Once a year or so, I like to give some sort of public update on the CGV system designed to keep our community talking respectfully to one another about things that aren't politics. One of the reasons I continue to give the occasional update is that readers who flag comments never hear about it again - is something actually happening, or do the moderators just laugh with one another and go, "Hey check out this one! They probably think we're gonna do something - buuuuaaaaahaha!!!"
I'm pleased to report that the CGV system is alive and well, or at least that it is alive and, well, happening. We went to a new system in July, 2008, where suspected CGVs could be flagged instead of reported by email, and where the evaluating committee was a publicly known group of 9-10 moderators rather than an anonymous group of four. "So, my good goat-friendly man," I hear you querie, "What's the news on the CGV front?"
Since the flagging system went into place 6.5 months ago, the number of complaints has gone up but the percentage of flagged comments actually ruled "strikes" or "warnings" has gone down. I no longer keep track of complaints that do not turn into "strikes" or "warnings," but I would estimate that where about 75% of complaints were ruled CGVs under the old system, only about 30%-35% of complaints receive the necessary three flags to become "strikes" or "warnings". Overall, under the new system 33 "strikes" or "warnings" have been issued to 28 different users.
If you have any specific suggestions, requests, or ideas about how we can best balance our commitment to free speech and a variety of personalities and styles with the desire to allow everyone to feel safe and respected, this thread is a good place to weigh in. One of my goals, personally, is to encourage more "lurkers" to feel like joining the discussions, as I think a wider range of perspectives and personalities is a good thing and because AN is a community and we'd like to get to know everyone in the room.
How's AN doing, folks, and how can it do better? Besides a weekly "Gettin' Cindi-y With It" hair-advice column, because that won't happen until a certain teenager passes her Styling With Curlers midterm and apparently third time wasn't a charm.
0 recs | 411 comments
sweet
As news-media consolidates, we will have to look at other outlets for info. AN is the best blog I have ever read, due to many factors. 67Marquez’s Rickey post encouraged me to join after 3 years of just reading, scared off by the conspiratorial 911 advertisements. Great job everyone for their insight, wit, and passion.
greenpaddedgloves - January 18, 2009
Thanks, greenpaddedgloves - I really hope you'll join our discussions
More voices = good. Joining the community = fun. :-)
Nico - January 18, 2009
I am always humbled by those kind of comments
Thank you. Knowing that the Rickey piece was able to bring one lurker out of the shadows is as rewarding as seeing it placed on the front page.
Welcome, and hang around for awhile.
67MARQUEZ - January 18, 2009
I just heard from two lurkers who said the Rickey piece is why they left
Oh well.
Nico - January 18, 2009
Story of my life
One step forward, two steps back.
Or something like that.
67MARQUEZ - January 18, 2009
Hang on...I'm getting emails from three other lurkers...
Good news!
Nico - January 18, 2009
Cindi is a teenager?
For some reason, I thought she was early 20’s or so…..
gigglingone - January 18, 2009
It's all the makeup
67MARQUEZ found out the hard way that she’s still a minor.
Nico - January 18, 2009
And I keep learning the hard way... over.... and over... and over again
Man, I really thought she’d make it this time. We studied forever (I’ll have to wear a wig the rest of my life, but damn, I really thought she’d gotten it in the end). When I woke up from passing out, my clown wig look fabulous.
DMOAS - January 18, 2009
See, that's her whole problem. She keeps getting it in the end.
Instead of studying.
The Dogfather - January 18, 2009
I have yet to recover, actually.
67MARQUEZ - January 18, 2009
teens, 20s, whatever
Anyone under 30 looks like a kid to me now.
iglew - January 18, 2009
I feel the same way about anyone under 80
Nico - January 18, 2009
Anyone under 80 looks like a young goat to you?
WaddellCanseco - January 18, 2009
I might need new glasses
Nico - January 18, 2009
It's cuz they're all kids!
Thank you I’ll be here all week.
Helloooo 1st - January 19, 2009
Deserves a REC for great use of irony
LowcountryJoe - January 19, 2009
deserves some sound effects
http://www.instantrimshot.com/
stolen from another post here on AN
One won lost won - January 19, 2009
Surprisingly or not
I made myself laugh for a good 2 minutes just telling corny jokes to myself and pushing the button.
Helloooo 1st - January 20, 2009
Congratulations
You joined the “Fun Bunch”!
One won lost won - January 20, 2009
As soon as those friggin Red Sox ads go away, we'll be good.
Well, that, or a proper adblock for Google Chrome is released.
mikev - January 18, 2009
I think the only criticism I'd have is this
There are times where AN, in general, can experience a sense of elitism toward new posters, especially from the so-called “statheads” who are certain they know more about the team and/or sport because of their devotion to deeper stats many fans don’t pay as much attention to, and their tendency to act like they’re always right in any discussion/debate because of it.
If there’s anything a sport like baseball has proven, there is no one, perfect, correct way to evaluate talent across the board. Moneyball proved this in looking past what most scouts see on the surface while finding value in places people didn’t look before, but now it seems in ways some people have gone to the other extreme, tossing out various traditions in interest of useful, though somewhat obscure figures the average fan has no clue about and may have no interest in learning past the very basics.
I’m being a little vague intentionally because this is not a MAJOR problem, only when the inevitable player debates and arguments come up and people get deep into those stats to prove an opinion they’re not going to be swayed from anyway. It’s great for the people who like getting that deep into it, but there are many more people who don’t care about every “alternative” stat out there.
The problem is a lot of the time, those people who don’t care about it as much end up labeled wrong, ignorant, etc. Less of that, please. I love stats but I don’t go as deep into them as others do. I also have certain stats (or perhaps, player types) I like more than others do. That doesn’t make me dumb. It just makes me a fan with different preferences.
Aside from all that, sometimes I think there needs to be a little more leniency toward brand new posters who make a mistake, whether it’s repeating an opinion others have gone back and forth on over and over, or other small infractions. Some people make a new account just to troll, but it can be tough for a new person to feel welcome when they get jumped on from the start with “already discussed” or something like that. Sure, it was already discussed, but they weren’t here when it was.
Same goes for repeating posts that have been made before, though when there are two or three of them already in the most recent column then sure, there’s a time for saying “You need to see what’s been posted first instead of duplicating it.”
Sometimes there’s just a sense of there being little patience toward new people who want to be a part of things here. That’s not a very welcoming thing, especially toward someone who’s not here to troll. They need the chance to learn about AN’s particular “flavor” and find where they fit in, not get rude condescension as their welcome. It doesn’t happen all the time, but it happens enough. I’ve been guilty of it myself in the past, but that’s something I plan to be more understanding of.
As for the CGVs? They seem fine to me and I haven’t got one (yet) so it’s all good with me.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
All well put, IMO, Flashfire, thanks
I really do want new posters to feel welcome and feel safe joining discussions for the first time. How to do this without going too far in the schoolmarm direction is a tricky issue, but I want lurkers and new posters to know that AN’s admin really wants to them to feel, and be, included.
Nico - January 18, 2009
I know what you mean
I don’t expect people to sit around the campfire singing songs and being polite to everyone all the time, no. Everyone here has their own personality and I get into it with a few people sometimes, no question. That comes from being stubborn, though.
I’ve followed baseball for over two decades and I’m not an idiot because I don’t see something the same way someone else does. At the same time, they’re not stupid because they disagree with me, either. There are disagreements that flare up but I don’t hate anyone here. When the “fight” is over, that’s it until the next one. ;-)
Sometimes new people need to understand everyone else has been here longer than them and developed reputations, for better or worse. That’s just the nature of a place online with a lot of people who use it.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
I also just think instead of saying "toughen up" to those who are "oversensitive,"
we can accept that human beings tend to be hypersensitive, that grown-ups are basically just big kids, and that people don’t need to “develop a thicker skin” any more than people need to “be polite because a lot of human beings are hypersensitive.”
Nico - January 18, 2009
It kind of goes back to people remembering...
…that there’s someone else behind every response, not just some automated system.
At least, I’m pretty sure of that.
We’re all passionate about the sport and team we love. We wouldn’t be here otherwise.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
That's why I carefully reply to each spam with,
"Thank you so much for reaching out and taking the time to connect with me, human to human, in an effort to help me. However I am currently satisfied with the size of my —
— DVD collection." What? What did you think I was going to say?
Nico - January 18, 2009
Beats me
I get enough breast enlargement spam as it is.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
You should be paying a flat rate
Nico - January 18, 2009
Booooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobs
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
Right...
…but I have noticed a general increase of rudeness, especially in the last six months or so. To the point that I purposely don’t participate as much as I’d normally like to. It has nothing to do with a “thick skin”, or lack thereof. I rarely report people, and never have here that I can recall.
I like the debate and exchanging of ideas, but prefer a mature give-and-take rather than listening to a relative handful that seem more interest in proving to everyone else how “right” they are. I’ll never understand why some people feel the need to put into question another person’s intelligence? Why can’t they just simply disagree and state their case?
I still come, but lately it’s been because this is the best place for accurate information, not so much to participate other than a minor comment here and there.
UncleLeo - January 18, 2009
perhaps it's a vent
fans could just be venting over the direction the team’s taken the (last half of) last year? instead of taking it out on the team, they do so on other fans..
rollierollieOxenfree - January 18, 2009
See, I have access to 100 kids and a dog,
so it’s not necessary to take my frustrations out on you folks.
Nico - January 18, 2009
(feels grateful I'm not Nico's dog or young goat)
WaddellCanseco - January 18, 2009
This
FreeSeatUpgrade - January 18, 2009
There you are!
I’ve been wondering where you had gotten off to. It’s not so bad, and besides which, you are more than capable of holding your own.
alox - January 19, 2009
Creeping orthodoxy
I’m far more sympathetic to the “stathead” thinking than the “old school”, but I’m concerned about a growing sense of intellectual orthodoxy among the stathead types. Too often a theorem is defended not with logic and evidence but only by saying, essentially, “Of course, everyone knows that, and if you don’t know it you need to catch up.”
Better knowledge comes from constantly questioning the conventional wisdom. As Flashfire reminds us above, most of the today’s sabermetric theory was born out of such questioning. We should welcome new questions to the new conventional wisdom. If someone new comes along with an idea that’s wrong, we ought to be able to rebut it on the merits and the evidence; and if we can’t, that’s an indication that this may be an opportunity to improve our own knowledge. This is how it is in the history of any science, and I don’t see why it should be different with baseball.
I understand that we sometimes hear the same uninformed arguments over and over. If you lack the patience to engage them in good faith and share what you know in a constructive way, then you should just register your disagreement simply and politely, or better yet don’t respond at all.
iglew - January 18, 2009
You had me until you called me an orthodox creep
Nico - January 18, 2009
I wholeheartedly agree with the creeping orthodoxy issue. I see three areas where it's manifested recently.
The first is the importance of scouting and game playing experience. I’ve seen the profession of scouting as a valid means of player evaluation dismissed far too often by saberists (if that is a real word). We should not dismiss players with skimpy track records simply because we personally don’t feel comfortable analyzing their past performance. The combined opinions of scouts mean a lot.
