us establishing which philosophy of moderation is correct and site owners can do whatever they want (and participants are free to leave if they don't like it).   

**By way of a specific example, there were concrete, heavily researched posts on Adolis Garcia's hard-hit and barrel ratios through his minor league and MLB seasons wiped out for no apparent reason because, I guess, the discussions were "off track."  Not because folks were swearing, not because there was spam, not even because anything said was wrong ... hey, it ain't my site and if that's what is wanted, so be it, but it's going to kill enthusiasm.

Edited by Overlord
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no way you can convince tony his moderation tactics have done any damage to the forum. I remember when he first became a mod and started with the heavy-handed stuff many people warned him it would have this effect (re: people leaving the forums, huge dropoff in activity etc). So here we are years later and the forum is a ghost town and he still doesn't see an issue with how he's done things. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, absknicks said:

There's no way you can convince tony his moderation tactics have done any damage to the forum. I remember when he first became a mod and started with the heavy-handed stuff many people warned him it would have this effect (re: people leaving the forums, huge dropoff in activity etc). So here we are years later and the forum is a ghost town and he still doesn't see an issue with how he's done things. 

I have been heavily involved in discussion forums for decades and I moderated a fantasy baseball site myself once upon a time (we had a window of mild relevance!).  That includes movie discussion forums, beer discussion forums, and sports forums.

I have NEVER seen a site as heavily moderated as this one.  Not even close.  TheForce.Net, which is a highly contentious site full of Stars fandorks that also has very strict (and explicitly enumerated) rules on post content, isn't as heavily moderated as this site.  

Edited by Overlord
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mudrummer said:

I think trade conversation, within limits, is entirely relevant within an individual player thread as long as it is constructive. It is helpful for me to know how you are valuing your players, evaluating offers and setting lineups. To me that  makes much more sense in the context of the individual player thread as opposed to an entirely separate thread in the bench coach help forum. I think a good guardrail with regards to trades is to leave completed trades within the individual player thread

We've had some discussions about this in the past on our end.  Let me illustrate some of the problems inherent in this with a few examples of the kinds of trade posts people make:

Quote

Blake Snell 2021 Outlook

cool_user_420: So glad I got rid of this bum.  Flipped him, Mondesi, and Urshela for JDM and Kyle Gibson.

For just a moment, set aside your individual perception of how much you like the individual players involved and whether this trade is fair or lopsided and just try to focus on the signal it sends about Blake Snell's value.  Obviously, the poster is glad to get rid of him, so it's safe to say their opinion on Snell's outlook is "not good".

To get any more fine-grained than "not good", it becomes necessary to place values on all of the other players in the deal, plus the value of the extra roster slot (whoever would be the drop on the other end).  Or maybe the other owner had an open slot because someone went on the DL, so they didn't have a drop.  And maybe the team trading for Snell needed more of a Hail Mary kind of play that Snell represents over the boring stability of a Gibson type.  And maybe it's a points league, so Mondesi's steals aren't as much of a factor, or maybe it's roto and the other owner is willing to overpay for SBs.  And how deep is the league -- is it the kind where you can get a Gibson type for free, or does he represent a real asset in a deeper league?  And is it redraft, keeper, or dynasty?  If keeper, how many keepers, what is the cost to keep each player in the deal...  You get the picture, and none of this has to do with valuing Blake Snell as a fantasy commodity  At some point, with so many formats, and so many teams doing deals for a variety of reasons, trade situations are just too special-snowflake-y to say much of anything about the player.  There's just too much variability in the other parts of the equation to send anything meaningful about the topic of the thread.

Here's a post that communicates much more about Snell, without having to know anything about the value of other players, or the league-specific circumstances that led to a deal:

Quote

Blake Snell 2021 Outlook

cool_user_420: Snell has been terrible.  I don't even think he's a top 60 arm anymore with all of the walks and an inability to go deep into games.  Benching until further notice, and looking to sell to anyone who thinks he can still be a top 15 SP this season.

With this post, there's no need in Blake Snell's thread to figure out what JD Martinez is worth in a particular league context, or whether Team Owner B in the deal really needed to swing for the fences to make up ground in the SB column.  We're just talking about Snell's value, which is what people are trying to assess when they click on the Blake Snell thread.

