Athletics Nation

I LOVE the Gourds version.

We finally agree on something!!!1!1!

We agree on a lot of stuff

I just like to mess with you.

{flags every reply to a comment of mine you’ve ever made}

{cries self to sleep}

{feels alone in this world}

{sighs deeply}

{realizes he’s not living in a French surrealist book, feels better}

May, I

kick a little sumthin for the A’s

And, hope they score runs as they play, through

the end of October and the party’s still jumpin in a post season run.

I got Korach on radio

gettin’ it on,
Ain’t he ain’t stoppin’ til Buan in the postgame.

Thank You

I am impressed with this response from Nico and the rest of the moderators, (although baseballgirl has my sympathy and I second that idea for sainthood.)

I think it is a great idea to actually list who the moderators are and allow that transparency that some feel is necessary. Seeing those names actually gives me greater confidence in the processes of AN.
I recognize all those names as being fair, thoughtful, generous and compassionate members of this site in the three years I have been a member. I have great confidence in these people and I am more than happy to have these members judge my conduct and thoughts on this blog, should it ever be needed and I would accept punishment, if any, that they might deem.
I don’t post a lot, but I read just about everything and I admire and respect everyone on this site in some way or another. While I may disagree with this statement or think that some other person is crazy for saying that, there is not another place on the net I would rather be for such interesting, cerebral, hilarious, soul searching, thought provoking discussion that exists on this site.
Thank you to everyone that expends so much time and energy to make this place what it is and long may it continue.
oh yeah… one more thing… GO A’S!!!!!!

Mantecan As Fan - March 26, 2009 reply

Just a thought but...

What about putting someone who is not a front writer in the group of moderators? Something like a representative from the general users, that has no steak in the nuts and bolts of AN but just is a member. It would give a voice to the discipline committee that would not be seen as the head honchos lowering the boom on someone, just because they were tired of dealing with them or didn’t like said person. I don’t know it’s just a thought.

A'sfaninNC - March 26, 2009 reply

I want steak.

mmmmm, steak....

somebodyelse - March 26, 2009 reply

gigglingone isn't a front page writer

Tyler Bleszinski - March 26, 2009 reply

oh my bad i should have looked into it a little more

but the idea is still solid

A'sfaninNC - March 26, 2009 reply

this whole thing has been hysterical ....

it’s been like our own soap opera

As PT Turns

Days of Nico’s Lives

athleticsBB4life - March 26, 2009 reply

You know, I kind of miss

“old Nico,” and I half-resent/blame him for running my other father off (divorce affects the children most of all), but I must say quite emphatically that I thought he has handled the EXTREME blow back from this whole situation with class and dignity, and it speaks well toward new leadership.

speaking of moving on

I feel pretty uneasy about the A’s rotation- but somehow with all of this ANarChY going on I completely missed the news of Lackey getting shut down. I need to spend some time over in those other threads that actually talk about baseball.

oakinboston - March 26, 2009 reply

Are we supposed to be talking baseball?

somebodyelse - March 26, 2009 reply

I'm not sure

Although I did have a great conversation last night about middle infielders over at CGV Nation…

I would propose a hightened requirement for third strikes

Preferably a unanimity requirement, but failing that a requirement that there are no committee members who feel a third strike is not merited within X days after the discussion/notification begins.

As I understand things now, it just takes three “strike” votes from people on the committee.

The reason is that the penalties for a third strike are higher than the first two, and I think this process would help ensure the third strike is issued on a clear violation.

To add on to the transparency

This specific issue was highlighted as a third strike issue, and debated over e-mail. There was definitely discussion as to the right actions throughout. Third strikes (and any strikes) are not taken lightly.

louismg - March 26, 2009 reply

I appreciate that

But unless I’m wrong, it came down to three (of 10) people voting that it was a strike. Correct?

As far as that goes, a potentially inappropriate question purely to satisfy my own curiosity: Was there anyone in the committee who voted no-strike?

That said, I have no problem with the process (as I understand it) for first and second strikes. Expediency is important when people are donating their time, and the penalties are low. I just think there should be a procedural difference for third strikes.

I was busy down in LA during the vote but for what it's worth I would have voted "strike"

So that’s at least four.

we do have the ability to note if we don't think the comment is strike-worthy in our comments when reviewing

I don’t recall whether or not anyone utilized that option in this case.

gigglingone - March 27, 2009 reply

more baseball please!

OaklandSi - March 26, 2009 reply

+1

kaweahkaweah - March 26, 2009 reply

This will hopefully improve things

Banning PaulThomas was as egregious and embarrassing an abuse of power as you could possibly find here.

Why don’t you just go ahead and rescind the stupid and humiliating fucking decision. And then ban the self-inflated jackass who made the decision for a week.

The guy argued over the use of the word hero. And you ban him. Are you out of your fucking minds? The comments that followed his original comment—including one by Nico—were worse than anything PT said. Nico tried to show he had blue-collar street cred. by talking about punching out Paul Thomas’s teeth in a bar. Uh, that’s a bit worse than disagreeing about whether the word “hero” is appropriate to a particular situation.

And I know there’s a whole thread with a thousand posts dedicated to this. I just learned of it, and not wanting to get lost in the crowd, decided to add my thoughts here.

So, once again, just who in the fuck do you think you are banning someone for disagreeing you the majority of posters about whether or not someone was a hero? Dress up his violation with all the casuistry you’d like, but that’s what it boils down to.

Tone it down, please

+1

Actually, I think what's needed here is some real rage at the admins.

You don’t ban that guy for disputing the use of a word. That action is an incredible abuse of power that does nothing more than drive others from the site. Whoever’s making a decision like that needs to be reasoned with, sure. But that person also needs to know that, beyond just a reasonable disagreement, he’s really pissed people off.

And I’d much rather there be guidelines that strive to eliminate the endless number of insider jokes that devolve many good threads into sophomoric nonsense.

There is a thread for that rage. And it is being addressed. See above.

Take it to the other thread...like everyone else has.

Comments appear to have been closed in that one

Rage solves nothing

Most of us have already dealt with the situation. Adding fuel to the fire is not going to make anything better.

Your aggressive anger is misplaced. Things are already in the process of being worked in with or without you jumping in with what you said above.

Funny to read this

And see you egging on trainman above.

That said, I think this point is correct and hope discussion in this thread can be productive.

How did I egg him on? I agreed with him.

Right

Perhaps a moderator-ly “Most of us have already dealt with the situation. Adding fuel to the fire is not going to make anything better.” would have been the appropriate comment there too.

I think you're reading a lot more into a one-word comment than there actually is

That and what Trainman and RLangford said was completely different.

Ok

Both took sides on the argument everyone just spent 2 days on. One, the more vehement/inappropriate one, took a position you disagree with. Another took a position I disagree with.

This is not the place for that discussion, as you aptly pointed out to the person who you disagree with. It is still not the place for that discussion when you agree with someone.

Alternatively, if this is the place for that discussion, I’ll reply to trainman and the whole thing will go downhill from there.

I could flag this for baiting

But I won’t.

I could make a joke about someone being the "master baiter"

but I won’t.

oblique - March 26, 2009 reply

Flagged because God might kill a kitten for even joking about it

kaweahkaweah - March 26, 2009 reply

Not baiting...

…he is just trying to stop the discussion dead, to not repeat the other thread.

Maybe so, but I don't appreciate the way he's doing it

I should be able to agree with someone while telling someone else to chill out without basically being jumped on for it.

Analogy Dept

Speaking of BAITING and DEAD. wouldn’t it be nice to stop cutting bait and start fishing?

Yes, but his point is....

…that if everyone agrees with the side they have taken, we’re back to the other thread!

thank you baseball girl

I know we disagree on a certain issue, but I suspect you’ll do a great job going forward

Thanks nevermoor...

…and I appreciate your passion and your opinions, on all topics, even if we don’t always agree. :-)

YOU GO, IRONFIST!

mikev - March 26, 2009 reply

you ARE a saint

I find this comment extremely disturbing

As BBG points out below, she does not see this comment as one that is baiting (so not sure why you felt it was) but even if it was this is not an appropriate comment coming from one of the people in charge.

As someone who is listed as a mod for this site, you have a resposibility to be a bit better. A threat of a flag from you (which would carry a lot of cred since you are a mod) feels like you saying, “better watch what you say around me cause I can get you a strike if you don’t”.

I honestly don’t think that was your intent, I want to make that clear. However, if the usher at a ballgame came over to me and said “better watch your language you could get kicked out of the stadium” I would be a lot more afraid of getting thrown out then if the guy sitting two rows back said it.

As a mod and a member of the CGV review committee, you have a responsibility (I think) to not make a comment like that. It is going to feel threatening.

+1

I think I have to agree with that

And I just wrote to the other mods that I think I need a break for a couple days.

I understand where people are coming from but my feeling is that RLangford came in swearing up a storm, demanding this and that, while Trainman was expressing being sad to see Nico step back while clarifying what the “kick in the teeth” comment looked like.

To me, I don’t see any correlation between telling RLangford to cool it and agreeing with Trainman, but it feels like some people are trying to further a personal agenda against TPTB because they disagree with what happened before even if people have tried to give reasons behind it.

As for the “I could flag this” comment, it was wrong and it was said in frustration. I’m not going to delete it because I’m not going to hide it, but I’m also not going to be pushed to react by others trying to turn it into a “they should get rid of Flashfire” crusade.

your comment was directed at nevermoor, not fucking rlangford, jesus....

I could flag this for baiting

But I won’t.

I’m not going to delete it because I’m not going to hide it

this is the second comment from you that pretty much implies we should be thanking you for NOT abusing your mod powers.

how does that song go, “meet the new bullying fascist, same as the old bullying fascist”?

Seriously, he's frustrated, and he's new.