Second, the gut-reaction hatred of former players turned commentators whose comments are based on playing experience rather than statistical analysis are disrespectful of persons with tremendous achievements (e.g. Joe Morgan), and also narrow minded. We can learn a lot from people with that level of insight on baseball, even if some things they say are demonstrably false.
Third is the business side of baseball. The ability to analyze baseball statistics in no way gives a person the ability to run a business or to analyze a company, a baseball team or any other. Nor does it give one any particular insights on personnel management, organizational behavior or labor relations. I’d like to see a lot more facts presented in discussions about these and other non-player analysis topics.
WaddellCanseco - January 18, 2009
Good points
Maybe at some point a reasonable balance will be found for many of these things.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
I think "gut-reaction hatred" is an entirely appropriate emotion
when confronted with pompous idiots who get paid big bucks to make humanity dumber.
But, hey, just one man’s opinion.
PaulThomas - January 18, 2009
I think it's an entirely appropriate emotion
when confronted by the influence of alcohol.
Nico - January 18, 2009
You sound like my criminal law professor
PaulThomas - January 18, 2009
Theory:
It’s been too long since WC has listened to Rex Hudler.
VORP is too nerdy - January 18, 2009
let me see if I have this straight
Discussion of off-field matters, where we have access to very few data: more facts, please, before saying anything!
Discussion of on-field matters, where we have an increasingly overwhelming (yes, even in the case of defense): less facts, please!
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
"fewer"
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
Agreed
in that we do have a tendency to scare off new posters sometimes. I think treating them with some good-natured rookie hazing is fine (and I have seen some of that demonstrated here; it can be pretty funny at times), but shouting them down simply because their new is on the wrong side of cool.
67MARQUEZ - January 18, 2009
I kind of like the hazing idea
But I don’t want Nico involved. That guy’s got some strange preferences.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
I might let Nico haze me
for typing “their new” rather than “they’re new”.
67MARQUEZ - January 18, 2009
I thought it was used correctly
and was just some truly stylish writing: “their new is on the wrong side of cool.” Poetic.
Nico - January 18, 2009
Very well put, in my opinion.
I think the CGV system works just fine as it is, and that it should only exist as a last resort and a bit of a deterrent to keep the discourse reasonably on-track (baseball, not politics or religion!) and above-board (we can disagree without resorting to personal attacks!)
I do see the same trends as Flashfire in terms of condescension, but I think that’s an issue that the community can and should consider and improve upon without being “regulated” into it. A little bit of the “golden rule” in terms of treating others the way you’d like to be treated goes a long ways, and that’s simply something each poster can consider and apply in his/her discourse as they choose.
In other words, I’d like to see a little more tolerance for different viewpoints and genuine discussion instead of condescending knee-jerk reactions, but I don’t see it as the moderators’ obligation to make that happen- it’s up to everybody who reads and posts on this site to make that happen, or not as the case may be…
still bills kingdom - January 18, 2009
Agreed
Hey, this is kind of fun. ;-)
We don’t really need moderators to police the site with a sort of “standards for conduct” like this. I think we’re capable of telling someone else “Hey, cut it out.” I don’t really use the warning system unless something is trolling or spamming, or just outright insulting (like some new guy who came in here a couple weeks ago and was just going off on people).
I’ll put it this way: I don’t think I’ve ever had an argument with someone that left me thinking “I never want to see this guy’s name here again.” I think I’m pretty good at putting that behind me and hey, if I don’t like the back-and-forth of an argument in which I’ve already stated my case? I can stop responding to it.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
Exactly.
Each person can effectively “police” the community by the decisions he/she makes in posting.
If you get into a discussion that’s not going anywhere, just flash the “agree to disagree” card and call it a day… the discussion or argument that was occurring is there for others to read and comment further upon if they wish, or to at least consider both opinions from, so it’s not a valueless exercise or anything.
still bills kingdom - January 18, 2009
Does this mean we're going to see less of the
“Pt vs. Grover” main event matches?
mrod - January 18, 2009
I doubt it
Neither one seems to feel he needs to change anything.
Nico - January 18, 2009
I'm laughing on the inside.........
:)
mrod - January 18, 2009
Me too. With a little crying.
And possibly some gas.
Nico - January 18, 2009
I don't know
I’m less inclined to put up with your snark.
grover - January 18, 2009
That's an acute way of putting it
Helloooo 1st - January 19, 2009
Ugh
I can’t believe I set up a geometric pun.
grover - January 19, 2009
Better than a protracted argument.
still bills kingdom - January 19, 2009
Certainly cannot accuse you of being obtuse.
LowcountryJoe - January 19, 2009
+1 Couldn't have said it better myself
UncleLeo - January 18, 2009
New posters should not be criticized or treated poorly because they are no
But all opinions are not created equal, and if somebody is wrong there is nothing wrong with telling them so. We should absolutely hold people to a higher intellectual standard, even if we’re just discussing baseball, but personal attacks are a different story. I don’t see too much in the way of personal attacks here, even from some of the harsher critics of that which is deemed stupid (and I’m one of ’em).
thejd44 - January 18, 2009
Holding people to a higher intellectual standard is one thing
Being condescending about it is another.
It’s not really your place or mine to cut someone else down simply because of their preferences.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
Just to elaborate a little on this
If someone is just so far separated from anything sensible, logical or realistic and people have tried to correct without any luck, that’s a different story. I’m not suggesting everyone just smile and say “Yeah, okay” if someone’s making no sense whatsoever. I don’t see much of that, though.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
Every time I see a condescending post,
there was a non-condescending way to make the same point. It’s never necessary to act smug or condescending in order to disagree or point out a mistake; it’s just off-putting. And I notice that with some users, as a debate continues the more wrong they appear to be the more condescending and smug their posts become. Hmm….
Nico - January 18, 2009
Usually the longer people keep going back and forth on the same thing...
…the more likely things are to get condescending.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
Maybe it should be like a game show
“You get 5 exchanges to make your point…24 hours on the clock, and…GO!!!1111”
Nico - January 18, 2009
There is almost always a point...
…where people start repeating themselves. Unfortunately, sometimes I fall prey to that, too.
UncleLeo - January 18, 2009
You already said that, you moron.
Nico - January 18, 2009
There is almost always a point...
…where people start repeating themselves. Unfortunately, sometimes I fall prey to that, too.
UncleLeo - January 18, 2009
I see what you did there
Nico - January 18, 2009
I've already read that. I'm such a moron!
FormerHuntsvilleStar - January 18, 2009
that is how arguing works
people become more attached to their positions as it goes on. Its well-documented, but its evolutionary benefit has run its course.
ChadGod - January 18, 2009
Yeah, it made a lot more sense the first 200,000 years or so after the Big Bang
Now, really not so much.
Nico - January 18, 2009
Ah yes, the Xenophobes
LowcountryJoe - January 18, 2009
Xenophobe really needs to invest in a newer computer
Nico - January 18, 2009
Are you kidding...
…that’s all we need is that cheap crap from China!
[/sarcasm from a staunch free trader]
LowcountryJoe - January 18, 2009
Its a fine line to walk
Flashfire makes a valid point,
but almost every time new posters are completely in the dark/less-informed/straight IGNANT.
What AN could do better is to take the sting out of the shutdowns. Honestly, AN is one of the more welcoming and forgiving blogs in my experience, but all blogs suffer from the elitism that comes with, well, spending more time and knowing more through collaboration, than say a 17 year old first time viewer/poster.
The best way to handle this type of thing is to allow the “n00b” to arrive at their own conclusions as to why their viewpoint may be questionable, rather than just telling them they are. Of course, in some cases that is just so much effort.
ChadGod - January 18, 2009
Flashfire's point is weakened by the fact that the last sentence ends with a preposition
The point about some veteran users making petty corrections is a good one, though.
Nico - January 18, 2009
The related problem is the non-stat guy
1. Post that player X is awesome
2. Read responses saying player X is actually overrated presenting stats that show why
3. Fire off post about elitist assholes who dare to criticize their unsupported opinion
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
+1
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
Great Post
In an effort to make more feel welcome to the community, what if established AN community members got together and form a glossary for some of the more alternative stat terminology and how they are applied. This way, anyone who may not understand what WAR is can just click to the front page and learn something new.
deathby9 - January 19, 2009
That would be great.
Or if such a glossary already exists a link to it.
Telling people they’re ignorant is more constructive if you provide them help in becoming less ignorant.
iglew - January 19, 2009
I'd be happy to lend a hand with this project, if it ever gets going
PaulThomas - January 19, 2009
That would be great, PT
I was actually thinking of putting up a post at some point asking for handy links to good web sites for various stats, metrics, data, etc. This would be even better – a list of terms, what they mean, and where to go for that kind of data. I think it would make a great addition to the toolbar.
Nico - January 19, 2009
As I started to read this
I thought you were going to suggest that each new member be assigned a “big brother/sister” member. Then the elder ANer would have to be extra nice to them, maybe take them out drinking, etc…
5Aces - January 19, 2009
67MARQUEZ, you stay away from Cindi!
Seriously, that’s by court order.
Nico - January 19, 2009
It was one text message
One. And it was completely innocent.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
I would really like all of us
to encourage 74mk to write one fanpost. Just one. I don’t even care what it’s about.
I continue to be amazed not only by the talent here but by the humor. I come here just to laugh sometimes (wait, should I be worried?).
67MARQUEZ - January 18, 2009
I've heard about the talent and humor
I just haven’t seen it yet.
Nico - January 18, 2009
That's because you only read your own posts.
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
Oh you di'int!
Nico - January 19, 2009
It must be doing something right.
I mean this is by far the best behaved and most polite and least offensive online community I’ve ever been a part of. So kudos, eh?
Pucking Insane - January 18, 2009
and yeah, I got so excited, I even forgot how to use the comma.
Pucking Insane - January 18, 2009
+1
And the great thing is, someone here is bound to remind you. :)
lynnzgal - January 18, 2009
Does that mean we have all the grammar Nazis tied up in the basement?
monkeyball - January 18, 2009
/mmmnphhfl …
The Dogfather - January 18, 2009
lol!
lynnzgal - January 18, 2009
You know, really if it's at the beginning of a sentence
it should be “Lol!”
/mmmnphhfl …
Nico - January 18, 2009
Pesky Nazi!
Get back down there!
lynnzgal - January 18, 2009
{turns DP for the Padres, oppresses Jews, has 14 pitch AB ending with fly out}
Nico - January 18, 2009
(signs Nico to $14M contract, with restraining order to remain at least 100 feet from Jews)
WaddellCanseco - January 18, 2009
That could be a problem, as I'm 3/4 Jewish
And yes, I would estimate that about 75% of the time I oppress myself.
Nico - January 18, 2009
That's oppressive
Helloooo 1st - January 19, 2009
Isn't that akin
to being 3/4 pregnant?
I thought it was an all or nothing proposition.
alox - January 19, 2009
That's a good point.