But with the trade posts, suddenly there are 20 other threads to pull on. "Why would the JDM owner give him up when he's raking?"  "Who drafts Mondesi for most of their team's SBs and then moves them right when they come off the DL?"  "Gibson's on the wire in my league, why would anyone pay for him?" At least half of all completed trade posts left up for more than a few hours ends up with some kind of derail along these lines that we have to prune.  And maybe you're okay with that tradeoff, since you're not the one putting in the labor, but I can assure you we get reports on those off-topic posts and it takes a lot longer to clean up a dozen responses than it does to clean up the original thing that derails the conversation.

This is one example of many I could offer.  Even a simple 1-for-1 deal at the same position with no category or dynasty considerations (which are very rare trades to make) requires putting a value on the other player in the deal, and, surprise, opinions differ!

We're certainly open to suggestions on how to better handle talking about completed trades, but I do think there's a bias that comes from people who don't see the stuff that gets filtered into thinking only the wheat will remain and the chaff will be invisible to them.

This isn't about the trade topic specifically, but if you want a picture of what a more unmoderated approach looks like, check the 2020 Football Talk threads.  For a variety of reasons, we had very light coverage for the first 3-4 weeks of the NFL season, and after a few weeks of it, people were begging us in the reports to clean things up.  Baseball has a different cadence, but we still see people demanding things to be cleaned up when they get too far afield from the topic, and we have to take their concerns into account equally with the concerns of those who think we should be more hands-off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

We've had some discussions about this in the past on our end.  Let me illustrate some of the problems inherent in this with a few examples of the kinds of trade posts people make:

For just a moment, set aside your individual perception of how much you like the individual players involved and whether this trade is fair or lopsided and just try to focus on the signal it sends about Blake Snell's value.  Obviously, the poster is glad to get rid of him, so it's safe to say their opinion on Snell's outlook is "not good".

To get any more fine-grained than "not good", it becomes necessary to place values on all of the other players in the deal, plus the value of the extra roster slot (whoever would be the drop on the other end).  Or maybe the other owner had an open slot because someone went on the DL, so they didn't have a drop.  And maybe the team trading for Snell needed more of a Hail Mary kind of play that Snell represents over the boring stability of a Gibson type.  And maybe it's a points league, so Mondesi's steals aren't as much of a factor, or maybe it's roto and the other owner is willing to overpay for SBs.  And how deep is the league -- is it the kind where you can get a Gibson type for free, or does he represent a real asset in a deeper league?  And is it redraft, keeper, or dynasty?  If keeper, how many keepers, what is the cost to keep each player in the deal...  You get the picture, and none of this has to do with valuing Blake Snell as a fantasy commodity  At some point, with so many formats, and so many teams doing deals for a variety of reasons, trade situations are just too special-snowflake-y to say much of anything about the player.  There's just too much variability in the other parts of the equation to send anything meaningful about the topic of the thread.

Here's a post that communicates much more about Snell, without having to know anything about the value of other players, or the league-specific circumstances that led to a deal:

With this post, there's no need in Blake Snell's thread to figure out what JD Martinez is worth in a particular league context, or whether Team Owner B in the deal really needed to swing for the fences to make up ground in the SB column.  We're just talking about Snell's value, which is what people are trying to assess when they click on the Blake Snell thread.

But with the trade posts, suddenly there are 20 other threads to pull on. "Why would the JDM owner give him up when he's raking?"  "Who drafts Mondesi for most of their team's SBs and then moves them right when they come off the DL?"  "Gibson's on the wire in my league, why would anyone pay for him?" At least half of all completed trade posts left up for more than a few hours ends up with some kind of derail along these lines that we have to prune.  And maybe you're okay with that tradeoff, since you're not the one putting in the labor, but I can assure you we get reports on those off-topic posts and it takes a lot longer to clean up a dozen responses than it does to clean up the original thing that derails the conversation.

This is one example of many I could offer.  Even a simple 1-for-1 deal at the same position with no category or dynasty considerations (which are very rare trades to make) requires putting a value on the other player in the deal, and, surprise, opinions differ!