It’s been a rough couple of days. We are working on some things as fast as we can from behind the scenes. Please, if you guys don’t trust anyone else, can you trust me here?

oh well if he's frustrated, then it's okay...

a person who threatens people when frustrated does NOT have the temperament to be a moderator.

i stand by my comment below, “any comment like this from a moderator should not only be an automatic CGV, but it should possibly even lead to that person being removed as a moderator.”

I didn't say it's okay.

I said that it’s been a long week for all of us, and we are human. No one has been flagged by that comment.

To clarify

No, I don’t expect anyone to thank me for anything. I also know who I responded to and where. I felt nevermoor was trying to bait me. If he wasn’t, he wasn’t.

The comment I’m not going to delete is the “I could flag this” one, nothing else. If I deleted it, it would amount to me trying to pretend I never said it. I said it and it can’t just be erased like it never happened. All I can do is apologize for the mistake.

If you aren’t willing to accept that, I can’t do anything about it.

Thank you for apologizing.

That should (and often does) go a long way in a heated discussion.

Deleting comments

Because none of the rest of us have this option, because we have to be responsible for anything we type as a comment on this site, it’s unsettling to have it made so apparent that a moderator would even think about deleting his/her own comment as an option. IMO it should not BE an option.

We all have bad days, we all have comments we’d go back and delete if given the option. But ours stand no matter what, and we get strikes for them and sometimes kicked off the site. It feels “icky” to us that a moderator could have a bad day, post something inflammatory/potentially CGV-worthy, and then remove that comment (and apparently it’s happened before, though I missed that).

I made the suggestion in The Thread that a moderator/admin should not be permitted (technologically) to alter or erase his/her own comments. Failing that, I feel that nobody should have the option to delete comments — perhaps with enough flags the comment auto-hides, giving users the option of “opening” the comment if they want to see it (like Digg) but hiding potentially offensive content by default.

Maybe it’s bad that I always look for technological solutions to problems, but IMO computers are more trustworthy and consistent than humans.

oblique - March 26, 2009 reply

+1

Further clarification

I brought it up because in the 1000-comment thread issues were raised about it being done in the past by others. Point is, I was saying I won’t do that.

I hope that answers your concern.

I just want to say from my perspective

that the only thing I was commenting on was the “I could flag this thread”.

I feel I disagree with a lot of what FF has said previously regarding most of the PT business, but made that clear in the 1000 comment fanpost, and would prefer to leave that particular disagreement there for now.

Since I have not seen you make an “I could flag this post” comment previously, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt based on your admission that it was wrong. I think we should all try and take that at face value for now.

I could flag this for baiting

But I won’t.

any comment like this from a moderator should not only be an automatic CGV, but it should possibly even lead to that person being removed as a moderator.

Agreed

I can’t believe the comically unaware abuses of power. First Nico posts that embarrassing letter he sent to PT. Then, in that thread several people take you on for pointing out similar abuses and calling for transparency. And now a blatant threat to “watch what you’re saying around me” by Flashfire.

Are we conducting our own Stanford Prison Experiment here and nobody told me?

Are we conducting our own Stanford Prison Experiment here and nobody told me?

+ a billion

Honestly.

It’s not your website. It’s Blez’s website, along with whomever Blez entrusts to operate it. There is no such thing as an abuse of power on a privately run website. There is no right to any form of written guidelines. There is no right to any form of grievance process. There is no right to absolutely anything. You, like the rest of us, are a guest here.

The fact that we do have community guidelines, an entire committee to deal with potential violations of those guidelines, and the fact that we all get 3 chances to violate those guidelines before we are asked to leave is incredibly generous of those who own and moderate this community. Perhaps the moderators will make a bad call from time to time. Human happens.

If you cannot handle this, might I humbly propose you take your ball and go home?

if he wanted to leave, he could leave, i’m sure he’s well aware of that.

it wouldn’t be an abuse of power for blez as the site owner to do whatever he wants and ban whoever he wants, but if there are a set of rules put in place to deal with those things, then there IS such a thing as abuse of power.

And you've made it ABUNDANTLY

clear to all of us how you feel. Repeatedly.

What more would you like?

apparently at least one of the the initial problems, mods threatening and bullying powerless AN users, has not been remedied. that’s what i would like.

It's not a democracy.

It’s a benign dictatorship. You pays your money, you takes your chances. It very well might not be fair, but life ain’t fair.

And really that would be just fine if they would admit it, rather than continually boasting about how fair they are.

I just completely disagree with this

The site should strive to be democratic, to belong largely to those who are part of the community. This isn’t a political-cultural blog that takes every cue from the posts of its original founder, like say Andrew Sullivan’s “Daily Dish.” This is much more egalitarian.

you can disagree all you want.

The fact remains that is the way things are here.

This blog belongs to Blez. He owns it. It is not a democracy.

Who cares that he owns it

We’re debating the identity it will have in practice, in its day to day life. Do you disagree that it should strive to be more democratic?

The identity it has in practice

is identical to the identity it has in theory. It is a benign dictatorship. We do not have inalienable rights here. It is a privilege to post, not a right.

I would say that it should strive to be better

In some cases being more democratic serves that end. In other cases, it does not.

It seems to me there is a disagreement among several here about when those cases are. I would say this is simply a disagreement on optimal method, not the ideological disagreement that some are making it out to be.

He may own it, but like any business

ownership needs to be very careful with it’s customer base. And make no mistake, we’re the customers here. People get pissed at Wolff for saying the wrong things as the owner of the A’s and while it’s his right, the ramifications are clear. If someone who works for the A’s under Wolff says something, then it becomes his responsibility to appease the fans in someway or else risk losing them. Yes, the mods and Blez can do whatever they want, no one will argue that at all. But, we, as customers, have every right to complain if we see abuses with Blez’s customer service representatives.

well said

Incorrect

We are not the customers here. The advertisers are the customers. We are the product.

Huge difference

between Wolff and Blez. How much do you pay to be here? How much do we pay these customer service reps?

Actually I don't see much of a difference

Most the money Wolff makes is based on corporate sponsorship (see Yahoo!) and TV rights & advertisement (see Ads all over the site) as well as merchandising (see various shirts, etc. sold). The only thing missing is ticket prices, but that’s not where the bulk of baseball money comes from.

And how many people

buy tickets to games in Oakland anyway?

and 10 dollar beers

and charging for kraut… the true economic engine of baseball.

i look at the ads

and i produce content that is me paying to be here

So AN would cease to be were you not here?

If we as a collective customer base

Absolutely

I assume you don't currently speak for everyone, though, right?

I Absolutely do not. :)

Speak for you?

I don’t even know your effin’ language.

Of course.

And we ARE listening. We are making some changes. And we welcome suggestions.

I know

that was more a reply to Leopold Bloom than it was an actual critique about the mods.

Haha...I'm on auto-pilot ;-)

All good.

honestly, how old are you?

No on here is ‘threatening’ or ‘bullying’ anyone.

This is getting ridiculous. Oh, us poor, poor powerless AN members! Save us from the mean ol’ mods, mommy!

This overwrought piling on is getting silly.

coffee roaster - March 26, 2009 reply

12

(but i’m really tall for my age)

no you're not!

I’ve seen you and you can’t be taller than 4’2"!!!

i smiled.

Jjjsixsix - March 26, 2009 reply

No

That was Prince last night on Jay Leno thats not more then 4’2

ChickenStanley - March 26, 2009 reply

lol

gigglingone - March 27, 2009 reply

I'm 14

and I think the A’s are cool. Though I think your mocking my criticisms of the site kinda sucks.

It isn't a set of rules

It’s a set of guidelines.

What if, for example, someone came here and made a horrific and blatant racist comment? Strike one, say the guidelines. But what should happen? The mods should ban that person immediately, with no second or third chance. And I think they would.

What if Nico wanted to ban me right now because my user name is fairly explicitly political and maybe even provocative to some in nature (as my last one was)? Well, I think that would be a bad decision, but it is entirely his and the AN brass’ decision to make. If I have any recourse at all, that would be entirely a privilege.

Did the mods stretch the guidelines for PT’s third strike? Perhaps so. We’ve had 1000 opinions on it, the mods are reacting to the responses they’ve gotten. We deserve nothing more, and are owed nothing more. At all.

So now with apologies to everyone for feeding the fire, I’m going to suspend my commenting until a baseball thread is up.

I'm thinking there's an implicit social contract

I think your characterization of the site is ludicrous.

that a moderator would even consider flagging this comment as inappropriate

pretty much proves things are still totally fucked.

Flashfire addressed this (and apologized) above.

We’ve ALL had a rough couple of days…we are working on things. No one has been flagged, no strikes are in line, and there are other people in charge to off-set one person’s bad day. That’s why there are multiple people in charge.

he addressed it AFTER i made this comment, and in the process made another similar comment

From above...

…we’re working on some things, and we will address the concerns. I hear you.

But baseballgirl...

how do you escape the original banning or PT? Were multiple people not in charge there? Or did they somehow collectively arrive at that awful and unjustified decision?

How do you ban one of the most intelligent posters here because he disagreed with the use of a word and think that by apologizing and saying we’ve fixed things that you’ve really fixed things.

The way you fix this mess you all have created is to write him another letter that you also post explaining that you were wrong.

Most of us have already dealt with the situation. Adding fuel to the fire is not going to make anything better.

PT is banned. It happened.

This thread should be about how to fix the process, and I’ve made my suggestion above. What is your suggestion?

Thank you, nevermoor.

My suggestion is to reinstate the guy

That really is my suggestion. Correct the mistake. “It happened,” isn’t a very good way to move on. Moving on isn’t even the right solution in this case.

Ok

I’m guessing that won’t happen, and it won’t fix the process that caused the problem.

RLangford....

…this is not snarky (promise!), but did you read the 1,000 page thread, and Paul Thomas’ original comment?

Yeah,

I wasn’t bothered by it, though I knew it would cause problems. I wish people would have disagreed with him and moved on.