Considering the number of people posting and the topic (sports), AN is remarkably civil. Occasionally, people go to far with their arguments, but I think ANers generally do a great job of being cordial.
Rocktopus - January 18, 2009
Lurking or contributing to the community
I also see the same tendency as Flashfire in terms of condescension, though it hasn’t been directed at me personally. I get a great deal of pleasure and information from the AN community and one of my new year’s rez is to contribute more to the discussions.
LibrariAN - January 18, 2009
Woo hoo!!!
Great New Year’s resolution.
Nico - January 18, 2009
That is a great New Year's Resolution!
AN wasn’t created for a few A’s fans, but that masses!
Tyler Bleszinski - January 18, 2009
Commie.
alox - January 18, 2009
If that was true, wouldn't I root for the Reds?
Tyler Bleszinski - January 18, 2009
In soviet Russia the Reds root for you
Helloooo 1st - January 19, 2009
YSJOTM
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
ЯCJOTM?
iglew - January 19, 2009
You mean the "Redlegs" don't you?
Link
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
Name's Anderson.
Bloody Bill’s what they can me.
Leopold Bloom - January 19, 2009
I think AN's new slogan should be:
“Pony Up!”
mrod - January 18, 2009
I like it!
Nico - January 18, 2009
Nah... it's got to be GoAt Up.
DMOAS - January 18, 2009
Ahhhh
Horrible visual begone!
Tyler Bleszinski - January 18, 2009
Okay......so done deal.
But I get the intellectual rights!
mrod - January 18, 2009
I call the emotional rights!
Nico - January 18, 2009
I call the unintentional homicidal tendencies when confront by unrelenting self destructive behavoir rights!
DMOAS - January 18, 2009
I don't see anything wrong with it
Frankly, other than that guy who was obsessed with grover, I haven’t seen anything really hostile here. Maybe I’m not reading enough threads.
If you want to report real life CGV’s, go to www.mycityscrewups.com !!!
Sorry, I just had to do it.
ohad - January 18, 2009
lol PlugOTM!
DMOAS - January 18, 2009
lol thanks.
ohad - January 18, 2009
There's a lot of unnecessary condescension IMO,
but I’ve learned just to ignore (literally not read further) exchanges that are heading in that direction.
Nico - January 18, 2009
True
I do see that kind of stuff as well; there are personalities clashing often but not to the point of flagging. I just ignore it as well.
ohad - January 18, 2009
I have a problem.
I always read “CGV” as “CVG.” I think we need a new acronym.
whiteshoes40 - January 18, 2009
Because you can't read?
SNARK!
Nico - January 18, 2009
What? A shark? Where?!
whiteshoes40 - January 18, 2009
Boy, the contrast between us is truly shark.
I hope this doesn’t snark a controversy.
Nico - January 18, 2009
I keep reading "condescension" as "condensation"...
…and wondering why moisture would be a problem on AN.
FormerHuntsvilleStar - January 18, 2009
We do try to wet your appetite for baseball
Nico - January 18, 2009
Hit it agin!
http://www.instantrimshot.com/
One won lost won - January 19, 2009
God there's a joke somewhere in that sentence
Helloooo 1st - January 19, 2009
I think it's one of the best systems around
I see a lot of other SB Nation communities struggle with this issue all the time and I always try and point to this system. The funny thing is one of our largest blogs, Blazers Edge, is one of our sites that has a zero tolerance policy and his community loves the fact that there is not a three strike rule.
Tyler Bleszinski - January 18, 2009
As I told Officer Jenkins the other day,
“Z-zero tollrance is jussssstupid.”
Nico - January 18, 2009
Hmmm
Well, they did used to be the Jailblazers. Maybe their board takes after that and gets rid of people on the first offense.
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
At S&B Pride
I point to this site as the leader.
This week I am working with the guys (all seven of them) on getting through a single thread without resorting to profanity-laced insults. If that fals, I may just put them all in one room, throw in some raw meat, and let them work out their differences.
Ah, Raider fans; a special breed indeed.
67MARQUEZ - January 18, 2009
Emphasis on "special"
Flashfire - January 18, 2009
Sounds a lot like the Coliseum parking lot on Sundays in the Winter
Nico - January 18, 2009
You write good stuff over on SBP
Too bad that most of the regulars there are unable to type anything more enlightening like “your a phukkin faget”.
If you do resort to the raw-meat thing, might I suggest lacing it with strychnine?
doctorK - January 18, 2009
Sigh
And we were doing so well, too.
Well, back to the drawing board.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
Oh boy...
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
I like how the comment receives a "+1" reply
The people have spoken and we like hate!
Nico - January 19, 2009
Serious question:
why do some — probably most — write “+1” and then not actually take the time to formally make a rec.
LowcountryJoe - January 19, 2009
Good point
+1.
Nico - January 19, 2009
Rec'd.
Rocktopus - January 19, 2009
I agree
One won lost won - January 19, 2009
ditto
5Aces - January 20, 2009
A couple guesses...
Possibly people just don’t think about it. I frequent several boards and this is the only one that has “rec” as an option/feature.
Also, I would think that “+1” designates agreement, but not necessarily profound stop-the-presses agreement.
UncleLeo - January 20, 2009
Smart asses.
I had no idea that was coming but that’s funny as hell. I should have anticipated it but didn’t.
LowcountryJoe - January 20, 2009
this might have been said before
(which would be ironic) but, IMO, there are too many fanposts/threads about the same topic.
travdog6 - January 18, 2009
So what's stoppin' you from posting on a topic more in line with your interests?
WaddellCanseco - January 18, 2009
how is this not in line with my interests?
travdog6 - January 18, 2009
I meant creating a new FanPost on a topic you find interesting and non-repetitive
WaddellCanseco - January 18, 2009
Um, that sounds like a lot of, like, work?
Nico - January 18, 2009
im not saying i have something or that i dont find fanposts interesting
im saying that reading 8 different fanposts about mark mulder being a possible solution gets old. this was addressed in the 4th most popular fanpost of all time
travdog6 - January 18, 2009
I think it would actually help the flow of discussion a lot if mods took an active role on this issue
Perhaps by deleting a new fanpost and refreshing the old one on the same subject.
I agree 1,000% with travdog that it can make visiting frustrating (especially when things are busy and I can only visit a limited amount of time).
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
I think this is something we need a focused fanpost/story on
I think it’s a good suggestion, but I’m always hesitant to delete peremptorily without clear CGV/fair-use/etc violation.
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
Same here - I am very hesitant to delete fanposts
unless there is a violation (troll, insufficient word count, etc.). It’s a slippery slope to delete stuff, and with it erase all the content in the thread.
Nico - January 19, 2009
Yeah, that's my threshold
If a real conversation has broken out by the time I see the superfluous post in question, I leave it up.
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
Which completely makes sense
If I was in charge of coding the next AN version, I would make three changes:
1. All the stupid text box auto-format garbage goes away. If I wan’t strikethrough, I’ll click the strikethrough button.
2. When a post is promoted to the front page, it’s shadow in the diary list goes away.
3. A tool to combine posts so that when there’s 5 diaries about the same thing they can be combined into one (dated based upon the most recent) and none of the comments are lost.
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
I really like #3,
since there’s often so many more gems in the comments than in the original fAnPoSt… and among the 19 fAnPoSts, five or six of them might actually have good, different discussions that would be a shame to lose. And in my desire to avoid squishing my fingers through 19 piles of shit, I end up just avoiding all of it and probably missing the digestion of something valuable.
Poppy - January 19, 2009
agreed nevermoor
basically the thing i want most is people to make a quick search for the topic they are posting on to see if a thread is already around
travdog6 - January 19, 2009
I'm not hesitant at all to delete fanposts
Maybe that’s why they don’t give me the big “delete” button….
gigglingone - January 19, 2009
Hang on, I'll get rid of this comment...
{sees something shiny, forgets}
Nico - January 19, 2009
I like having a CGV system
One thing we should all remember is that AN is supposed to be fun for all those involved. I’d hate to spoil the fun for someone else, so I try to self-censor my posts.
doctorK - January 18, 2009
This comment ruined the whole thread for me.
Nico - January 18, 2009
I was going to respond to this
but my self-censoring yielded this:
doctorK - January 18, 2009
Hmm.
A little more profound than usual, but otherwise pretty standard stuff.
Nico - January 18, 2009
Flashfire was correct
Over the years the elitists have taken over this site, and it is not nearly as entertaining or informative as it was 3 or 4 years ago, when comments were welcome. Nevertheless I check in every day, most of the time scrolling through all the silly comments by people who think they are clever or funny but are neither. On the other hand some people write some very interesting articles, well researched and very informative.
Laoren - January 18, 2009
I hate to break it to you, but 3-4 years ago it was just as elitist
only with less accountability. reztips and oaktoon just became grover and PT – or if you prefer, me and Cindi.
Nico - January 18, 2009
I'm not offended by being compared to two guys who aren't very nice,
but I am kind of offended by being compared to two guys who were (still are, I suppose, whatever they’re up to these days) so consistently wrong about everything…
PaulThomas - January 18, 2009
I have to ask...
Do you realize that when you talk about posters that make condescending or snarky comments, you’re one of the more frequently guilty parties?
grover - January 18, 2009
The difference being
That I cannot remember a post where Nico ever put someone down for their opinion. His snark is always lighthearted and good natured. Of course it’s possibly I didn’t read on a day where his goat was feeling especially bitey, but I’m sure pretty much everyone else will agree with this.
Helloooo 1st - January 19, 2009
Really?
In this thread he took two unprovoked shots at me. Unless, of course, you think comparing another poster to two people so personae non gratae (yes, I did look up the plural form) they had to leave AN is benign. When I tease Nico its about his goat fetish, when he teased me he compared me to a poster so vilified that at the end that he couldn’t post without a dozen people jumping down his throat. Which do you consider to be more lighthearted and good natured?
As for the rest… if telling someone they’re wrong counts as putting them down for their opinion then its a good thing I voted for people to get a tougher skin. I have always made it a point to attack the ideas put forth as vigorously as possible and not go after the poster him/herself. Have I slipped? Absolutely, and I regret those moments of sheer idiocy on my part.
AN is the ideal place to come in and share your thoughts… and then watch them get torn to pieces by people who disagree with you. The trick is at the end of the day you need to be able to shrug it off, slap the other guy on the back and say “good game”. Then come back and play again the next day.
grover - January 19, 2009
+1
This is basically my position … phrased in a non-CGV fashion, which I don’t think I’d be able to do.
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
{terrorist fist bump}
grover - January 19, 2009
Sorry, grover, I really didn't mean anything other than
oaktoon and reztips, and now grover and PT, are involved with a large percentage of the dialogs that end up going back and forth seemingly endlessly with increasing levels of tempers rising.
Looking back at the way I wrote the comment, an apology is in order – I didn’t say what I meant, and the attempt at humor came across as critical instead of funny. Mea culpa.
Nico - January 19, 2009
Apology accepted
grover - January 19, 2009
Thanks - I actually do quite like you
That probably doesn’t come across on AN.