We're certainly open to suggestions on how to better handle talking about completed trades, but I do think there's a bias that comes from people who don't see the stuff that gets filtered into thinking only the wheat will remain and the chaff will be invisible to them.

This isn't about the trade topic specifically, but if you want a picture of what a more unmoderated approach looks like, check the 2020 Football Talk threads.  For a variety of reasons, we had very light coverage for the first 3-4 weeks of the NFL season, and after a few weeks of it, people were begging us in the reports to clean things up.  Baseball has a different cadence, but we still see people demanding things to be cleaned up when they get too far afield from the topic, and we have to take their concerns into account equally with the concerns of those who think we should be more hands-off.

What if you took more of a community centered approach to moderation instead of being the end all and be all of rule implementation. Implement a voting element to the board - could be as simple as adding a negative reaction. If a post gets xx negative reactions it is removed. This way the community is self-moderating for posts that are in the grey area. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, mudrummer said:

What if you took more of a community centered approach to moderation instead of being the end all and be all of rule implementation. Implement a voting element to the board - could be as simple as adding a negative reaction. If a post gets xx negative reactions it is removed. This way the community is self-moderating for posts that are in the grey area. 

How about this:  if it takes multiple paragraphs and an in-depth analysis of a person's totally subjective view (even though they might think they somehow operate with an imprimatur of objectiveness ) of the intrinsic merits of a post to figure out why it was moderated, maybe it shouldn't have been moderated?

--Does the post contain swearing or truly abusive language or does it encourage other people to act in such a manner?

--Is the post in the wrong place?

--Is the post spam (repeated hostility or perfunctory, automatic "roboposts" eventually reach the level of spam)?

--Is the post legally actionable, for example posting illegal streaming links?

--Does the post doxx someone or reveal personal information?

--Does the post clearly violate a specifically enunciated site rule (not something vague like "be kind and post productive stuff")?

If the post in question is none of these things, while philosophies vary, my view is: "Why should it be moderated, at all?"

 

 

 

Edited by Overlord
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Overlord said:

View One:  My belief has always been moderators should enforce the site rules. [...]

Both of these are valid views, but despite both being valid I see them as irreconcilable.  You either have moderators out there calling balls and strikes, or you have them as shepherds herding posters into "acceptable" channels of communication ... there's not a lot of gray area to be had.

View Two:  Now, some don't feel that way.  Some see the role of a moderator is to keep discussions "on track," much like how moderators at a debate work.

If it's true that no hybrid approach possible, then I'm not sure how the forums have had any success at all over the years, because we've used some measure of both approaches for as long as I've been a member of the staff.

Your "View One" is basically how we manage a majority of the forum, including all of the BC/AC forums, game day threads in the main forums for each sport, and other random chatty threads like the "decline in hitting" one that was posted today to Baseball Talk.  The *only* things we get involved with in those places are code of conduct violations.  In fact, I've had plenty of people flag off-topic chatter or even Bench Coach stuff in game day threads and I simply close the report, because there's no expectation of being focused in those threads -- it's supposed to be chatty.

Your "View Two", where there's an effort to keep things focused on a particular topic, basically only applies to player/team outlook threads, and some special unicorn cases like the monthly closer thread, which is kind of an omnibus thread in place of dozens of individual threads for closers.  This heightened standard for topicality on some of the threads in a small number of the forums results from the fact that a lot of people view these threads as more of a resource for researching a player's outlook than a place to shoot the breeze.  Importantly, this expectation came from the users, with us shaping our moderation practices based on the kinds of posts in those threads that people were reporting.  I don't think anyone set out to create that dynamic, but it evolved that way, and, whether you like it or not, people like player threads to focus on that player and not unrelated issues.

But it's really easy to come up with abstract arguments using generalities and slippery-slope arguments and impossible to litigate them to anyone's satisfaction, so let's discuss the example you cited above of your PED accusation in Adolis Garcia's thread.