Sorry, I didn't mean his original comment...

…I meant his address to the community in the 1,000 comment thread.

Yes, I read that

What point about it do you want to make.

One point about it that I would make

is that it’s not at all clear to me that PT wants to be “reinstated”, and even if his posting privileges were restored, he might well choose not to post anyway.

You can't win.

So you may as well stop trying to placate the unreasonable. You and Flashfire are doing a thankless job. You guys made your decision, and nothing you say or do is going to cause your detractors to reason with you. They’ve made up their minds to seek retribution by causing as much damage as possible before the inevitable. Which is unfortunate.

under this conspiracy theory, do these other people control flashfire's mind, or have they hacked into his account?

Not sure what you mean.

But then again, I’m quite sure you are bent on causing as much hate and discontent as you possibly can. I have no idea as to the why’s, but it’s obvious that you despise FF. If BBG is foolish enough to keep responding to you, I have no doubt you will find an excuse to generate yet another outburst of pseudo rage aimed at her.

You’re generally a pretty good guy. Why you are pursuing this vendetta escapes me.

right, i'm comin for you next bbg!

Deflection, my young crusader.

She’s persuaded me to run interference for her. I’m supposed to bait you, so without further ado, can we get started?

alox should not be allowed on AN!

what does alox even mean, it sounds like a laundry detergent!!

My kid gave me

the moniker. I had a medical condition that required me to drink maalox by the gallon. Given his tender age at the time, he couldn’t pronounce the word in its entirety. I’ve since moved on to prescription drugs. Are you making fun of my kid and my infirmaries you ruthless SOB?

it shows the clear difference between the internet and an elementary school playground: your kid isn’t getting a wedgie right now.

I dunno about that....

He’s in the first grade now, so he may indeed by getting a wedgie. I enrolled him in martial arts two years ago just in case. Makes a dad proud when his kid is the one issuing wedgies.

heh

(smart move, btw)

He's not causing any damage

He’s just trying to improve the site in the long run. If he hurts your feelings now that’s not the end of the world.

Are ritual suicides allowed in this thread?

And more important, does BBG have any odd sexual proclivities to which we might appeal to avoid bANninAtioN?

Ritual suicides are a CGV.

But they're only one strike, right?

Assuming you make it a good one, yes.

Good. That's settled.

Now, about those proclivities …

rollierollieOxenfree - March 26, 2009 reply

copyright?

please people, obey the copyright laws. unless you physically took the picture, you’re baiting the MPAA to come a knockin’.

Can you point me to something descriptive of the limits?

Email’s in profile — thanks.

designatedforassignment - March 27, 2009 reply

im pretty sure one frame constitues fair use

This wikipedia entry is rather thorough in its explanation.

Is fair use really the issue here?

For most images that appear here, we aren’t copying, we’re linking directly to the source. If I can make a picture show up with a <IMG SRC> command, that means it’s linkable on their site. The image data never hits AN’s server at all; it goes straight from the source server to your browser. I’m curious what copyright law would have to say about that.

Some sites make their images unlinkable. That’s why we see image-link fails here from time to time, when someone tries to link one of those and doesn’t check the preview to see that it’s blocked.

I would imagine AN, who is attempting to profit, has a pretty good defense

I would also imagine that, on request, AN would delete a comment linking an image (or, if possible, the link itself). I can’t imagine a claim against Dogfather, if for no other reason that the time a lawyer spends copy and pasting a form e-mail costs more than the damage and potential recovery.

Agreed

agreed

captain flitzy - March 26, 2009 reply

Yikes

Reading my post way above (“This will hopefully improve things”) I have to say that all the swearing is pretty embarrassing.

Sorry about that. Probably not best to just let an immediate and angry reaction spew out in that way.

I mean I still stand by the point I was making and I like the idea of expressing anger, I just wish I’d not sworn so much. Thus, a self-imposed one “fuck” limit per post from this point on.

RLangford - March 27, 2009 reply

I wonder if that's a record for responses to a comment, rec'd division. It's certainly a bunch.

I think everybody has written stuff they wish they had back. And some they don’t.

Fark has a filter that automatically changes some words — the better, I think, to avoid corporate monitors for at-work net surfers. Most profanity is changed before it posts, and a few terms are dramatically altered. The standard worst racial epithet, for example, becomes “Attractive and Successful African American.” That tends to discourage its use.

LOL

not a fan of auto-edited posts, but that’s a beatiful one. kind of like Mother Trucker in Die Hard with a Vengence only a lot more eloquent.

This is what happens when you find a strange in the Alps!!

xbhaskarx - March 27, 2009 reply

“Zat iss not my dugg.”

Well done

You can spell the f word

DeJay - March 26, 2009 reply

I learned a new word from him.

Casuistry is a method of case reasoning especially useful in treating cases that involve moral dilemmas.

That’s a good word. I should know that one.

I had to google it too

I don’t speak English too good either

DeJay - March 26, 2009 reply

I've an MA in English Lit, so I've no excuse,

other than not being a lawyer.

Really?

You have a degree in English and you make signs? There’s some irony in there somewhere…

{sighs deeply again}

{realizes futility of life}

{questions whether Camus ever wrote about a sign maker}

Hey, it's not so bad.

You could be making signs in Flori…

Oh wait….

{attempts to break out of fetal position}

{fails}

"A sign I made broke today,

or maybe yesterday. I don’t know."

Oh thank you.

I needed a new sig line.

i mean, a new sig line...

that is a really good word

Generally, I’d try to use it a few times in order to remember it, but I don’t have that many moral dilemmas to deal with at the moment.

coffee roaster - March 26, 2009 reply

Stick around here and that won't be a problem

Or just read the newspaper.

What would have happened if people just ignored PT's comments?

scatterbrian - March 26, 2009 reply

Probably nothing

I ignored them, and he got suspended.

oblique - March 26, 2009 reply

cause and effect.

open and shut.

Sticks and Stones

Can break my bones
but blogs can never hurt me

If you printed out that PT thread,

rolled it up and smacked someone over the head with it, I bet it would sting.

damn thing would crush a limb!

Damned thing would be legislated into prohibition and declared an assault weapon.

LowcountryJoe - March 26, 2009 reply

Would it be against

MLB rules to use that as a bat? I could see Cust slowly swinging that thing while stepping into the batters box…

ChickenStanley - March 26, 2009 reply

Get a grip!

It takes way too much discipline to ignore a public display from a master baiter.

LowcountryJoe - March 26, 2009 reply

Moderators doing a great job! I enjoy Nico's comments!

calas - March 26, 2009 reply

FYI

99.987% of what happens on AN is positive stuff. Thanks for the hard work. Much appreciated.

Blizzard in Colorado,

CF

Colorado Fan - March 26, 2009 reply

+1

asfaninpismobeach - March 26, 2009 reply

since i'm not there this time,

this blizzard as bad as the one that shut down the airport a few years back?

Jjjsixsix - March 26, 2009 reply

Nah… got about 14 inches though. Very wet snow. A lot has already melted away. Gotta love Colorado.

Colorado Fan - March 27, 2009 reply

I didn't respond or read very much of the other thread....

But I did read enough to know that the new site rules are probably going to be even more strict and more politically correct then the last ones. So I will continue to read about A’s baseball in the shadows of AN. Kind of a shame because I bet some of the people on AN would be cool to kick back at an A’s game, have a few beers and cheer on our favorite team. Hard to get to know people under strict supervision.

That's quite the leap.

We are trying to clarify things in the CGV’s, so we don’t end up with what we had yesterday. That is all. But clearly, nothing we can say here is a positive, so I’m bowing out and trying to finish my actual baseball post.

And politically correct? Have you met AN? :-)

Thanks, Nico, for the post

As for the rest of us, please, let’s not make this into the PT thread, part II.

doctorK - March 26, 2009 reply

rec'd

(I should’ve posted this higher in the thread. Sigh.)

doctorK - March 26, 2009 reply

Yep

I bet it turns green at some point though.

Green and yellow?

recs to try to get it to green

#14fan - March 26, 2009 reply

Hugs and Handpounds all around

walkoff baltimore chop - March 26, 2009 reply

That image is kinda TWSS worthy. (Is TWSS a CGV?)

if it is there are a lot of folks in trouble

A'sfaninNC - March 26, 2009 reply

Its not...

but I really don’t see why you would think it would be funny.

This system is just broken

Putting a different person (especially one who was already a member of the committee, and a fierce defender of the status quo) in charge of the process does absolutely nothing to address any of the concerns raised in this or the previous thread.

Despite protests to the contrary, the committee doesn’t reflect the opinions of “the community” as a whole so much as the narrow opinions of what has become a self-selected cadre. Some flavors of obnoxious are punished, while others are not only tolerated but rewarded with positions of authority.

It’s all very capricious and arbitrary. And really that would be just fine if they would admit it, rather than continually boasting about how fair they are.

andeux - March 26, 2009 reply

How would you suggest they FIX the system?

Don't police language and speech for the most part

Unless someone is just a menace with swearing or with derision and hate while adding little else, the site monitors shouldn’t be interceding.

Be less sensitive in general.

Trust that the readers and posters here are adults and that good sense will triumph.

Warn and then ban obvious menaces. PT doesn’t come close to being in that category.

andeux...

…I recognize that I’m not a perfect solution (or maybe even a good one), but I have the interest in AN to take the (considerable) time to keep tabs on CGVs, send out emails on comments that were moderated, and to make sure that there is SOMETHING on AN to prevent what tends to happen on larger boards. There are very few people that want to do any kind of work like this. Really, if you have a better, or more “fair” way of doing this, I would love to hear it (I’m being very serious, and not snarky at all).

There's always the Trusted User Rec/Hiderate(troll) system over at our big, orange, cousin-blog

That system has its disadvantages (including a tendency to encourage factionalisms, IMHO), but it is self-monitoring and it really is much more a matter of the community establishing and enforcing its own standards. And it’s all very much out in the open.