Nico - January 19, 2009
Not since the A's danced with Furcal...
Before that (and this probably belongs in CTM’s memories diary) you and I were accused of being in cahoots when arguing against certain posters.
grover - January 19, 2009
I'd hug you but I'm allergic to blue fur
Nico - January 19, 2009
Concur.
Leopold Bloom - January 19, 2009
Correct: he's much more likely to put someone down for their personality
Attacking opinions vs attacking personae: which is the more “personal” attack?
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
I would imagine, in all seriousness,
it depends upon the methods used.
If I’m offering you opinions and you’re telling me that my opinions are invalid, then that can be considered worse than pointing out my shortcomings. Chances are good, if the pointing out of the shortcoming is valid, the intended target already knows it. I am too thin-skinned, for instance. But hearing that my thoughts and especially opinions are invalid can be significantly more offensive/hurtful/whatever.
That said, I really don’t like the thought of Nico and MB and grover all fighting. I prefer my blog brethren to live in harmonious snarkiness and embittered communal failure. Plus none of you take yourselves too seriously, which may be the key difference to it all, and the reason so many of us love it here so much. At least that’s true for me. I enjoy the serious and the comical. I’m not sure how much you can truly enjoy this site if you limit yourself to one or the other.
Leopold Bloom - January 19, 2009
Agreed - for me, anyway, the more I post the more stupid things I say
Really, the only logical solution I can think of is to drink more.
Nico - January 19, 2009
I've said on multiple occasions that the distinction between personal attacks
and attacks on a person’s positions is a vapid and ultimately unsupportable one. People get angry when you impeach their arguments, because they perceive you as showing them up or trying to make them look bad. Whether or not it’s actually true, the perception is undeniable.
Given that, I personally see no point in distinguishing the two. If I was setting the rules, I’d abolish the distinction. Either you’re too much of an ass to justify your presence, or you aren’t. (I imagine AN often divides on which side of the line I fall on…) It’s quite possible to be an ass while not per se personally insulting anyone. What’s the justification for privileging that kind of assery above any other?
[gets off soapbox]
PaulThomas - January 19, 2009
I actually agree with you, PT
Especially on a board where people generally come to put forth their opinions, attacking opinions is little different from attacking them personally. And no one is suggesting a noob shouldn’t be responded to with “that’s incorrect” or “you’re wrong” – it’s all about HOW you speak to someone that determines whether they feel disagreed with (their problem), corrected (their problem), or belittled (unnecessary, IMO).
Nico - January 19, 2009
Get back on that soapbox
I realize that on AN we are little more than our avatars and our opinions but there is a difference between me calling you stupid and me calling your idea stupid. Smart people can adopt stupid positions on issues, that doesn’t make them stupid… just wrong.
Let me keep this simple so no one misunderstands my intent with this reply.
Paul, I don’t think you are stupid. I think some of your ideas are stupid. Folks can mess around with the wording all they want, substituting “stupid” for the word of their choice, but in the end if someone calls you stupid they are a) wrong and b) making a personal attack. If they attack your idea, that’s fair game per the CG’s.
And you’re damn straight people tend to get upset when their ideas are challenged! When someone calls you out on something you said they are generally trying to say that you are wrong. Being wrong looks bad… at the very least, no one likes to admit they were wrong and you in particular avoid such admissions like the plague. (I’m better at it than you but no one would ever mistake me as the living, breathing definition of humility.) So go ahead and get upset if your opinion on something gets attacked or challenged, better yet, defend your point! Because if you can’t defend what you said then guess what, you were wrong and since you shared your wrong opinion on a public forum the perception will be that you’ve been shown up. Why? Because you have been shown up! That’s the risk you take when making a public statement.
Now you may not see the point in distinguishing between a personal attack and an attack on your idea, but there seems to be an implication that you do see the difference between the two. You seemingly choose to make them equally offensive which may explain why you get so defensive when people challenge your comments; its as if you’ve decided that a challenge to your opinion equals a personal attack.
That is the wrong approach to have, especially in such an emotionally charged climate a sports blog! Like I said earlier, AN is a place to come and share your ideas and then watch them get torn to shreds by people who disagree with you. When the day is done you’ve got to be able to shake it off and share a beer with the guy who just spent the last hour hacking at your idea with an axe. AN is not a think tank nor a forum for higher discussion… it is an internet sports bar.
Act accordingly.
grover - January 19, 2009
What grover said
Flashfire - January 19, 2009
Yuppers. Rec'd.
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
In this sports bar
It’d be really nice if I can get some pretzels.
Bravo, grover. Very well said.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
These pretzels are making me thirsty!
Thing is, why not say “you’re wrong” instead of “let me talk slower because you obviously don’t get it”? What exactly is the cost of respecting people’s natural sensitivities? That’s the part that always gets my blood boiling, whether or not I’m in the conversation.
Nico - January 19, 2009
By the way, grover, I mean why doesn't everyone,
not you specifically.
Nico - January 19, 2009
Don't worry
Unlike you’re way earlier comment, this one was perfectly clear in its intent.
I hear what you’re saying about natural sensitivities, but in this instance I am not the problem. If PT (or anyone else for that matter) construes an attack on their idea as an attack on their person then they’ve come to the wrong place to talk A’s baseball. AN is not the place for snooty, emotionless, intellectual debate. The folks around here (and just so we’re clear I’m including PT in this) talk about the A’s with passion and enthusiasm, two traits that can lead to an emotional response to comments they disagree with.
That is the natural sensitivity of the group and I think it is more appropriate in this case for the individual to adapt their line of thinking then to ask the group to change to accommodate the individual. If someone thinks a vigorous response to their ideas is the same as a personal attack then they’ve walked into the jungle with the wrong mindset to succeed.
grover - January 19, 2009
I would just suggest everyone put a self-imposed
5-reply maximum on “heated exchanges” – from what I’ve seen, beyond the 5th reply usually little good is accomplished and a lot of bad feeling is created.
Nico - January 19, 2009
I'll give you brownie points for the idea
I’m just not sure it’ll work.
grover - January 20, 2009
I'm in your camp on this, obviously...
but, in the walk down memory lane in CTM’s diary, I found that he was pretty passionate and enthusiastic about the A’s. Annoying as hell, but… still.
Do I have a point? No, not really. Shred me.
FoolshGame22 - January 20, 2009
ooops...
consider myself shredded… reztips, that is.
FoolshGame22 - January 20, 2009
To me,
it’s still a forum where civility should be encouraged. I understand your argument, and I agree that a person should be prepared to defend their position. However, there are methods for cajoling someone into a reasoned debate without resorting to “you and your idea’s are stupid”. In my opinion, the second you frame an exchange in that manner, you become the stupid one (not specifically you).
I have had a couple of exchanges with people over the years that I found less than satisfying. There are a couple of them that I wouldn’t mind running across at a game so I could share an opinion or two in person. I generally say nothing to people over the internet that I wouldn’t say to them if they were standing in front of me. I usually view folks who insult others via the anonymity of the internet with contempt. Obviously, those who come to provoke a reaction are excluded.
One thing I’ll say about the exchanges between you and PT, you both play by the same rules. So it’s really not that big of a deal. It’s the way you both like your arguments arranged, and they can actually be very enlightening.
alox - January 20, 2009
You don't have to
sell that to me, Nico. In other words, I agree with you. I am of the “treat others how you wish to be treated” ilk.
And no I am not trying to win Cindi points here.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
See, that doesn't work for me
I wish to be worshipped and I don’t see how my prostrating myself before another poster is going to earn me my proper deification.
grover - January 20, 2009
Well
I wish to be worshipped too. Just taking a different route.
And to be clear: if the poster deserves it, I say let him have it. Politely. Until it’s time not to be polite. And when it’s over, it’s Miller time (or whatever your beverage choice may be).
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
I prefer Coors when faced with the basic domestics
grover - January 20, 2009
your beer is stupid.
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
My beer is the banquet beer!
grover - January 20, 2009
banquets are stupid.
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
totally!
They serve as a really silly deus ex machina by which the playwright can move the story forward and provide the protagonist with knowledge that he can’t plausibly be privy to within the reality of the play itself.
Oh, wait — banquets … my bad.
monkeyball - January 20, 2009
I can't go on, I'll go on.
There was a young man around here who used to empty the waste bins and take care of the pruning who wrote plays. I’m not sure what became of him. I think he ended up working for Apple…
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
#$^& that sh!t; Pabst. Blue. Ribbon.
LowcountryJoe - January 20, 2009
We only serve-up this around here:
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
I'll have whatever the hallucinating man in the corner and his invisible friend are having, barkeep
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
I'm glad grover was online this afternoon
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
I'm fully aware of the distinction the CGs draw
and (hypocrisy alert) have not been above tapdancing along that line at times when I was particularly irate over something. That being said, I think it’s a fiction. It does not remotely correlate to my observations of human behavior. It’s also largely self-serving, as it distinctly privileges people like you and I who “know the rules of the game” at the expense of people who aren’t as well-versed in AN etiquette. Maybe that’s a social good, but maybe it isn’t.
I’ll grant you that what’s characterized as “personal attacks” are on average more toward the “ass” side of the comment spectrum than “statement attacks,” but that’s hardly a hard and fast rule.
“I don’t think you’ve thought this through thoroughly” is a personal attack. “This is the most illogical fanpost argument I’ve ever seen” is a statement attack. I would be much less offended by the first of those, however, and I imagine most people would agree with me. The problem with that distinction, like all bright-line rules, is that it excludes legitimate CGVs and (much more often, IMO, though that’s not important to my argument here) includes illegitimate ones. “Flags” are inevitably reviewed by the mods anyway on a case-by-case basis. So why bother with this silly, artificial distinction?
Keep in mind here that while Nico and I appear to be arguing from the same position, I think we’re doing so for opposite reasons. Kind of like the feminists and the Christian fundamentalists both backing a ban on pornography.
I think that garden variety quote-personal attacks-unquote, along the lines of the first quoted line above, ought not be CGV worthy. If someone can’t handle that, they need to grow a thicker skin.
I’m proposing to even out the standards by making them more lenient. I understand Nico to be proposing to even them out by making them more strict, or at least no less strict than the present. Those are substantially different positions, but they both rest on a standard-based “don’t be a jackass” concept instead of a rule-based “don’t say something about the other person’s innate characteristics” concept.
PaulThomas - January 20, 2009
No banning of porn!
I understand where you’re coming from but I can’t agree with you. I think your examples of attacking statements are weighed to favor your point (well, duh) so allow me to put them in a neutral context for a moment.
“I think you are stupid” is a personal attack. “I think this fanpost is stupid” is a statement attack. I honestly think more people would be more offended by being called stupid then to have one of their statements called stupid. The implication being that everything a stupid person says is, by nature, stupid.
I don’t think I have the means to change your mind on this so I won’t even try. But you talked about knowing the rules of the game and I try to play by the rules; so if I’m attacking one of your ideas then you need to know that that is all I’m aiming for. And if some newbie comes along and tries to play without knowing the rules before hand then they’re in a for a long day… and that’s their problem. You like to play gamble Paul, are you going to sit down at a table with a wad of cash without knowing how the game is played?