Your so-called "well-researched post" was a bunch of post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense suggesting that you can tell who's juicing just by noticing that they're an outlier on an aging curve and that they put on some muscle in a hurry, and implying that Garcia was one of them.  A bunch of others called you out for how ridiculous it is to assume you can separate the natural outliers from the real juicers by eyeing some photos and a FanGraphs page, and that discussion, based on your flimsy insinuation, crowded out discussion of his actual fantasy outlook.  It created a bunch of heat and virtually no light, with several people asking for the PED derail to be removed, which it was.  Regardless of what your intentions were, or how carefully you think you made your argument, it wasn't going over well, and most members did not want it clogging up the thread.  Your issue is with them, not some abstract disagreement about the best way to moderate a site.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

If it's true that no hybrid approach possible, then I'm not sure how the forums have had any success at all over the years, because we've used some measure of both approaches for as long as I've been a member of the staff.

Your "View One" is basically how we manage a majority of the forum, including all of the BC/AC forums, game day threads in the main forums for each sport, and other random chatty threads like the "decline in hitting" one that was posted today to Baseball Talk.  The *only* things we get involved with in those places are code of conduct violations.  In fact, I've had plenty of people flag off-topic chatter or even Bench Coach stuff in game day threads and I simply close the report, because there's no expectation of being focused in those threads -- it's supposed to be chatty.

Your "View Two", where there's an effort to keep things focused on a particular topic, basically only applies to player/team outlook threads, and some special unicorn cases like the monthly closer thread, which is kind of an omnibus thread in place of dozens of individual threads for closers.  This heightened standard for topicality on some of the threads in a small number of the forums results from the fact that a lot of people view these threads as more of a resource for researching a player's outlook than a place to shoot the breeze.  Importantly, this expectation came from the users, with us shaping our moderation practices based on the kinds of posts in those threads that people were reporting.  I don't think anyone set out to create that dynamic, but it evolved that way, and, whether you like it or not, people like player threads to focus on that player and not unrelated issues.

But it's really easy to come up with abstract arguments using generalities and slippery-slope arguments and impossible to litigate them to anyone's satisfaction, so let's discuss the example you cited above of your PED accusation in Adolis Garcia's thread.

Your so-called "well-researched post" was a bunch of post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense suggesting that you can tell who's juicing just by noticing that they're an outlier on an aging curve and that they put on some muscle in a hurry, and implying that Garcia was one of them.  A bunch of others called you out for how ridiculous it is to assume you can separate the natural outliers from the real juicers by eyeing some photos and a FanGraphs page, and that discussion, based on your flimsy insinuation, crowded out discussion of his actual fantasy outlook.  It created a bunch of heat and virtually no light, with several people asking for the PED derail to be removed, which it was.  Regardless of what your intentions were, or how carefully you think you made your argument, it wasn't going over well, and most members did not want it clogging up the thread.  Your issue is with them, not some abstract disagreement about the best way to moderate a site.

You do realize how self important this is all sounding right? Possibly why people have an issue in the first place…

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mudrummer said:

You do realize how self important this is all sounding right? Possibly why people have an issue in the first place…

I am attempting to answer someone's question about why the policy isn't to their liking.  If you have an issue with the substance of my response, then I'm happy to discuss, but I'm not really going to respond to what amounts to a tone argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

 

Your so-called "well-researched post" was a bunch of post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense ...

This is just your opinion.  You may feel it's more than an opinion, but guess what, it isn't.  Period.  We've all got opinions, but unless a post violates some rule, why are you deleting posts according to yours?  Other users aren't deleting posts, YOU ARE.  Putting the responsibility on other unnamed users is disingenuous and represents passing the buck.  If you want site users voting on content, fine, but until that happens the moderators are the ones who moderate, and moderators who moderate according to their opinion are doing their sites a disservice.  Folks unhappy with a comment can post their disagreements and everyone can make up their own mind ... isn't that what discussion boards are all about?

Your saying that people agree with you is a great example of missing the forest for the trees, as the people who DO have a problem with your moderation style have probably disproportionately left this site.  

Finally, I would note that the tone of your post borders on sarcastic and insulting (if it doesn't explicitly cross that line) and comes across as incredibly self-righteous.  Didn't you start off by saying you wanted "respectful and grounded" discussion of this topic?

You have been given constructive feedback (though it is immensely clear to me that you do not see it as such), do with it as you will.  I have said my piece.

Edited by Overlord
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...