+1

Didn't we try some kind of rating system on one of the previous versions of AN?

I remember having a little pop-up rating thing, but that there were problems with it. Either it slowed the reloads down to a crawl, or it never successfully registered your rating, or something. But I’m pretty sure Blez tried to implement this 3 or 4 years ago or so.

right, but it was badly implemented

simple links (like the current "actions") would be more useful.
hell, don’t even hide them under actions, just show “up, reply, +, -, ignore user, flag”…

I also think that at the time it was a tool in search of a task

It was presented as a neat, technological upgrade, but I never remember any of us thinking, “Wow, we really need a way to rate AN’ers comments, I wonder when they’ll introduce that technology?” Unlike, say, the Search function, which everyone wanted and jumped on like ravenous wolves on a crippled ~~goat~~ lamb when it showed up.

The blog was much, much smaller back when the rating system popped up, we all knew each other better etc. We didn’t really need it, so when it didn’t work, I think we all just shrugged our shoulders and moved on.

agreed

I really don't get this attitude of

“It would be fine if only they would just admit it.” I’ve heard a couple of people express this attitude, so maybe one of you can help me understand.

It looks to me like several people are deeply dissatisfied with how the site is run. OK, I understand that.

But then you say, no, actually you wouldn’t mind at all, if only they’d stop “boasting about how fair they are”. (I’m quoting andeux here, but others have expressed a similar view.)

So that tells me that really you aren’t deeply dissatisfied with how AN is run, the only thing that really bothers you is that they are not describing themselves properly.

So all this ranting and raving about “egregious abuse of power” and Stanford Prison Experiment is just because you’re ticked off when the mods say “we’re trying to be fair”?

If so, that seems like a bit of an overreaction to me.

I disagree

I think if the AN community guidelines said Blez owns this site anything that he or his friends doesn’t like will get you banned, I would be happier with the decision on PT but I would also choose not to participate in the community.

I also think the Stanford Prision experiment language has gone a little overboard and that xbox and Rlangford aren’t helping their case at this point.

Look, I think the best way to help my case

is to say directly that I think they’ve made a horrible decision that they should fix. I don’t get the mentality that suggests I should just go back to reading the site and accept what they’ve done. In the grander scheme of things, of course, it’s not a grievous injustice. But in this little world it seems to me that it is.

No, I'm ticked off that they banned a guy for his opinion of a word

It’s not important to me if they say they’re trying to be fair—well, I suppose it would matter a little, but nothing significant at all. It’s important to me that they banned this guy and that it’s clearly an abuse of their power and not in the interest of the site, and yet they aren’t simply rectifying the problem by saying, “We fucked up, so let’s fix it, admit error, and welcome this member of our community back.”

Wrong on so many levels

PT did not get banned “for his opinion of a word”. He got banned because he earned a 3rd strike in the process of arguing “hero”. Its an established practice on AN that any poster who receives 3 strikes within a given timeframe will be banned. If TPTB “abused” their powers in any way it was to make it clear to PT that the ban was more like a 30 day suspension; he’d be automatically re-instated if he so desired.

Did PT deserve a strike for his last comment? To be honest, I avoided that thread like the plague so I have no idea what specifically he said. It was argued, often, in the meta-thread that the particular comment in the cop thread wasn’t worthy of a strike, especially strike 3. As per the established guidelines of the time, 3 people judged the comment worthy of a strike. That’s good enough for me. If you don’t like that, well lucky you ’cause it sounds like the mods are changing the program to make it tougher for them to issue strikes.

You’re taking a lot of shots at admins who’ve already acknowledged there’s a problem and are taking steps to correct the issues. Why go on the offensive? Because a poster who had been repeatedly asked to tone down his rhetoric did not do so and ultimately paid the price for his obstinance? That’s a lousy reason and it does nothing to help AN improve.

One minor quibble

TPTB did not actually say he would be automatically re-instated after 30 days. They just said he could apply to be re-instated — there was no guarantee that it would be accepted. So, in effect, it still could be a lifetime ban if they decide to deny his re-application.

I am perfectly happy, though, to have a mod tell me I am wrong and that PT will in fact be automatically re-instated if he so desires.

I believe you're right

but based on what I’ve seen I’ve little reason to suspect that the reinstatement would be little more than a formality than anything else, even if it could technically be life-time.

I suspect you are right

but until we actually see Nico say so, we don’t really know for sure

He'll be welcome back

He has given a lot to the AN community and he’s “one of ours.”

Thanks for confirming that for us Nico

You didn't even read the original post,

but you’re here to tell me how to behave. This would be a terrific posture to adopt in all aspects of life. On a board reviewing student suspensions? Don’t bother even reviewing the case; just check out the kid’s track record, take the word of a few people who claim he was offensive, and send him packing. Oh and then smugly add, “That’s good enough for me.” Trying to determine the veracity of a claim in court? Don’t review the evidence; just talk to a few trusted sources on one side and claim, “That’s good enough for me.”

He didn’t pay the price for his obstinacy. He paid the price for expressing an opinion that offended a few people. Something you’ve done frequently.

"You didn't even read the original post, but you’re here to tell me how to behave."

Exactly.

I don’t have the need to witness every event before deciding how to feel or act in response to the event, especially when I understand and accept (which is not the same as liking) the process by which the event transpired. The added kicker is, Paul actually said:

The moderators evidently feel that my presence is more of a disruption than a help to the site right now, and frankly, right now I have a hard time seeing how that isn’t so, regardless of whether it’s a technical CGV or not. The conversation became, as it has more than once in the past, about me and not about the topic at hand.

He acknowledges his culpability in things getting out of hand.

PT knew he had 2 strikes. He knew that his tone was often seen as confrontational. He had been asked repeatedly to dial his response down. He had, in the past, managed to take these concerns to heart and moderate his replies but only for a short time. He then made a remark that someone (actually, from what I understand, multiple someones) took to be as over the line and was flagged. At that point, a sufficient number of moderators (a group which I’m not a part of) reviewed his remark/remarks and decided that he was in violation of the Community Guidelines.

Now I’ll agree with anyone who argues that the process isn’t the most transparent of things but in no way do I believe that Paul was unaware of what could happen if he crossed the line again. Furthermore, I don’t care if you’re PT’s biggest fan ever, anyone with even an ounce of integrity would have to admit that there have been several times within the past couple months that Paul has laid into a poster with (shall we say) excessive zeal. He has, IMO, browbeaten posters who quite honestly weren’t anywhere near his league in terms of rhetoric skills and intellect. There was no conspiracy in play against PT, he just finally hit upon a topic that upset some people to the point that they were no longer willing to turn a blind eye to his excess and reported him.

To his credit (and to slip in a basketball reference for some reason) when the refs blew the whistle he raised his hand in acknowledgment of the foul.

As for trying to make a comparison between myself and PT, keep in mind two distinct differences. For one, I have been asked to tone it down and I complied, PT didn’t. But more importantly, I have always believed that there is a distinction between ruthlessly thrashing a person’s ideas vs. attacking the individual. One is obviously acceptable, the other is not… so says the CGs. Paul does not hold to that ideal, feeling that an attack on his ideas is the same as an attack on himself and his response is taken with the same measure. If the mods wished to judge PT by his own standard (and I think that knowing how Paul feels about this topic did come into play at the end) then you could argue that any time he trashed an opposing viewpoint he was actually thrashing the other poster. Guess what, that’s a CGV.

Thus a strike.

3 strikes and he was banned.

To both of you

Most of us have already dealt with the situation. Adding fuel to the fire is not going to make anything better.

Your arguments are misplaced. Things are already in the process of being worked in with or without you jumping in with what you said above.

Yes, and I'm trying to help Rlangford reach a similar state of understanding

BTW, I think your 2nd paragraph makes an excellent Cliff Notes version of my last paragraph in my original reply.

+1

I just read this comment after reading and recommending the this one by RLangford above. I tell you that I’ve never been so conflicted on a message board as I have been on this one at this time. It is Blez’s site and he can and has delegated his authority to others and put a very generous rules-based community guidline in place to moderate the interactions of folks that participate here. I’m in favor of banning for any reason that Blez and his managers feel appropriate. On the other hand, I also think that nearly everything could go; that some people here should develop thicker skin, learn how to reply aggressively if need be, and that the community could moderate itself for the most part — with bannings taking place with no formal warnings or processes when Blez & Co. determine that a participant is affecting the site’s traffic, quality, profitability negatively.

LowcountryJoe - March 26, 2009 reply

Amen

I was telling Mrs. Aces about all of this yesterday, and I thought that the strangest point for me was that I was going through and recommending so much stuff from both sides. I have never recommended as much, or as varying of viewpoints, as I have in the past couple of days. I actually think it shows me how varied and thought provoking (I was going to say thoughtful, but that just doesnt seem right…) our posters are.

Now Mrs. Aces said that it’s just because I am a fence sitter and I need to poop or get off the pot, but that’s a whole other story…

And

from the note that he asked the whole community to see, PT even seemed (IMO) to think maybe he should step back and didn’t seem to be as nearly destroyed or to have lost as much faith in the admins as many others seem to have.

Ironic, ain't it!

Apparently PT is Socrates.

No, he's Themistocles

If it wouldn't be pouring gas on a somewhat dead fire

I would actually suggest a new game-come up with your best PT response to some of the more extreme views stated this week.

PT also thinks his original comment was totally appropriate.

i’m not sure why others would put any weight on PT’s opinion on any of these non-baseball-related subjects…

xbhaskarx - March 27, 2009 reply

I Love Chair!

micdog2001 - March 26, 2009 reply

Yeah, Brick killed a guy with a trident.

LOUD NOISES!

ZeroIndulgence - March 26, 2009 reply

Maybe I'm being selfish

But I’d love to see a lot of people take a time out, cool down, and resume the discussion another day.