Yeah, it would be great if we could all be nicer to each other. I don’t see that happening unless Blez decides he wants to change how things run in his sports bar. AN is not a democracy, its a benevolent dictatorship and if you want the rules to change then you (or Nico or whomever) need to take it up with The Man… preferably in private.
grover - January 20, 2009
ugh
“play gamble” is what happens when you start by saying “play cards” and then badly edit to “gamble”.
grover - January 20, 2009
Done stuff like that many times myself
Flashfire - January 20, 2009
I'd even disagree with PT in saying...
…I don’t believe “I don’t think you’ve thought this through thoroughly” is a personal attack. To me, it’s an observation that, while it may annoy the person it’s directed to, is nothing like saying "You’re an idiot and you have no idea what you’re talking about.
If someone says “I don’t think you’ve thought this through thoroughly” then goes on to explain why, what’s the problem? Then it falls on you to counter it or accept that, well, maybe you DIDN’T think it through enough.
Flashfire - January 20, 2009
But this is precisely my point
Qualitatively, "I don’t think you’ve thought this through thoroughly" and “You’re an idiot and you have no idea what you’re talking about.” are wildly different statements. But they are both directed to the personal characteristics of the other poster, characteristics which are not per se relevant to the validity of their arguments. Certainly I’ve at times been right about things I didn’t think through thoroughly beforehand.
Saying that someone is wrong because they haven’t thought something through thoroughly, and leaving it at that, is an inadequate logical argument because it doesn’t refute the other person’s position. That’s fine— it’s just garden-variety bad logic, something everyone is guilty of at times. What’s not fine is calling that a CGV. It might be a statement about personal characteristics but it’s not close to enough to warrant disciplining.
I think you’re actually agreeing with me without realizing it.
PaulThomas - January 20, 2009
I'd have a problem with someone telling me I didn't think something through...
…if they didn’t tell or show me why.
Flashfire - January 20, 2009
Just to clear this point up
None of this is in reference to you. I know your style well enough by now that I’m not going to be offended by anything you say about one of my posts (which isn’t to say I won’t snark back). My comments on this thread are strictly by way of sitewide commentary on the rules.
I may be a lawyer-in-training, but “legalism,” in the sense of fussy adherence to brightline rules at the expense of reality, bugs me— and some of these “personal-attack-or-not” debates (especially on defective threads by new posters) have started verging into that territory.
PaulThomas - January 20, 2009
Not a concern o' mine
Gotta question though. When can people start with the lawyer jokes?
grover - January 20, 2009
The fact
that you asked before starting on your own shows there is hope after all. (ha)
The fact that I just wrote that shows I am getting a little too comfy for my own good.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
A lawyer and a snake were found run over
What was the one difference?
(I’m sure Paul knows this one)
Flashfire - January 20, 2009
Officially? About 30 months from now, i.e. late 2011...
assuming I pass the bar on the first try… and haven’t been reduced to living out of a cardboard box from running out of money by then. (I suppose I could still represent the homeless community, but that doesn’t pay so well.)
PaulThomas - January 20, 2009
on the other hand, you'll have a growing client base ...
monkeyball - January 20, 2009
Hmmm.
I think I should be hurt or offended, but I’m neither.
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
Concur.
Leopold Bloom - January 19, 2009
Sorry about that.
alox - January 19, 2009
I'm not sure I share the concerns for the "noob"...
…Don’t get me wrong, there are areas here where we could improve, but when it’s narrowed down to newbies specifically, and how they might react, I have the following thoughts…
1) Why a separate standard? It’s kind of disingenuous to treat one group differently at the beginning. Almost like luring them in with candy then whacking them with a stick once they’re in.
2) Even if the noob is treated with kid-gloves, they can still see how everybody else treats each other and come to the same conclusion.
Granted, there will always be some interaction between friends that will seem to cross the line in the eyes of an outsider, but in this regard I think we should strive for consistency.
UncleLeo - January 19, 2009
Candy AND a stick!
I always wondered why my dating life was so unsuccessful…
Leopold Bloom - January 19, 2009
Have you considered added a van, that could be the spark you are looking for?
A'sfaninNC - January 19, 2009
qotm, tag-team edition
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
Don't forget to advertise
Flashfire - January 19, 2009
LOL!
Excuse me while I go teach my son to avoid such advertising.
grover - January 19, 2009
Actually, to take the humor out of it for a moment, that's probably a very good idea
Flashfire - January 19, 2009
Why candy?
Why not Tibet?
Nico - January 19, 2009
That's been done before
Flashfire - January 19, 2009
To be fair,
candy has gotten quite expensive. The 7-11 wants $1.09 for a regular-sized Reese’s. Candy should be free. In my opinion.
Leopold Bloom - January 19, 2009
I'm more concerned about how candy
is stuck inside all those wrappers. Free candy!!!!!111
Nico - January 19, 2009
How can we
be concerned with the state of AN when it costs a buck-nine for a Reese’s?!
Plain criminal.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
Truer words never spoken.
A buck oh nine for a frickin’ candy bar.
Leopold Bloom - January 19, 2009
Freedom isn't free
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
How the heck have there been like 5 comments about Freeing things
and no one has had the decency to mention Kraut yet?
5Aces - January 19, 2009
There's tension betwix
our simian friend and the goat lover, methinks.
Leopold Bloom - January 19, 2009
And it's tearing me apart!
Nico - January 19, 2009
At 7-11
In other words, there are no good reasons to go into a 7 goddamn 11 (they don’t even have coffee-flavored coffee any more)
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
As a sidenote, have you been reading the new "Dr." Denis Leary book?
Flashfire - January 19, 2009
Yes
I enjoyed it. That particular rant, however, goes back to the stand-up (and is the only thing I ever think about when someone says 7-11). Well, that and the Wu-Tang Clan.
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
Yep
“That’s why they call it under-fucking-wear.”
Flashfire - January 19, 2009
"You're not in the Wu-Tang Clan
You’re not even in A Tribe Called Quest, asshole."
I think I’m close on that one.
Flashfire - January 19, 2009
Yep
but it’s the “acting like he’s a card-carrying member of the Wu-Tang Clan, and HE’S WHITE” line that sticks for me.
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
I tried giving away mumia for a while, but the cops shut me down
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
I mostly agree with that
I think though for someone (especially someone who is a non-lurker and therefore unfamiliar with certain personalities) posting for the first time, there should be a little leeway, so as not to discourage him/her from posting in the future.
AN was my first time entering the blog universe, and even though Blez took the time to alert me, I had to find out the hard way how it could be here. Not that I was free from fault; I think the biggest issue was the amount of posts (who knew less was more?) at first. That and thinking I knew everything about the A’s without realizing how far behind the times I really was (and still am). So I stick to what I know now.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
How's Campy looking for 2009?
Nico - January 19, 2009
Crosby should be worried.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
He looks low and outside?
grover - January 19, 2009
Swing and a miss
A'sfaninNC - January 22, 2009
Maybe
But I think in a lot of ways it’s more honest, more helpful, and better to hold new posters to the same standard.
If someone posts that the A’s should trade Barton for A-Rod (or Crosby for 12 baseballs), I think they deserve a response telling them the trade doesn’t make sense. I think it would be harmful to them (and to me as the responder) to say “aww, that’s a cute idea new poster.”
No one knows everything about the A’s, baseball, or anything else but I think the realization you discuss in your second paragraph should be considered a positive change.
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
Agreed
if the post is completely off-base, then the poster earns whatever is coming to him/her.
I often comment with an “Oh boy” as a sort of warning sign to the poster/commenter that it’s about to get ugly.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
I've seen that.
Me likee.
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
Well, is this hypothetical poster asking for 12 new baseballs?
grover - January 19, 2009
No way we're paying for those...
FREE BASEBALLS NOW!!!
Leopold Bloom - January 19, 2009
Discussions
We are lucky to have a GM who we trust to lead the team. The whole stats vs. scouting impasse can be moderated by our GM, who clearly uses both tools to build a better team.
When debate occurs, I think it helps if members of AN consider the issue du jour, and thoughtfully weigh-in, changing the argument from one-on-one pissing contests, to a discussion with valid points. The side with the best valid points should prevail….It’s the theory of “the genius of the community.” In this case, we would be much better served to replace the word “genius” with “knowledge.”
greenpaddedgloves - January 19, 2009
Like a high percentage of readers
I’m just looking for weird statistics and clever word play, derived from obscure historical non-baseball sources. Fcuk debate. It’s useless…who the hell reads something, then changes their mind?!!!
Oh yeah….putting stuff in quotes is kinda neat, since the silent writing cannot convey the nuances of face-to-face conversation…….
“Paul Thomas”
One won lost won - January 19, 2009
suggestion
could we get a thread permanently on the front page explaining the alternative stats? as stated before, not everybody is quite as intense about their sabermetrics, but alternative stats are obviously the main focus of many threads on here. posting a resource right here on AN for people to self-educate seems like a better idea than leaving it to the super statheads to say “just go to baseball-reference.com. how did you NOT know to do that” when somebody posts something silly or uninformed. it seems like the best way to spread the gospel of sabermetrics would be to educate the ignorant rather than put them down for not understanding. and the best way to help somebody appreciate your point of view is to explain it to them, not insult them for not getting it. think about the amount of time and energy the statheaded fellows could save by collaborating on a guidebook of useful stats, what the acronyms mean, how the numbers are calculated, and why these stats are useful in player evaluation. if that resource was available on the front page, pointed out in big bold “PLEASE READ ME BEFORE POSTING” letters, and if new registrants were directed to this page when registering, i think there would be way less issues between the statheads and n00bs. even in this thread, i see a few people responding about how dumb new, non-sabermetric posters are.
and to anybody who says there is no elitism on this site, i don’t mean to attack you, but you’re crazy. i can’t remember the thread it was part of, but a few weeks/months back somebody posted something that basically said “as a new poster, you shouldn’t be trying to post your own thoughts until you understand (and implied: agree with) the rest of us veterans”. my recollection might be a little exaggerated, but it was ridiculous, elitist, snarky, etc.
i have made a few comments on here asking for people to stop with the attacks and condescension and just exchange information, keeping in mind that we’re all A’s fans and ultimately, we just want to see the team succeed. unfortunately, those requests usually fall on deaf ears. i’ve gotten into some heated wars of words, but i don’t think i’ve ever initiated it. it’s usually because somebody insults me for a post i made or else i respond to another user being insulted for his/her posts.
overall, this site is awesome. somebody else commented that this is the place to go for accurate info on the A’s. i agree. AN is a terrific resource and while i’ve never visited other team sites, i highly doubt any of them contain the level of intellect AN has. everybody please keep up the good work, but before you hit “post”, give it a 2nd or 3rd thought.
jlanning17 - January 19, 2009
Good suggestion, jlanning17 - we could put up a link similar to ANciallary terms
summarizing the metrics most often used and maybe even a link to sites that give these stats for players (I’m never sure where to look for defensive stat info, for example).
