Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Look at the state of this forum


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Overlord said:

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?

Enough folks posted in no uncertain terms that they thought the topic was an unwelcome addition to the conversation that was distracting from the topic at hand.  I agreed, so as you said, I removed the post (and a page or so of replies), but people did, in fact, "vote" for your post to be removed.  I have the receipts if you'd like to see them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/26/2021 at 1:08 PM, absknicks said:

The overmoderation certainly didn't help. 

 

On 5/26/2021 at 1:31 PM, brockpapersizer said:

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

Thank you... I used to post here much more frequently and pushed away because of it. It was a drastic shift in the operation of the forms and what it did was strip away any rapport between posters, sucked the life out of the place, and destroyed the culture.

There has been many times I had seen or had posts edited that were so nit picky and over the top and other cases I'm pretty sure were actually within posting rules and still eliminated because of moderator rampage.

There's so many other options I mean that's why people are fleeing to those options like reddit, etc.

At the end of the day people come to these forums for the enjoyment of it, not just the information, this isn't a newspaper it's a forum -- and all culture and comradery was stripped away. 

It baffles my mind the site can't see the obvious error of their ways and refuses to admit their moderation actions, no matter how good their intentions were, have had a dramatic negative impact. The lack of self awareness and/or stubbornness is very disheartening.

Edited by StevieStats
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours 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.

PEDs are performance enhancing drugs. A player taking something to enhance their performance is a good thing from the standpoint of looking for improved performance. No lie, after seeing the post by @Overlord about Adolis and looking into it myself one of two things was clear: whether it was an illegal PED or a legal PE substance, Adolis had made noticable changes and prompted me to jump on him. The benefits have been outstanding, especially considering I just recently lost Trout -- he will be a major piece in weathering that storm.

If someone doesnt believe the speculation, fine whatever, they don't have to. But let's not act like it would be so incredulous that a baseball player would take a performance enhancing substance. Regardless if he did he was in obvious improved physical condition. Whether you want to credit an illegal substance or not doesn't matter, it's still relevant discussion.

...but anyway since you only removed the post purely because of user "votes" via reporting and that's how you moderate, does this mean any post is fair game to be removed due to forum members not liking it or how it alters the conversation? If so then if enough of us users report you than does that mean you and your moderating will be removed as well? Because it appears to me you leverage user input only when it suits what you would like to do and you are completely ignoring/dismissing it pertaining to your moderation practices.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Overlord said:

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.

Somebody took the time to write you a long, respectful response and you think they're being insulting. Holy moly take your blinders off person.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2021 at 4:05 PM, 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've heard this logic from some of the baseball-centric old timers like yourself before.  To play along with your "correlation is causation" logic, would you care to explain why Fantasy Football Talk has seen no dropoff whatsoever in activity -- steady growth, in fact -- even though I am just as active moderating there as I am on the baseball side?  Or why Fantasy Basketball Talk, which I basically only visit once in a blue moon in response to reports when nobody else is around, has seen pretty much the same dropoff in activity as baseball?

Somehow, my magical powers of turning away so many members only applies to the forum for a fantasy sport that has been declining relative to its gridiron counterpart for ages now, and which also happens to be the real-life sport of the three major ones that was hit hardest by the pandemic in terms of interfering with the 2020 regular season for fantasy purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, StevieStats said:

...but anyway since you only removed the post purely because of user "votes" via reporting and that's how you moderate, does this mean any post is fair game to be removed due to forum members not liking it or how it alters the conversation?

No, because we're not robots, and this site has never operated as a democracy.  The posting guidelines clearly state that the mod team's judgement and discretion are applied.  If a quasi-democratic voting process is what someone wants, well, Reddit already exists, and while we obviously hope people will choose to stick around here, we understand that everyone comes with their own ideas of how (or even if) a community's content should be moderated, and that not all models are compatible with everyone's expectations.

Context matters as to how we assess whether public complaints and/or reports have merit.  In this case, it was my judgement that they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tonycpsu said:

I've heard this logic from some of the baseball-centric old timers like yourself before.  To play along with your "correlation is causation" logic, would you care to explain why Fantasy Football Talk has seen no dropoff whatsoever in activity -- steady growth, in fact -- even though I am just as active moderating there as I am on the baseball side?  Or why Fantasy Basketball Talk, which I basically only visit once in a blue moon in response to reports when nobody else is around, has seen pretty much the same dropoff in activity as baseball?

Somehow, my magical powers of turning away so many members only applies to the forum for a fantasy sport that has been declining relative to its gridiron counterpart for ages now, and which also happens to be the real-life sport of the three major ones that was hit hardest by the pandemic in terms of interfering with the 2020 regular season for fantasy purposes.

Nevermind tony. You've done a great job. All these people saying otherwise are just out to get you. Just keep on keeping on dude. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, absknicks said:

Nevermind tony. You've done a great job. All these people saying otherwise are just out to get you. Just keep on keeping on dude. 

You made an argument that my actions led to a decline in activity.  If you can't be bothered to defend that claim when a contrary argument is made, then you're under no obligation to respond, but starting off by talking about me in the third person despite the fact that I'm very much present in this thread and then playing to the cheap eats with a sarcastic armchair psychology diagnosis of paranoia is a clear demonstration of how weak your argument is.

If this is the kind of content that we're supposed to be worried about losing, well, I think we'll get along just fine without any more of that.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2021 at 11:32 AM, tonycpsu said:

You made an argument that my actions led to a decline in activity.  If you can't be bothered to defend that claim when a contrary argument is made, then you're under no obligation to respond, but starting off by talking about me in the third person despite the fact that I'm very much present in this thread and then playing to the cheap eats with a sarcastic armchair psychology diagnosis of paranoia is a clear demonstration of how weak your argument is.

If this is the kind of content that we're supposed to be worried about losing, well, I think we'll get along just fine without any more of that.

Just not interested in engaging with you. You've shown a complete inability to self-reflect or change your ways even after warned for years what effect your moderation style would have. Now those effects are readily evident and you're still unwilling to admit they've had a negative impact. So why would I or anyone else waste their time trying to have a level discussion about it with you after you've shown over the course of several years that you're completely incapable of taking criticism and changing in any way, shape or form?

 

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

Just not interested in engaging with you.

This isn't actually how "not engaging" works.  You're certainly engaging here -- not with the points that undermine your priors, of course, but via repetitive comments that restate your premise increasingly sarcastic and derogatory ways.

You made an accusation.  That's fine, but I am entitled to make an argument in my defense.  At that point, you can engage directly with my response, or you can move on if you think I'm not worth responding to, but acting like you've proven something and that I owe you some explanation when you're simply ignoring contrary data is... not the "readily evident" argument you seem to think it is.  Evidence must stand up to scrutiny, and yours does not survive even a cursory glance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

[....] Talking about accusations, defense, priors, evidence etc... this isn't a courtroom. I made a statement about how awful you've been for the forum. Others agreed. You're clearly angry about that... tough. I'm not going to engage with someone who's shown no capability to self-reflect or improve over a several year span. You're a terrible moderator and you've done a terrible job around here. If you don't want to accept that and change, that's on you. Not gonna waste my breath trying to convince you of something that's readily apparent to many of us. 

Edited by tonycpsu
Personal attack removed. The rules still apply here
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback. If you'd like to continue "not wasting your breath" and "not engaging" , you can do so via PM.

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