There are a lot of people who I like and who are probably in danger of being booted. I don’t want to see that. Everything has pretty much been said, and the only thing left to do is fling poo at each other. (And yes, I do miss the master monkey poo flinger.)

kaweahkaweah - March 26, 2009 reply

+1

I really really really don’t want to get involved in any of this… but seriously. this is an A’s website, supposed to be about our passion for the A’s, not about… well, all this stuff. Yes, there’s some weird stuff going on, there are some problems etc. but seriously, I think it’s pretty much been covered. Besides, what good is this doing? the more this goes on the more arguments will start up…
So yeah. I think I’m just going to lurk for a while, I hope this comment doesn’t cause anything bad. :)

#14fan - March 26, 2009 reply

Come post in my WBC thread!

It’s almost up. :-)

THE WBC IS A SHAM!!!1

Sorry BBG, couldn’t resist. I look forward to a baseball related item.

Was I dreaming or is that guy

selling some other obvious thing now?

He is now Mr. Slap Chop

And if you watch long enough, at some point he tells you that “you’ll love my nuts”.

That's more...

nightmare territory than dream.

If thats so would you really be saying wow every time you used it?

Keep Moving... Nothing to see here

The title makes me think of police officers when a crowd is gathering around. It doesn’t look like people are moving on with posts continuing.

gdub171 - March 26, 2009 reply

three strikes

THanks for the posts. I think its good to air these things and I hope it has been productive. I like the writers and I hope no one is too upset to stop. I also like reading the comments and hope no one leaves. But…

I kinda think the “3 strikes” thing is a not as helpful as a tool. There are shades of grey. Sometimes one thing like a blatantly racist thing would be enough for me to accept a banning. But there may be other situations that would, in the totality of the circumstances, make me think the person deserves more slack. Trying to fit all discipline into a single mode doesn’t work.

That is a management decision. The CGV’s were developed to keep things civil I imagine. I, for one, appreciate that. I think as time goes by things like this will happen that forces a discussion and further develops the CGV system.

I don’t doubt that the mods are trying to stimulate a good discussion with lots of varied opinions. I don’t think there is a conspiracy to make this into a division of YAHOO! . (Although I do understand if people would not want to volunteer their particular talent to support a corp.)

There is a lot of good info here and I think the past couple of days have been better than they seem right now.

Future Ed - March 26, 2009 reply

A couple of points.

I think this whole thing gets to the issue of what we want AN to be. I think Pam eloquently stated a particular view of where she wants the community to go (a camaraderie centric view) and 74m rebutted equally as eloquently elaborating on a debate centric view of the site. I think those views are mutually exclusive to a certain extent and where the line will be drawn is a conversation that should continue in the community. I tend to fall in the debate centric (if someone is being an ass stand your ground and give it back or don’t make arguments you cant defend) view point. This is probably because I did competitive parliamentary debate for years where it is perfectly acceptable to yell shame during someones speech, but I digress.

I know in the Daily Kos community they use “karma” to hide posts that are deemed to be off topic/offensive etc, i think that that would be a good means of working here. Comments that are ruled off topic or offensive get hidden if people with good karma (posts that are given a +1) vote to hide them. The community keeps people from flagging people who disagree with them, its a flagable offense to abuse flagging. Too many hidden comments and bad karma gets you banned eventually and bad Karma gets erased by time and good karma posts. I think this system would be beneficial if it could be implemented and I know that Kos is a big investor here.

That seems like too much to me

And I think we have less of an issue than a place like Kos because of the site’s topic and the lack of real life effect.

I think the current system works really well most of the time, and if we simply make sure that people aren’t banned unless they really earn it things will sort themselves out.

I think any tension between Pam and 74mk can be resolved at the user level (Pam doesn’t get into debates, 74mk doesn’t read the game threads). All of the site can’t be for everybody.

Fair

I just like the karma stuff anyway. I like giving people good karma. Your proposal is also probably easier to implement from a technical level at least, I think the problem is that some people really thought PT earned it where as others strongly dont.

I didn’t mean to suggest that Pam and 74mk have any real tension specifically. But from where I sit it seems like the people who have vocalized that were offended by PT to the the point of wanting something done were camaraderie people who didn’t like his debate centric attitude which wasn’t ignored.

But I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

I think what I’m going for is a civility based AN.

That for me has been lacking for a long time, especially in particular threads. I had a long response that I was working on yesterday, but I actually had to you know, work so I couldn’t get back into the thread. I don’t want AN to be all fluffy and game thread centered (though I do enjoy that aspect of it).

I also happen to really enjoy learning more about stats in way that would be hard to do elsewhere – and that’s because I like and respect those who put in so much time an energy on AN, contributing their thoughts (and thoughtful analysis). But I don’t usually venture into those threads – and 74mk made a point of mentioning that yesterday – and there is a reason for that. I feel completely unwelcome there. I don’t want to ask what I know will be perceived as a stupid question because people who are WAY smarter than me about baseball ask their questions and get ripped to shreds. If I had the time to find it, I would link to a specific Staturday post by salb918 (who I have known and liked in real life for over 20 years) basically said "if you can’t understand this don’t even bother asking your questions here.’ Why would I, after that?

I’m a big girl, I can stand up for myself, and when I get too involved I’ve learned to walk away. But I think if I am expected to do that when debate becomes too heated, people on the other side (and I don’t really think we are so divided as for there to be sides) should also be expected to do that if they don’t like some of the camaraderie/fluff centered stuff. It goes both ways.

I think this is a really good comment

And I think questions should always be welcomed. I also certainly agree that “AN has fluff stuff” is a completely invalid complaint because it isn’t hurting anyone and lots of people like it.

I think the question your post begs, and is something we should really put some thought into, is this: what do we mean by civility?

I think we can agree on the endpoints. Telling someone to eff themselves isn’t civil. Telling someone you disagree with them is civil. I think the problem is where we fall between that. Is telling someone they are wrong, in and of itself, civil? Is telling someone they are wrong, and then demonstrating why, civil? Is disagreeing with the majority civil? Is banging your chest while doing any of these things civil? Does the answer change if you use larger-than-necessary words?

Also, more fundamentally, is civility the standard for avoiding strikes or is it aspirational? (In other words, do you get a strike for being uncivil, or do you have to be a certain kind of uncivil?).

While I have my opinions on these questions, and in no way represent that the list above is complete, I think these sorts of issues need to be addressed if we want to provide meaningful guidance on how to avoid a strike.

I think the issue with the police officer thread the other day

was that it was not a fanpost in which an argument was being advanced. The point of it was simply to be a space in which ANers could express appreciation/condolences/sadness. (Quick comparison — there’s a daily remembering-fallen-soldiers diary series on dKos in which anyone who makes any kind of political statement about the war gets trollrated out the wazoo). Not every comment or post of value on AN intends to begin with a premise, assemble contentions supported by factual evidence, and arrive at a conclusion, QED. The complaint about PT’s comment, as I understand it, was that he was trying to turn that fanpost into a discussion/argument about heroism as a concept and law enforcement as a profession, which the folks on that thread (who were obviously not feeling that patient emotionally, for understandable reasons) felt was interfering with the kind of exchange of comments they were engaging in in that particular fanpost. They were not there, in short, to have an argument.

To the extent that there was incivility there, I think people feel that it was in not respecting their decision to have a non-debatish post, and not just leaving them alone to do what they wanted to do.

That isn't my point

I’m talking about going forward, and my concern is that “civility” is an imprecise term. If we are going to use it as a pillar of the guidelines I would like a clearer explanation.

In case it wasn’t clear, I am not talking about that specific incident in this thread.

Oh, okay -- yeah, I agree that it's very much in the eye of the beholder.

It’s very hard to articulate standards of behavior online. I think that’s a lot of the appeal of the mojo system — you might have some clear rules (the obvious ones about isms, threats, etc.), and then some general guidelines, and its up to each of the community members to interpret the guidelines as s/he wishes, and then whatever discrepancies might arise kind of get evened out across the thousands of raters.

Something I think PT may struggle with, and I know I do, is appreciating the difference between being "right" and being "wise."

And then practicing self-censorship on those occasions where wisdom doesn’t get the higher score. Such an editing process might’ve spared Paul his current sabbatical — and I regret to note , as others have hereabouts, that one Mr. Upgrade took a powder immediately after our unnecessary little dust-up of a few weeks back.

Even if, and I have no way of knowing, his hiatus relates to a certain hyper-sensitivity that was part of my objection, we’re for now deprived of his talented writings. I enjoy those a lot — at least when he’s not gratuitously gnawing on Unca Lew’s shoe. So I should’ve been wiser and just drowned my annoyance in an adult beverage. The availability of immediate engagement in the blogosphere needs to be tempered by better angels. Call me on it when I fuck it up.

Hi Pam - I just wanted to weigh in on your comment above, as I feel that the stats part of AN

can (and is) a bit freindlier then you describe.

First let me say that I really enjoy the stat related stuff, so I read most all of it that is on AN (as well as just about everything else — I guess I am an AN addict). :)

I don’t want to ask what I know will be perceived as a stupid question because people who are WAY smarter than me about baseball ask their questions and get ripped to shreds

I don’t think this is true. As a matter of fact, if a person truly asks a question from a lack of knowledge, I feel like the AN stat guys go out of their way to try and help a person understand. Guys like devo, salb, grover and even PT are often very open to explaining what they have written to those that are trying to understand it. I have seen PT give very polite, interesting and civil answers to posters who were unsure what he was talking about. PT’s rants would begin when somone would just decide what he said made no sense and question how it could be true. For example, if PT said that Giambi was merely a 1 win upgrade over Barton, a poster saying “How did you come to that conculsion?” would likely get a detailed explination of the offensive and defensive differences, how many offensive and defensive runs better then Barton he was, and how those related to wins. If instead the poster said “Thats crazy, everyone knows Giambi is way better then Barton, did you see what Barton hit last year?”, that would likely get a much less civil response that are the ones that earned PT his rep (and probably some earlier strikes).