As for the elitism/attacks/condescension issue, as I write this “need thicker skin” is leading “post more considerately” 62 / 43 so … hmm. :-(
Nico - January 19, 2009
The problem is going to be some numbers are locked behind paid accounts
I don’t suppose there’s anyway AN could get a waiver or sign some kind of contract to allow its members access to paid sites?
grover - January 19, 2009
No, but our glossary can explain
that stat XYZ is compiled by so-and-so and it attempts to measure such-and-such, but the data is proprietary and you can only get it if you’re a member of that site. Maybe even a bit of commentary about how respected the stat is in the general stathead community.
Most of us probably don’t need the actual data; we just want to know what the heck XYZ means.
iglew - January 19, 2009
I do like that
There are a number of them I don’t really understand and haven’t had the chance to try to dig into.
Flashfire - January 19, 2009
"i don’t mean to attack you, but you’re crazy."
Good thing I’ve got a thick skin (and a matted pelt of monkey fur), otherwise I’d reasonably assume that’s a CGV-worthy insult, and certainly a really poor choice of communications strategy.
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
I'm waiting for when he means to attack you
That should be big!
Nico - January 19, 2009
TWSS
monkeyball - January 19, 2009
Agreed on the stats acronym glossary -- can't wait for argument over the definitions to be contained in it.
Otherwise, if you were referring to the exchange among you, monkeyball and me in the Giambi-should-apologize thread, yeah — I believe you didn’t know that one of the standard-issue running gags on this site is MB’s poo flinging propensity and talent — nor that he’s one of the resident grammarians. No hard feelings? Maybe “running gags” (above, Nico’s ruminant propensity and talent, etc.) should have their own compendium, as well?
I do believe the dialogue has gotten more aggressive in tone. I would hate to see the contemporary response to my first diary — arguing that Ellis is too short to play second base. It was, thankfully, a gentler time back then.
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
no hard feelings
i just wondered what the hell you were getting at regarding “could/couldn’t care less”, because i was right :)
jlanning17 - January 19, 2009
You were -- and you couldn't have known, in your state of innocent noobitude, that he had done it on purpose.
Incidentally, you also need to know that in high school he played washtub bass for a band named Innocent Noobitude.
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
I thought short guys played second and tall guys played third
PaulThomas - January 19, 2009
No, STOOPID
(idea).
Actually, my analysis was not that incisive. It was a good time to be a noob.
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
On the stat glossary topic,
I note that Lookout Landing has a wiki setup that they use for info on players and various LLcillary terms.
LL has a very different personality from what we seem to want here at AN, but I wonder if a wiki mechanism may still be useful, both for our stat glossary and for ANcillary terms.
If there were a convenient and well-managed way for individuals to contribute information, I think our community could build up quite a wealth of it. Then in regular AN posts people could link to it.
iglew - January 19, 2009
How would you characterize the differences betw LL and AN? I’ve only gone there occasionally (and not recently) to check-out Deanna’s versions of the interludes.
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
Two biggest differences are that it's exclusionarily staty and very 20-25 y/o male in tone/atmosphere
for both better and worse in both cases.
mikeA - January 19, 2009
So their behavior is roughly 15 years more mature then?
Nico - January 19, 2009
LL = self-satisfaction as performance art
74mk - January 19, 2009
Their performance art will make them go blind.
Nico - January 19, 2009
LL is the pop-up book version of AN.
Everything is in pictures and it’s read mostly by kids.
Needless to say, I love it.
Rocktopus - January 19, 2009
Well, for one thing, on Lookout Landing
they’d never have a feel good discussion about how to make the site less elitist and more welcoming to newbies.
On LL, snarkily slapping down some poor schlub who isn’t part of the cool gang is a feature, not a bug. If you’re sensitive, or if you just like being nice all the time, you don’t survive there, and they like it that way. If you thrive in that sort of atmosphere, then you become part of the group.
That’s just one difference, and I don’t mean to exaggerate it. I also don’t mean to imply that people there are mean, because that’s really not what it is. They are very friendly in their own way, and far more open to self-deprecation, too (which is probably why LL becomes more entertaining when their team sucks, while at AN it’s the reverse). But it’s a very different mood there. LL is also like a sports bar, but a smaller and hipper sports bar with a lot of edge. Some people would much rather go there; others wouldn’t.
iglew - January 19, 2009
Still struggling with this question
ie, how is Lookout Landing different from Athletics Nation.
Yes, it’s about tone, but even more it’s about what is officially adopted as the proper tone. We’ve got plenty of edgy people here, and we have as much wit here as they have there. But behind it all we have a general philosophy of benevolent inclusiveness. Good ol’ Uncle Blez comes by from time to time and says, “I love this party. Everyone is welcome. I want everyone to be happy.” It’s a big tent here. We want to be a place for everyone. We tolerate elitists not because AN is elitist, but because elitists are people too so we don’t want to hold that against them.
If you want to understand what makes Lookout Landing different, try this post by Graham. Imagine that Graham is grover and something like that was posted on AN. In fact, it’s pretty easy to imagine grover writing something like that, because Graham and grover are somewhat similar personalities. What is not easy to imagine is a post like that getting that sort of response on AN.
You don’t need to wade through the lengthy comment threads. All you need to know is that the community is solidly behind Graham. One guy tries to challenge him, using (initially) polite and rational arguments like we’d expect to see here, but he just gets kicked around by the crowd for fun. It doesn’t even matter if the other guy is right or wrong. What matters is that Graham is a big swinging dick, and the other guy is who-the-fuck-are-you.
They even have a rule there, “Don’t be mean unless you’re Graham.” Try to imagine a rule on AN saying, “Don’t be mean unless you’re grover.” We’re just not like that.
Also notice the slogan on the front page. Can you imagine AN ever having a slogan that includes “I hate you and find you stupid”. That’s what I mean when I say LL has a very different personality.
iglew - January 19, 2009
Heheheheh
I agree about LL and all the comments related above. I have to use the “Opera” browser now to look at LL, because if I use Mozilla Firefox or MS Explorer, a pop-up window says I have to agree to stop making unwanted remarks or I am banned.
What was my unwanted remark? I posted too often that the pitcher Strasburg from San Diego State would refuse to sign if Seattle drafted him. That really upset EVERYONE there on LL!
One won lost won - January 19, 2009
Hmmmm.... you trolled and got banned...... shocking.....
mikeA - January 19, 2009
Never was banned
because I didn’t troll. I simply have not pressed the “okay” button on the “knock it off” message, warning me that I would get banned if I persisted in responding to witty posts like
by saying he isn’t going to sign with Seattle. I didn’t call anyone an idiot, or disparage people, or say, “Seattle SUCKS!” or any other negative.
I unilaterally decided to not comment further on the site. Wasting too much time online as is…..
One won lost won - January 20, 2009
I read that LL post the other day,
and apparently there’s some sort of history between Graham and the offending poster on USS Mariner, so that made the whole exchange a little more understandable. But yes, in general I agree with your take on AN vs. LL. And yes, LL is extremely entertaining when the M’s are bad. Let’s hope the Mariners allow them to remain as entertaining as possible.
whiteshoes40 - January 19, 2009
Re: "Graham is probably right"
1. The post is nasty. Worse, it’s unfunny (I recommend cyanide! Ha ha ha! Cuntington! Get it? Look how witty and curmudgeonly I am!), so all that’s left is distilled, naked scorn. There’s a kind of violence to it.
2. I love that in the course of an epically condescending rant, he pauses for a moment to pout about his adversary’s condescension.
3. Also amusing (and revealing): After pounding out several hundred words dedicated to demonstrating his analytic/intellectual superiority, he still felt compelled to state it explicitly in his conclusion (“… several orders of magnitude better at this than you …”).
4. The comment thread is repulsive.
74mk - January 20, 2009
I think it's more funny if you're
familiar with the community and prepared to go along with the prevailing culture. I do frequently find LL entertaining and the prevailing culture is part of that. (And yes, I do like Graham, though one would never say it like that on LL….)
That said, it’s definitely not for everyone … which was the whole point of discussing this. I mentioned in passing that LL and AN have very different personalities, and someone asked me to elaborate.
I still think we could make good use of the wiki idea, though.
iglew - January 20, 2009
I'm somewhat familiar with the community,
but not at all prepared to go along with the prevailing culture. They’re welcome to it, but if AN were to codify preening aggression in the same way LL has, I would find some other place to participate in A’s-related discussion.
74mk - January 20, 2009
codify
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
monkeyball - January 20, 2009
Straining the dictionary definition a bit, but yes, I know what it means.
I am eschewing the “record on a stone tablet” sense in favor of the “cultivate as a firm standard for participation, a code of behavior, such that the stone tablet may as well exist” sense.
Put another way: If LL had a rule that read “you must act like a jerk and constantly talk about how awesome beer is in order to participate”, they could codify that by posting a link to said rule on the site’s sidebar. I am saying that link is there even if it isn’t actually there. Not to get all metaphysical on you or anything. Wait, does “metaphysical” mean what I think it means? Better check … yes! Excellent.
Or something like that. I don’t know. I was typing quickly.
74mk - January 20, 2009
At LL, "codify" means "strike in the face with a cod"
I made a good faith effort to find some humorous image to insert here, but no dice. You’ll have to use your imaginations.
PaulThomas - January 20, 2009
monkeyball - January 20, 2009
Monkeyball 10, PT 0
nevermoor - January 20, 2009
I must be twisted
I found the comments in that thread funny.
LowcountryJoe - January 20, 2009
I must be a cranky sourpuss ...
… because I’ve always found LL to be more tiresome, in its own way, than HH.
monkeyball - January 20, 2009
I must be a fat, boring, no-good husband...
…because that’s what my wife said before going to work today.
5Aces - January 20, 2009
That's awful
You are not fat.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
Who's "scruffy-looking?"
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
I have always wondered what sort of process one would have in place
to herd nerf. It seems to me it wouldn’t be a challenging job. You can keep quite a bit of it in one place, and unless it’s windy, it shouldn’t move around a lot.
5Aces - January 21, 2009
Just big-boned
Flashfire - January 20, 2009
Exactly.
Is it my fault that this particular bone is really round and in a perfect circle around my waist?
It’s better than a six-pack- It’s a pony keg!
Round is a shape!
etc…
5Aces - January 21, 2009
Circles have no irregular curves either
Flashfire - January 21, 2009
-1
I would not write something like that, because I make it a point to try and focus my energies at the topics and ideas in the thread. Graham’s post was focused on attacking the individual, repeatedly and with as many weapons as possible.
grover - January 20, 2009
My bad
As you probably recognized, my purpose here was to illustrate the tonal difference between LL and AN, not to compare and contrast Graham and grover. I only used your name as an example to help the illustration along, and if I misrepresented you along the way, I apologize and retract.
iglew - January 20, 2009
I think your link succeeds in showing the differences between LL & AN
Graham’s post probably gets deleted and there’s a damn good chance he skips getting a strike and goes straight to banned if he posted that piece on AN. I don’t always play nicely with others but I’ve never gone to the lengths that Graham employed… not even with oaktoon. Hell, I’ve never been that vicious towards Bobby Crosby!