As for salb, I think you are misrepresenting (or possibly misremembering) what he said. I clearly remember him getting very upset at people that would read what took him hours (or possibly even days) to write and make comments like “I see what you have written, but there is more to baseball then stats, and I think that what you have done is wrong.” Salb would then (justifiably IMHO) respond and say that if you cannot come up with anything more then “you are wrong” then stay out of my thread. Salb always welcomed (and even seem to enjoy) questions, and I remember him patiently answering all sorts of newbies when he started his original staturday pieces. His big beef was that if you are going to tell him hes wrong, back it up with something. Otherwise, it is pretty hard to have a dialog when all someone is saying is “That is wrong” with no reason to support it.

The third paragraph is supposed to be blockquoted from Pam's earlier post

AN posted before I was finished. (guess it decided I had said enough)

All I was going to say to finish was that I think if you give the stat guys a chance, and are asking questions, you will way more often then not get very useful, civil answers

This has been my experience as well

PT explained a lot of things in ways that I found to be very civil when he was asked a question. When people argued against him with poorly formed arguments, often PT destroyed them and I have no problem with that. This is how I have learned most of what I know stat wise about baseball and why I am so disappointed that he was banned.

+1

1) sal was making a joke.

2) more importantly, can anyone provide examples of cases where people have been ripped to shreds for asking questions about stats in staturday threads? in my experience people get ripped for comments like “cust should bat 8th, he sucks because his batting average is only .240” not “can someone explain to me what OPS/WAR/BABIP means, how it’s calculated, and/or why it matters?” without any real examples of people being ripped for comments like that in staturday threads, i can only assume that it’s just a convenient excuse for those who really are not interested in stats.

Staturday: If you think Mark Ellis is bad, I hate you and find you stupid.

salb's staturday post:

The first sentence:

Taking a cue from one of my favorite bloggers.

“Lookout Landing – If You Think Adrian Beltre Is Bad And/Or Overrated, I Hate You And Find You Stupid”

That’s the freaking TITLE of the mariners blog, which tells you not every sbnation site takes this whole “no incivility / rudeness / personal attacks” thing to the same ridiculous extremes that AN does.

That’s NOT the thread I was referring to and if I had the time and inclination to find it I would, but unfortunately I don’t. I did try yesterday but couldn’t allow my day to be swallowed up by the goings-on at AN. But aside from that, I’m trying to relay the perception of some of the people who don’t participate in those types of threads. Also, I understand you are emotional about this situation and maybe rightly so, but I also no longer have the inclination to engage you in debate so that’s as far as I will go here.

okay well i searched through his staturday posts and found that.
i can’t really comment on a statement that may or may not even exist.
and any response from you or anyone else to my (relatively unemotional) point #2 above would be helpful.

My response is:

Exactly. Not every SBN site is the same. Which is why I participate here on AN, and not on LL.

THAT'S why?

for me it’s more because i’m an A’s fan, and AN is an A’s blog whereas LL is a mariners blog. which is ironic considering LL is so stat friendly, unlike the mariners, whereas the current AN is essentially anti-stats.
if LL was an A’s blog, i would probably never visit AN again.

This blog has plenty of stat guys...

and I think most of us do appreciate them. I don’t think the site is anti-stat. Sabermetric stuff has been a part of this blog all along.

i would describe everyone listed as "Managers" below

as falling somewhere between “non-stathead” (one or two, including blez) to “anti-sabrmetrics” (most, including nico and flashfire).

The site is not all about the managers.

Plenty of stat guys post all of the time. I disagree with you about Nico though. He doesn’t seem anti-stat to me. He is well-rounded in his baseball views . Stats are a big part of that. I think that’s a misconception that a lot are trying to push in their anger.
grover,salb,NSJ,Taj all of those guys are very facile with the stat analysis.

You are correct, IM4Oakgal

well... we'll have to agree to disagree on nico

of course there are lots of stat folks around, it’s the a’s.

all i know is i see flashfire arguing with PT and mikea over stat stuff (and obviously getting owned) a while ago, and next thing you know he’s a manager. i doubt you’ll see mikea made a manager by the current regime anytime soon. and then of course flashfire supports banning PT (but hey so did jeepers, so maybe the lesson here is that PT should try losing arguments from now on).

and you’re padding that list with people (salb) who may not even post here any more…

x?

The list of stat folks old and young is a very long one. I can see that you admit that.
People enjoyed arguing with PT IMO. As for Flashfire being added as a manager(this is my opinion only) but I think that they chose him because he has a unique talent for photography and a passion for the team. The managers are all very different. Marquez is the holder of so much first-hand A’s history, NSJ a talented baseball analyst, etc. They are all so different and I think that may be a deliberate choice.

obviously based on my previous comment, i do not agree that "they are all so different"

Think about the people a little more then.

Because they are.

Yeah, but I gotta look up "facile" in the dictionary

I hope you spelled it right.

I love you.

I'd disagree with that

I love stats, but I don’t believe they’re the end-all, be-all of evaluating players. There are definitely cases where people rely too heavily on stats and nothing else to assess players.

Stats are only part of how to evaluate players and people aren’t right or wrong simply because they prefer one way over another. There is no one way to determine something like this.

that’s like the word-for-word response anti-statheads give when accused of being anti-stats, well aside from the few who consider it a point of pride like joe morgan.
but anyways, i have seen nothing to indicate that is the case, and plenty that indicates it is.

That's cool

You’re free to believe whatever you want.

thanks!

Any time!

i meant #2 from my previous comment:

2) more importantly, can anyone provide examples of cases where people have been ripped to shreds for asking questions about stats in staturday threads? in my experience people get ripped for comments like "cust should bat 8th, he sucks because his batting average is only .240" not "can someone explain to me what OPS/WAR/BABIP means, how it’s calculated, and/or why it matters?" without any real examples of people being ripped for comments like that in staturday threads, i can only assume that it’s just a convenient excuse for those who really are not interested in stats.

Heck, its not like Staturdays drew that big an audience most weeks!

Even a reputed meany like me can’t rip those who don’t show.

I always looked forward to them

and I usually found them so thorough and well explained that I agreed with them by the end regardless of my feelings at the beginning so comment was unnecessary.

I am not looking to debate

and I think my first reply to you was civil (not that you said otherwise, just trying to show that I am trying to have a civil conversation).

So, that said, I really truly was hoping to understand why you felt the stats fanposts (and the Staturday front page posts in particular) were hostile to those that are not in the know?

I read all of them, and the one common thread whether it was salb, devo or grover (or heck even PT as a guest writer) was that they always seemed to welcome and encourage questions from those that did not understand — heck that was the point of many of the Staturday posts (esp salb’s) to try and make some of the more advanced sabermetrcis more understandable to average joe user.

Any examples you have would be appreciated as I just have never seen the behavior you describe.

Any examples you have would be appreciated as I just have never seen the behavior you describe.

.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege

You did parliamentary debate? Where/when?

I think you know a friend of mine actually

Sam Cunningham… I debated at Willamette University, and before that George Washington High School in SF… You debated at DVC/Cal right?

No, the only Sam Cunningham I know of was nicknamed "Bam"

and was a tailback for USC in the early 70s!

I debated at Harvard 20 years ago, back when APDA was the only Parliamentary circuit and the furthest west it reached was Chicago (though there were rumors of a few debaters at Stanford when I was a junior and senior). Before that I went to CPS — I remember Washington as having a great crew of interpers, back in the early to mid 80s.

My bad

I did NPDA for a while though i did cross x in high school. I miss it.

First, I apologize for pointing out the obvious...

There are a lot of people who read AN each day, but do not bother to contribute commentary on the various baseball topics. From my own personal experience, it is mostly because ANers tend to not be very friendly and are very “High School Click” like when it comes to comments. This is sad and pathetic as it turns off a huge number of people who would potentially be repeat users of AN. AN could be great, but it is constantly holding itself back because of immature drama. How old is everyone here? Get over yourselves and get back to baseball.

Justin Kase - March 26, 2009 reply

I hope the committee will look to some other sites for systems that work well. I think slash/dot, too, uses a "karma"style approach.

And fark.com has changed and grown — and retained a very loyal following as it’s blown past half-a-million commenters. Granted it’s a humor site — involving nothing as serious as baseball, but as a farkmod-emeritus, I think their modding system there was generally successful. Some of its elements include:

1 — few and clear rules (see “the FARQ”)
2 — liberal interpretation of those rules, managed by Drew who chose the mods to be mods, and not writers or other functions — and who would manage/moderate the Mods privately
3 — inclination against taking action, except for things like hate-speech — flamewars and OTs happen. So what?
4 — the ability to warn under a “Moderator” identity
5 — liberal use of a comment deletion function, as necessary, when warnings were insufficient
6 — bannination for various periods, only for egregious or repeated offenses, or where someone was clearly committing “suicide-by-mod.” Review of proposed bans by the group.

I love you.

Rec me, baby.

You got it!

good post

I think your points are all well constructed and could be useful here.

+1

3 — inclination against taking action, except for things like hate-speech — flamewars and OTs happen. So what?

Wait... Whos Paul Thomas? The Sham Wow Guy??

The A’s have Jason Giambi?
(This is the only response I could give to reading all 1k posts and wishing I could have 2 hrs. of my life back)

asfan777 - March 26, 2009 reply

WE'RE ON THE VERGE OF SIGNING FRANK THOMAS!

WE LANDED ON THE MOON!!!

You have a great group of folks moderating the system.

Thank You to all that agreed to take on the task or continue to take on the task. Nico, you are the best. You listen to people and you love this blog. That’s very clear and you deserve mega props for the way you handle yourself and deal witrh criticism. Thank You for your many hours of work here on this site. Even when Blez was leading your constant presence on the site was such a stabilizing factor.
As for this PT brouhaha …people? It’s a MONTH. Not a banishment. Too many have over-reacted. JMO.