I’d just as soon not be associated with a post like that in any way, shape and/or form.
grover - January 20, 2009
Agree on that
There was no need for a poster comparison. The link was comparison enough. Compared to that, most everything else here (like, 99%) is rather mild.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
Just so we're clear
That’s the bit that really bothers me. I like to think that my reputation on AN, while a bit tarnished, isn’t as bloody as that.
grover - January 20, 2009
It isn't.
No worries.
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
Not even close.
And although I sit firmly on the side of the fence that promotes proper internet (and non-internet) etiquette, I am not so sure AN wouldn’t lose a little of its flavor were we to see a tamer, watered-down version of {insert your favorite “meanie” here}.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
I hear you, grover,
I was thinking something rather different from how it came out, and I shouldn’t have been so careless. Like I said before, I apologize and retract.
iglew - January 21, 2009
We are happily elitist
but Graham has a personal history with that particular user, as he is a troll at USS Mariner (where Graham is a mod), so I don’t think that post is a very fair representation.
Jeff Sullivan - January 20, 2009
Enh
It’s still true that you have a (presumably ironic) “rule” saying no one is allowed to be mean except Graham. And whether he has a history or not, the fact remains that LL has the sort of culture where people will enjoy a post like that.
Seriously, however others may have taken it, I never meant the example as evidence that LL is bad and AN is good. They’re two sports bars with very different personalities. In terms of personalities, I like them both equally but in different ways.
I’m a regular at AN and only an occasional at LL because I’m an A’s fan, not because I think AN’s style is better than LL’s.
iglew - January 21, 2009
i didn't see ANciallary terms
that post has some good stuff in it, but adding some statistical guides would be helpful making the link jump out a bit more on the homepage, and directing new users there would help.
about the condescension, i think the wording of the poll is partially to blame. it kind of puts the user into a GW-style “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” position. the first choice kind of backs you into the corner of seeming hypersensitive if you choose it.
i don’t want a site where the moderators delete or censor posts because they’re “insensitive”. i’d prefer it if some people on here could grow up a little (then again, adults are just big kids…) and avoid the snark and insults on their own. it turns new users off and that means we’re missing out on other A’s fans who probably have some interesting thoughts to contribute. i don’t see how that helps the site.
if you read a post full nonsense, just shake your head and move on to something that’s actually interesting, or make an attempt to help that person. if your attempt seems to fail, ignore them. insulting the ignorant poster will only start a worthless back and forth. it’s completely unproductive. the veterans of this site should know that and act accordingly.
really, i admire and respect the serious statheads. you offer valuable insights and information. your expertise in that area kind of gives you a responsibility, though. try to teach the rest of us instead of dismissing us as ignoramuses.
jlanning17 - January 19, 2009
I guess I didn't see
“people need to be more considerate of sensitivities on a blog” as something as only the hypersensitive could get behind.
Terrorist.
Nico - January 19, 2009
More useful background, esp. with fANfest upcoming:
— any time Nico really gets behind you, you should run.
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
maybe when people an unverified claim
they should preface it with “i can’t actually back this up, but i think that maybe…”.
then instead of ripping the poster into shreds, people could reply with, “well that’s actually not correct because…”
travdog6 - January 19, 2009
WWMMD?
The Dogfather - January 19, 2009
Good post Dog...
Because if everybody used good manners they wouldn’t need community guidelines.
IM4Oakgal - January 19, 2009
The question is, if something can't be proven
does that mean it’s necessarily wrong? I say no, but I think others say yes. Of course I can’t prove that, so…
Nico - January 19, 2009
See,
there is a God.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
Prove it
FreeSeatUpgrade - January 19, 2009
It's not Nico?
Guess the whole shepherd thing threw me off.
67MARQUEZ - January 19, 2009
No
But usually the better question is: if something can be disproven is it necessarily wrong or just an opinion.
I come down for the former, and find the latter argument amongst the most bothersome on AN.
nevermoor - January 19, 2009
Leave the "proof" for math work.
Everything outside of mathematics is simply opinion and there is no “proof” in the world. Facts are facts, but they don’t “prove” anything. Statistics are “facts”, but they don’t “prove” that attempts at stealing bases are counterproductive actions.
If every swan you’ve seen in your life is white, the “fact” that you’ve seen dozens of said swans, hundreds, thousands, does not “prove that there are no black swans”.
One won lost won - January 19, 2009
That's very odd, because I'd say just the opposite.
Many of the hard sciences have solid facts. It’s a fact that your heart pumps blood. It’s a fact that lead is heavier than water. It’s a fact that the sun is larger than the moon. These are not just opinions.
Pure math, on the other hand, is entirely an artificial construct. So while its theorems are also factual, they are only factual within an abstract logical world, and you can define another world in which the facts are different.
iglew - January 20, 2009
I didn't phrase my argument very well
upon further review.
I didn’t say that “facts” do not exist. But I tried to convey is that “proof” is not based on “facts”. All the physical “facts” you stated are accepted as “valid” by independent examination of agreed-upon evidence.
One will find no way to “prove” that the Earth circles the Sun.
The fact that the Earth circles the Sun is valid.
One won lost won - January 20, 2009
Deduction is not the only form of proof
and, indeed, it’s a tiny minority of the logic out there, most of which is either inductive (“John is a mammal, all people are mammals, thus John is probably a person”) or abductive (“John is both a mammal and a person, thus it’s probably true that all people are mammals”). The difference between those and the simple deductive “John is a person, all people are mammals, therefore John is a mammal” statement is that they both require real-world evidence to back them up. But when that evidence is available, induction and abduction are perfectly valid forms of proving statements.
PaulThomas - January 20, 2009
Teleb?
LowcountryJoe - January 20, 2009
The problem as I see it is simple
Not everything people say they’ve disproven actually has been, especially when it pertains to various player preferences and what makes someone better than someone else.
Some of the stuff can be proven with stats and figures and people can be shown as wrong, especially if they’re saying things that are clearly incorrect.
As they say, taste is subjective. Sometimes personal preferences are taken to the extreme by people who act like those with different preferences or beliefs of what’s more important are wrong if they can’t throw a bunch of deep saberstats back at someone else.
Flashfire - January 19, 2009
You're absolutely right that not everything can be disproven
But a textbook example of something that can be is the “Jack Cust sucks” argument. It is wrong. It has been disproven by everyone who has ever looked past his batting average.
Personal preferences are great, and have a lot of space in baseball (and many other areas). Easy examples are comparing two good players, HoF worthiness, and draft selections. They do not, however, get someone out of any factually incorrect assertion.
nevermoor - January 20, 2009
I don't know many people who say "Jack Cust sucks" and are doing it past...
…a gameday thread whenever he strikes out.
Cust is obviously one of AN’s primary debate favorites. He doesn’t suck but he is what he is and the larger debate centers around people liking part of what he brings to the table while disliking another part.
It also centers around people either wishing he would (or could) improve in some areas vs. wanting someone else who could provide similar production without certain other areas he comes up short in. Of course, a player like that would cost more but that’s another discussion entirely.
Flashfire - January 20, 2009
[head implodes]
green star oakland - January 20, 2009
Is there anything in particular that is incorrect about what I said?
Flashfire - January 20, 2009
Not that we haven't beaten to death elsewhere.
green star oakland - January 20, 2009
I wasn't planning on beating anything to death
Merely summing up what I’ve seen and indicating it’s more than just people saying “Jack Cust sucks.”
Flashfire - January 20, 2009
BEAT HORSE NOW!!!
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
Can it wait 'til I finish my yogurt?
It’s orange creme and I have to say it’s pretty fricking good.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
NO!
NOW!
(and when you’re finished with that, go tell Macha the bad news.)
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
*breaks out the whip*
But seriously, this is part of the underlying annoyance I have with some of the debates. When it’s more than just a basic ‘so-and-so sucks’ argument, sometimes people try to reduce it to just that and debate that empty point instead of what’s actually being said.
Flashfire - January 20, 2009
[head explodes]
Hey – back to normal now. Thanks.
green star oakland - January 20, 2009
Around the diamond
I like what Kurt Suzuki brings to the table with the good batting average but I dislike his low power and penchant for double plays. I wish he would improve his power. Failing that, I would like a player who provides similar production, but with more power and without the double plays. But hey, that’s just one man’s opinion!
Mark Ellis is a heady player and has pretty decent power for a little guy, but what is with all those popups? No bad hops in the air, my coach used to say. I wish Mark could level out that swing and bring the batting average up. Even better would be a guy with similar production but who sprays line drives all over the field.
Bobby Crosby is… hoooo boy, he’s not so good.
Healthy Chavez is a talented player no doubt about that. Decent average, good power… Man, that guy can’t come through in the clutch though. I sure wish he improve on that area of his game. Learn to focus. I don’t know if he can though. What I’d really like is a guy who provides similar production but also hits in the clutch!
Rajai, I love his speed and his aggressiveness. Not a very good hitter, though… Too bad how one part of his game is good and another is less good. I wish he’d get in the batting cage and improve that swing! But really, some people like speed and some people like hitting. Live and let live, I say. This is America! Or we could get a guy with his good qualities but who also hits!
mikeA - January 20, 2009
Rec'd
PaulThomas - January 20, 2009
Amen.
andeux - January 20, 2009
one more thing
there should be a permanent front page article on why jack cust is not the worst baseball player ever because of his strickouts!!!11 and his fat baseclogging ass. every poster must read this, then take a quiz shortly after about why cust is good.
travdog6 - January 19, 2009
There should also be a Greg Smith icon located
just beyond the lower left-hand corner of the screen.
Nico - January 19, 2009
With Bobby Crosby swinging at it.
green star oakland - January 19, 2009
I think that most people try to follow the community guidelines.
Some folks enjoy a little trash talking to each other and if that is the way they like to interract that seems ok. For instance grover and Nico often write about each other in a highly critical way but I am very sure that neither would speak to me in that way because they would know that it’s inappropriate and that I would be uncomfortable if they did. I trust their level of maturity and their level of kindness. (Yes, IMO and interractions with grover I find him to be a kind guy). It’s only when someone is really not liking the way people are responding with negative comments and the comments continue that I think it goes too far. It’s hard to discontinue the discourse when someone is insulting you.,,,but people need to do that. There are only a few people on the site that will continue to insult when they are confronted and made aware that their comments are offensive. As for some people acting like know it alls…come on what would you do in real life? We’d just put up with it and avoid the person …you can do that on AN too. You don’t always have to prove the person wrong or tell them that they are being overbearing. Tolerance can be a magical thing.
IM4Oakgal - January 19, 2009
You know,
I start to respond to this person and that on this thread, and…the reality is we are all here for a common love. Why we’re here really is incidental. And we need all the pieces. We need comic relief, and seriousness and statheads, and old-timers that remember when the A’s moved to Oakland, and young ones who barely remember the great three.