:-)

Thanks.

That's the thing that keeps coming back to me.

Several people in this thread have said that people need to stop being so sensitive and not over-react every time someone says something offensive or insulting. And yet it is those same people who seem to be ultra-sensitive, offended and insulted about the fact that PT was banned.

I think the solution to all this is for everyone to stop making such a big deal over being banned. What is it to be banned? You can still read the site. You can still post on any other site. You can still watch the A’s on TV or mlb.com. You can still send emails to your friends. You can even start a blog of your own. The only thing you can’t do is post comments on Athletics Nation for 30 days. Is the ability to do that so precious that being banned is like the ultimate punishment that should only be visited upon the most egregious villain, who “truly deserves it”?

I’d like to see AN ban 20 or 30 more people, just so we can all get over ourselves and realize it’s not a big deal. You can start with me if you like.

This argument misses the point

First, I’m here because AN is the best.

Second, I care about how it’s run because I want it to remain the best.

Third, I care about the specific incident because it makes AN worse.

If you don’t care when something you care about gets worse, I don’t know what to tell you. If you believe AN is now better (as some do), we disagree. Is it a big deal in every sense of the word? Of course not. Do I want to fix the problems I perceive in the process? Yes.

I don't disagree with any of that.

I just don’t think banning is a big deal. I’m not sure if banning PT makes AN better. I’m leaning toward no, though I think this whole crisis it precipitated will be good for AN in the long run.

Now that we agree that making AN better is our standard, I would say I think treating banning as if it were a very very big deal that should only happen on the rarest of occasions does not make AN better. Apparently you feel otherwise. OK.

I just wish somebody could explain to me why PT got a strike

without saying, “He has constantly pissed people off in the past.”

His comment did not deserve a strike at all and he should be reinstated. “What’s done is done” is a pretty lame excuse.

NateHST - March 26, 2009 reply

Let me try - but let me also reveal that I neither flagged the comment

nor voted for it to be “strike”. I think the “strike” came from the facts that:

1. The comment came in a thread where someone was clearly upset over a tragedy and PT chose an inappropriate time to make a point about whether or not police officers are heroes.

2. The comment clearly upset/inflamed many people (and was flagged by non-moderators).

3. His subsequent comments response to the outcry, when he could have quickly backtracked and made the situation better, only seemed to make the situation worse.

4. The result was that a thread that was supposed to be mourning a tragedy became a thread about PT.

5. This continued a pattern of “threads becoming meta-PT sidetracked” that had reached the point of being untenable – “something has to give.”

People seem to want to hear that the “strike” was not a “letter of the law” interpretation of the single comment and was in fact the culmination of everything in totality. I think that’s exactly true – and should not be surprising in the least. We will never get the CGs to a point where they are black and white, no wiggle room or interpretation, because that’s just not how any system works, certainly not any good system.

The real question, IMO, is whether the moderators acted due to their personal feelings, due to biases, due to corruption/power issues, or simply because they believed it was the most correct decision they could make given every bit of knowledge (including the CGs) they had to work with. The answer, I believe, is the latter.

As for my part in all this, personally, I did play a part: I unilaterally, as “the boss,” decided that it was in the best interest of the site, the community, and the individual, to do a 30-day suspension instead of the outright ban suggested in the CGs. For that I take full responsibility, for better or for worse. Like many of you, I believe PT adds a lot to the community, and like many of you, I hope he will return with all the provocative insight he has always brought – and perhaps just a touch more “finesse.”

I am glad that you

decided to make it only a month. I don’t think that Paul has the people skills to realize how he is coming off to others sometimes. But he showed himself to be a big supporter of this blog and the A’s with his frequent posting style. He so obviously loved posting here. Even though I know that this is his own fault , I can’t help but feel sorry for his banishment. He did do a lot of good work here. I would hate it if he ended up leaving permanently when he was such a part of this community. AN is a clannish place and you don’t turn your back completely on family.

I think this post supports my proposal for third-strike reform

I, and many others, gave you a lot of grief over a decision it appears you did not even agree with. Requiring unanimity would save baseballgirl from that situation.

Other than that, I don’t think the last part is inconsistent with the CGs. The CGs actually suggest a ban that can be appealed at any time. You just told PT when to appeal the ban (and didn’t, at least initially, promise his appeal would succeed).

I don't want to give the impression I disagreed with it (or agreed with it)

I just didn’t participate in the voting. What I did instead was to alert the mods to the flag’s existence, point out that if they voted it to be a “strike” it would be #3, and that they should make sure they were “mindful and intentional” about the implications of voting for it to be a “strike” if that’s what they felt was the right vote.

Ok then, a position you didn't take

That said, I think everyone on the committee should have to take a stand

...when it's a third strike

Logistically speaking, that might not be possible

Not without dragging on the proceeding to an unacceptable length of time. There are (if my counting is right) 1 mods who could vote on CGVs under the old system. You suggest unanimity for the 3rd strike, I’d counter by suggesting a simple majority vote for all strikes. The way I see it, if only 8 mods are around and at least 6 of ’em think a comment is strike worthy then justice is being served.

That's entirely possible

At the very least, I’d suggest no third strike if any member makes a “no strike” vote within X days.

I’m not troubled by the 3 of 10 thing as much when there is no consequence, and I do think that expediency is valuable in this context.

1 no vote over-ruling (potentially) 10 yes votes smacks a little of the tail wagging the dog

If there’s a real worry about favoritism I can’t imagine an easier way for one of the mods to protect their friends.

That's a fair point

And it might well be that some number (6 or 7) of yes votes is better. Certainly I think both make more sense than the current system.

I don't think there should be rush for banning (not that I'm implying there was one)

if it takes a little time for everyone to come together to make the decision, the site is better for it. That being said, something the along the line of a 75% of all mods for a 3rd strike/ban seems right, with a simple majority out of 3 to all of the mods for a 1st & 3rd.

The question is, how do you define a little time?

A day or three? That’s probably OK.

A week to collect all the votes? That’s a loser.

If you can’t collect a majority of votes within a 72 hour period I kinda doubt your ever going to get them for that particular comment.

I think that's right

I also think if you send an e-mail to the group and people don’t vote to issue the third strike within some reasonable amount of time the comment probably doesn’t deserve one.

So assuming

the mods don’t already know that one of them, say FF, is unavailable, then those abstaining votes would count as a non-yes vote? If they do know one of them is unavailable, it’s a complete non-vote?

Well

I think the idea is that if there are 9 mods, it takes 6-7 yes votes for a third strike. In other words, there is no difference b/t an abstention and a no.

I'd agree mostly with that

But, not to speak for grover, but at least I can see a case where if two or three simply are out of town or away from the blog and there are only 6 or 7 mods, then it should be based to those 6/7 mods voting and be more like 5/6 out of 6/7. But a general abstainment would be a no.

Just FYI, this is almost always the case

Any flagged comment is likely to seen, in time, by some random combination of 4-5 of the 9-10 mods, different ones each time, because this is no one’s “day job.”

So the idea is that you need about 10 mods if you want about 5 people to weigh in, but even that is “give or take” – sometimes it could be 8 and sometimes it could be 3. (Unless I, or now baseballgirl, send out a specific email to all mods alerting them, as I did with the PT flag.)

Right

I think that system makes complete sense until you’re talking about a third strike. I would not change the mechanics at all for strikes 1 and 2, and I do appreciate that no one in the group (except, of course, Blez) is getting paid.

I like that you sent the e-mail (I think that should be mandatory for third strikes), and I think at that point the majority of the board should weigh in.

DMOAS raises an issue which I – and my surgically attached blackberry – am poorly equipped to handle, however it is true that if 3 of 9 mods are totally unavailable and 7 votes are required it is absurd to let a clear strike sail by. I do think (as DMOAS notes) a distinction should be drawn between that case and a mod simply choosing not to vote. I don’t know enough about the internal system to propose a meaningful solution.

Right

For 1st & 2nd offense, whoever’s there, a simple majority decides it. For 3rd strike 75% of mod known to be available and I’d argue a known available mod who chooses not to weigh in is an automatic “no” (or “non-Yes”) and a known unavailable mod wouldn’t be counted at all.

It’s totally understandable that not everyone would be available, but in the case of a 3rd strike, every fair measure to get everyone available should be taken (not that that isn’t the case, it just should be the case).

That makes perfect sense -

an email could even be sent to the complainee saying, “you have two strikes and there has been a complaint – you may not hear back as quickly as usual because we want all the mods to weigh in.” That way, there isn’t some absurd 7 day delay between comment and “Oh by the way, you’re banned,” but more care can be taken to make sure enough mods agree.

I should note, though, that the number of users who have received a third “strike” is, what, three in the history of AN? (reztips, oaktoon, PT if I am not forgetting someone) An outsider reading this would probably assume this issue came up more than once in a blue moon. But still, yes, I think this would be an improvement. Too bad I don’t have a say anymore! (Buuuaaaaahaha!!!!)

Or

dooo you? BUWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Exactly what I had in mind

And considering your updates over the last couple of years on strikes given out, the fact that this situation is so rare means the extra attention given to it is both fair AND rare enough that it’s not going to be taking up too much of people’s time too often.

For me

A week for a ban seems acceptable, more than that, probably a little too much. But I’d hope that within 72 hours they’d be able to gather enough people, say 5 of the 8 mods at least to start discussing, etc. But in any case that not all the mods are available, I’d wouldn’t want anything less than a 75% vote, so it’d be a 4/5 majority. But that’s just me. I just think the more time you have to separate yourself from the event, the more likely you are to make a rational decision.

"I just found out I got a third strike for comments I made about Dotel."

That would be a bit too long of a wait.

First time I recall hearing Dotel and 3 strikes in the same sentence

grover - March 27, 2009 reply

As for your #5

Im just wondering if you could point out examples of these, I would find it helpful… I read AN every day and that just hasn’t been my experience. Perhaps Ive missed something.

Maybe someone else can.

I’m:

a. terrible at finding archived stuff
b. really wanting to move on

I definately understand B

but with A I really think that if PT had become such a distraction it would be easy for you to identify such a thread along the lines of: “remember that time in the x thread when?” and everyone should be like ugg yeah i remember that. I just think PT gets a bad wrap.

Every system has its flaws and i think this cases shows it. The reason I like the karma system the great orange satan (Daily Kos) uses and think it would be good here is because the hierarchy of blog (cgv panel) makes decisions for the community but is inherently self selecting, which is natural. I think the Kos system does a great job democratizing and eliminating a lot of the hierarchy. It seems like a lot of the arguments about PT being here are dependent on a positive or negative effect on the community, and rather than taking Pam’s word that x person hurts it or my word that x person helps it, the karma system lets the community itself decide. Ionno just my own two cents.

Ive been reading AN for since after the 04 season and commenting sporadically for two (though i took the opportunity of new AN to change my sn). It truly is a testament to the community that it this is one of the only incidents like this that I can remember and we still get to participate in an awesome site which is a testament to the people at the bottom of the page’s hard work to keep things that way.

people getting "ripped to shreds" for asking questions, threads becoming "meta-PT sidetracked"...

lotta complaining about stuff that may not even exist…

http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/10/24/645564/staturday-if-you-think-mar

someone linked to one in the 1000-comment thread

I don’t remember the topic, but I remember the date was mid-June. Also, wasn’t there an issue with a lineup thread by bbg?

And I do remember a/the Staturday thread where sal was being curt [Young] with the uninformed. From my search, though, I can see it was neither of the ones he posted in January. I don’t have time to search more right now; maybe later. Hey, if Pam says she knew the guy personally ffor twenty years, would you really think she was making that up?

Cutthemullet - March 27, 2009 reply

ooh, think I have an interesting find

So I lied about not having time…as I usually would be lying when I say I don’t have time, heh. I have a class at 9 (Eastern), so yeah I have a little time.

Ok, so scrolling down the thread with the title inspired by Jeff from LL:

you get to a comment from doctork in which he blockquotes something said by sal:

Wow

Those of you who say, "but he hit .233 last year!" will be subject to Nico and his goat. Staturdays are for intelligent discussion, and if you can’t keep up then I’d rather you not participate.

by doctorK on Oct 24, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I opted not to put a blockquoted comment within a blockquote…or even to use the original blockquote…anyway, so with doctorK’s comment, you would assume that would be in direct response to the comment actually being quoted, right? So I clicked “up”, and…that comment is not there. There is a comment that might in fact be worthy of sal’s response (“although [Ellis] prevents 15 or so runs per year, he costs the offense at least 15 runs per year for his ineptness… was that taken into consideration?”), and then a different, polite response by sal, but the comment quoted by doctorK is nowhere to be found. Which of course leaves me wondering if Sal used his front-page powers to save face and delete it. Do you now feel threatened after the fact by this “abuse of power” by a writer? (I’m not really opposed to what you were saying above to Flashfire, just seeing how you’d respond to that action apparently being taken by someone you like).

So based on that, it might be hard to find the evidence if the evidence has been destroyed. And I remembered there being more than one comment in there…and when sober, I have a lot of faith in my memory, if not my detective work. But most likely, a whole subthread emerged from that comment by Sal in which he said other alienating stuff, then he went back and deleted that subthread while overlooking doctorK’s comment, which would’ve been some distance beneath the rest of it. Fuck it, I take back my comment expressing doubt in my detective skills, heh…I think it’s a plausible theory. OK, NOW I’ve run out of time…15-mile drive

Cutthemullet - March 27, 2009 reply

Hey CTM

Your detective work was a bit sloppy this time (although I give you a pass because you did reply to yourself for me in The Thread).

Nothing has been deleted, DrK’s blockquote is from the original post, and the text is still there. So much ado about nothing on that front.

As for the line itself, it was a bit more then he probably needed to say, but as I recall he had been dealing with a lot of people telling him he was wrong with nothing to back it up — and made that comment with those people in mind (as you can see from the “but he hit .233 last year” part of the comment). I can see how that might be discouraging to a person trying to understand, but it was not directed at an individual in this case.

People who come into his staturday posts to learn get reasoned responses — those that just want to basically say “you’re wrong” without anything to back it up get the pointy end of the stick. At least that is how I recollect.

AsFanInLA - March 27, 2009 reply

I remember that sentence well.

I remember thinking, “wow, that’s pretty harsh”, but I didn’t think it would be constructive to make a fuss about it.

Front page writers don't have the power to delete comments, not even their own

grover - March 27, 2009 reply

Isn't it more correct to say that people that are only front page writers

like you, Salb, Devo, etc cannot delete comments but that the other front page writers who are listed as “managers” below (BBG, Nico, FF, Blez, etc) actually can delete comments including there own?

I am guessing that is what you meant, but just wanted to clarify.

AsFanInLA - March 27, 2009 reply

Managers and Editors can delete stuff

Authors (and this is the last time I refer to myself as an author) can only write stuff for the Front Page.

grover - March 27, 2009 reply

i think the other two responses covered everything

xbhaskarx - March 27, 2009 reply

Nico

I have been thinking this through and I do have one question. You may not want to answer it because it might start up another 500 comment shout fest, and if so that is totally fine. And, since you were not part of the decision to vote it a strike, I know your answer would not be an official position, but just that of someone who “knows how this stuff works”.

(I think I have yet again qualified it enough)

Do you believe it would still have been a strike if, after one or two defenses, PT made a simple “I can see my opinion is way in the minority on this fanpost so I am done here” comment? Or was he done basically from the point when he hit enter the first time?

I will admit that I have not read the OP from top to bottom, but it has sounded like he not only went in and dropped the bomb, but then vigorusly defended his use of said bomb.

I don't know for sure

but I’ve gotten the sense from the mods that that would have been enough.

My guess is that had he come on after the replies to the comment and said,

“My comment seems to have upset a lot of people, so let me retract/apologize,” no moderator would have voted a “strike.” I say that because every time I can recall someone publicly apologizing for a flagged comment before the vote has occurred, the retraction/apology has been accepted by the mods as sufficient.

So yes, I think the comments that followed had impact, and in general I do think everything that occurs between strikes has impact – and that’s not, IMO, a bad thing, just a correction that is needed in the CGs to reflect that this is the case and will ALWAYS be the case. No comment can ever be taken completely without context, and the CGs simply need to say so.

And just so it’s understood, my generic paragraph in the “strike” letter wasn’t meant to say, “Nothing weighed into the decision other than that exact comment” so much as to say, “You are not being told you are bad in general, just that your behavior was bad here.” Granted, I could have worded that far better in my generic email, but that’s the point I was aiming to make when I sent out those emails.

I agree with this

It would be helpful to say something about apologizing in the CGs as I do think that changes things significantly. On a personal level, I’m surprised (in a good way) to hear this.

That said, I think that mods shouldn’t consider “lifetime” achievement when making decisions, but should consider other comments within the thread. I might be trying to legislate the example, but I think it’s a useful distinction.

I think apologies are good

But they may not always be enough.

I mean, we’d be looking at a difficult situation if every time someone said something that violated a CG the poster turned around and said “Sorry about that.”

If it’s a rare occasion, that’s one thing. It’s easy to say “Okay, good on you for owning up to it.”

If it happens all the time, I’d consider it a problem because it’d start to look like the apology is used as an excuse to say something inflammatory (or whatever the case may be) then turn around and apologize thinking it’d avoid getting a strike. That’s something we’d have to pay attention to but there aren’t so many flags being tossed around that we wouldn’t see a pattern that may develop.

Flashfire - March 27, 2009 reply

It's probably more fair to say

“An apology would be weighed in on your behalf when judgement is made.” It doesn’t say explicitly that it will get your off the hook, but that it it implictly says that it could, assuming it’s genuine and you didn’t really really f-up.

That's a good way of putting it, yep

Flashfire - March 27, 2009 reply

Sure

I’m not saying that someone who posts a strike and an apology constantly is off the hook. I’m saying adding something like “if you make a comment in an argument you’d like to have back, apologize. Although an apology is not a get-out-of-strike-free card, apologizing may help both the discussion and your chances of avoiding a strike.”

Or, similarly, what DMOAS just posted.

You mean like ....

“I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid.”

or

“No offense, but you’re a jackass.”

or

“With all due respect, shut the f*ck up.”

etc ?

Nah

More like saying something that’s clearly out of bounds, then coming back later and saying, “Sorry, I had a bad day and I’ll try to be more careful next time,” or, “Sorry, I went overboard and didn’t mean it to come out like that.” Something along those lines.

If someone does that, it’s honest (because people have probably seen enough fake apologies to have an idea between one you mean and one you don’t) and they’re more careful about things from then on, that’s cool with me. If they just go right back to the same actions as before, the apology doesn’t mean a whole lot.

“I’m sorry, but you’re a blah blah” isn’t really cutting it in my book.

Flashfire - March 27, 2009 reply

I once had a sig-other who became very proficient at the so-called "I-messages," as follows:

“When you do thus-and-so, I feel … like you’re a jerk.”

Possibly true, but not what the marital counselor, or the other-other, had in-mind.

"I messages"

That was recommended to me, so I tried it with my wife. Her response was “why do you always make every conversation about you? It’s always ‘I feel this’ and ‘I think that’, ‘I’, ‘I’, ‘I’, you’re so self-centered.”

Sometimes you just can’t win.

~~Sometimes~~With women you just can’t win.

Fixed.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

You called Edgar Gonzalez a woman.