And grover’s right: this is essentially a sports bar and of course a great many of us are passionate about it.
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
Yep
and we know what can happen at a real bar every now and then. Some get belligerent, some cry in their beer, and some dance with the wrong girl. And still we come back the next day.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
Well stated.
BTW, I’m sorry I hit on your wife.
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
She's in the "ex" column now
to no fault of yours. I actually took it as a compliment, but I’m weird like that.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
Out of my head, you!
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
If you insist
I was only planning on staying ’til lunch anyway.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
My day so far:
Anticipation
Impatience
Tears of pride, admiration, inspiration, relief and did I mention PRIDE?
Cheers
One long, happy exhale: Ahhhhhhhhh….
In phase one, I responded to an email from a colleague who is black: “Is this a great day, or what?”
She wrote back “The Best Day Ever…”
The Dogfather - January 20, 2009
Boy, I dunno ...
… seems like a bit of an overreaction to the news of the day.
monkeyball - January 20, 2009
So, you're Tarzan now?
Here I thought you were the guy on the end.
The Dogfather - January 20, 2009
That's not a guy, that's a girl!
grover - January 20, 2009
There isn’t enough evidence to be certain either way.
andeux - January 20, 2009
NatGeo thinks Cheeta's a male.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0509_030509_cheeta.html
The Dogfather - January 20, 2009
Which end of the branch are you looking at?
grover - January 20, 2009
Dibs on the one on the right.
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
I'd pour more than just Dibs on her
Oh you meant…sorry.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
Dibs make me think of the Trop.
Upon exiting my little box seat area while watching baseball indoors (a disturbing and unsettling experience), there’s a “Dibs” stand on the other side of the carpeted hallway.
As a side note, I’m not I’ve ever covered the immense weirdness of the disparity between going to an early-season White Sox-Rays game and having seats right next to the visiting dugout, in front of the dugout, really—front row, to a late season game, where we were three rows from the top. The fan base grew from about 10K in May to about 40K in September.
Leopold Bloom - January 20, 2009
Trunk end, the only one with a guy at the end of the row.
Ya stoopid-head. And before you respond that it’s a male and not a guy, remember — there is at least one sensitive, accurate simian guy in our mist.
The Dogfather - January 20, 2009
You know.....
the elevation of Robinson to the Major Leagues was the death knell for the Negro leagues. I wonder what other changes will be incidental to this moment in history? Much was gained, but their was loss to be reckoned with too.
A grand day no doubt, but what will the law of unintended consequences have to say? Whatever it is, I hope that it will be viewed favorably by history.
alox - January 20, 2009
I'm having difficulty with this one.
Okay, how’s this: somebody else is now the world’s least popular elected head of state?
The Dogfather - January 20, 2009
my difficulty is in imagining just what those lamentable unintended consequences might be ...
… and in trying to keep myself from thinking of an entirely inappropriate historical example.
monkeyball - January 20, 2009
Exactly my point.
I sincerely hope this turns out well for a wide variety of reasons. Albeit I have no idea what historical example you have in mind.
alox - January 20, 2009
Well, when you seem to imply that losing the peculiar institution of the Negro Leagues was a lamentable unintended consequence of emancipating a certain class of persons into eligibility for MLB …
monkeyball - January 20, 2009
Not at all.
The leagues were a part of history that served a useful purpose in their time. I suppose its not much different than the defunct Federal league, but I have a hard time believing that. Even Buck O’Neil lamented their loss, not that he necessarily pined for their return. But it was a loss. They played a different brand of baseball that’s not likely to ever be seen again. Besides all that, there were a great many people who depended on the league in the economic sense. That would certainly qualify as an unintended consequence I would think. But there is also this, when the Negro leagues died, a lot of blacks lost the opportunity to even play baseball. As good as some of the players were, not all of them came close to playing at the MLB level. Do you suppose there were more or less black Americans playing ball after the league had passed? Another unintended consequence I suppose.
Just to be clear, the leagues needed to die. The era of segregation is a despicable chapter in American history who’s end was far to long in coming and I didn’t mean to imply anything different.
alox - January 20, 2009
ah, k. tnx for the clarification.
monkeyball - January 20, 2009
Perhaps my musings aren't very clear....
I could give a rip about the popularity of the President of the Unites States as far as the rest of the world is concerned. I don’t think President Obama cares one wit either based on his speech today. My level of respect for him went up a notch with that speech.
alox - January 20, 2009
While I disagree with your take about the significance of most of the world's opinions,
… I meant domestic unopularity. And while popular opinion anywhere isn’t always right, neither is it always wrong.
I was also being facetious, because I don’t think much harm was done by opening up MLB to everyone. Some marginal players of several races, and a few in-stadium vendors and bookies in Birmingham and elsewhere had to find other work, I s’pose. The balance (which I also know was not your point) is overwhelming.
Tomorrow, I guess a few stand-up comedians will need new material. And I’ll (finally!) have to remove that “Regime change begins at home” bumper-sticker.
The Dogfather - January 20, 2009
Eh, as always,
history will have the final say concerning effective Presidency’s. Honest Abe wasn’t all that popular in his time, but history has been much kinder to him.
The economic loss you allude to was far more than “a few bookies and vendors”. There were whole all black enterprises that were destroyed by integration. I’m not saying that it shouldn’t have happened, but it’s undeniable that a lot of good, decent people were devastated by the end of an era. I’m also not saying that it wasn’t necessary for the greater good. It most certainly was, but I doubt that that was much consolation to those who were wiped out who’s names history hasn’t bothered to record.
alox - January 20, 2009
A few thoughts.
First, it happens all the time in the economy’s cycles of “creative destruction,” as some businesses are supplanted by others or killer apps are invented that change the terms of competition. Is there a particular reason to single out those two events for comparative musealysis?
Second, history has been kind to Lincoln because he was heroically good at his job, and, of course left-handed. At the risk of generating my first Crosby, I’ll suggest that our recent tour through the Bush leagues has demonstrated that the recent incumbent is neither.
The Dogfather - January 21, 2009
I realize the natural
course of economic cycles. It’s the nature of things, and in this particular instance it was something to be applauded. Still, historic moments brought historic changes. My point is that it will not all be smooth sailing from here on out. There will be pain associated with it, which is also the “nature of things”. I’m trying rather clumsily I suppose, to point out that our collective path from this point on is fraught with a certain amount of risk that wasn’t there before. Is this a bad thing? Of course not. The opportunities for us as a nation far outweigh the risks. Perhaps I’m old fashioned in this regard, even though I didn’t support President Obama, he is now MY president and I want him to succeed beyond the wildest of expectations.
Mr. Lincoln was “good at his job?” From our perspective some 150 years later, of course he was. At the time though, he had just led the Northern half of the nation on a war of conquest inflicted on the Southern half. For the people of the time, no matter their political views, that could certainly be misconstrued as an abject failure on Mr. Lincoln’s part. He was, after all, the President of the United States. For all the hoopla about the Constitution being shredded and what not, a review of history would be most enlightening. Not that I’m trying to prop up GW either, for that I’ll wait and see what history has to say. Hopefully we will both be around long enough to critique the reviews.
alox - January 21, 2009
I guess I wasn't as far off with "peculiar institution" as I thought
monkeyball - January 21, 2009
I'm not certain of your intent....
and I can’t help but entertain the notion that you may indeed be very far off. Hopefully, this can be ascribed to the internet being a poor forum for the exchange of thoughts, especially on a forum where the subject matter is verboten.
alox - January 21, 2009
That was masterfully expressed; I retract said implication, and will be right behind TDF to buy you a 2nd beer
monkeyball - January 21, 2009
Did someone mention beer?
grover - January 21, 2009
No.
monkeyball - January 21, 2009
Good
Who needs the extra calories?
grover - January 21, 2009
The Dogfather - January 21, 2009
I just hope to be around long enough to buy you a beer at fANfest.
You goin’?
The Dogfather - January 21, 2009
LOL...
Sure, I’ll pick you up at your house.
alox - January 21, 2009
The Dogfather - January 21, 2009
monkeyball - January 21, 2009
My dream
of an all-image thread is getting closer to becomimg a reality.
67MARQUEZ - January 21, 2009
Way to ruin your own dream
grover - January 21, 2009
... as well ruining my dream of a thread with no typos
monkeyball - January 21, 2009
The Dogfather - January 21, 2009
67MARQUEZ - January 21, 2009
We who think in pictures salute you.
There was once a fark.com thread that spontaneously combusted into a serial number images game thread. You had to come up with some depiction of the next consecutive integer that wasn’t obvious. So eighty-eight was a piano, 222 was a still photo from the eponymous show, etc. That was fun, til some grumpy Admin killed it somewhere around comment
.
The Dogfather - January 21, 2009
At least you're getting closer
to understanding what I’ve been skirting. The Illinois political machine isn’t the only thing that’s proved itself resilient to change.
alox - January 21, 2009
I would suggest that "history" isn't necessarily the best judge either.
The perspective of time does help a lot, but reputations of presidents and other leaders is also highly influenced by who gets to write the retrospective narrative about them, which sometimes is little more than accident.
It also makes a very large difference if the man leaves an abundant supply of his own papers. Historians tend to use what is available to them, and if they hear only one side of the story they’re likely to favor it. Compare Hamilton to Burr, or Wilson to Harding. Hamilton wrote voluminously and had an army of in-laws and other admirers ready to boost his reputation after his death; Burr’s papers went down in the Atlantic with his daughter. After Harding’s death his personal papers were believed to be destroyed, allowing all of his enemies to savage him in their memoirs without having to worry about being proved liars. About 40 years later, the Harding papers were found, but it was too late to save his reputation. It’s now been clearly demonstrated that much of what was written against Harding is pure nonsense, but his image has barely changed, even among educated readers.
To some extent this applies to Lincoln as well. Lincoln would enjoy a good reputation regardless, but I don’t think he’d have the almost godlike image he has now were it not for Carl Sandburg’s panegyrics.
iglew - January 21, 2009
Uh-oh.
The Dogfather - January 21, 2009
You are as
eloquent as always, and correct. What I find fascinating about Lincolns term is the sheer volume of hatred directed towards him during his tenure. The newspapers of the day launched scathing attack after attack. Some of the material was down right vicious. They make modern day politics appear tame by comparison. I once read an account of Lincoln pondering his place in history towards the end of the Civil War. It was wistful in tone and he seemed to think that history would view him with scorn. I wonder what he would think now?
alox - January 21, 2009
Good post, Iglew.
I agree that “history” can be distorted when the writing thereof is dominated by fans of the individual. However, in a free country (barring political correctness) over time others will tackle the subject. Given that personal papers of the subject are often very valuable; they are not the only source of insight into the person. As long as there is no attempt to supress differing opinions, they will occur; and differing interpretations of history will develop.
IM4Oakgal - January 22, 2009
Man, it's just Russ Springer.
mikev - January 20, 2009
Barry Bonds wouldn't say
“just” Russ Springer. Or maybe he wouldn’t care at all.
67MARQUEZ - January 20, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.