Ian Needs To Clarify What Is Acceptable

[mgteich]

I guess there must be severe strains on the capability of the board. I have not seen so many threads closed since I started posting on the internet.

In the past two weeks, so many threads have been closed that I think Ian needs to clarify what is acceptable. I read just read a thread suggesting that Belichick should call all the offesnive plays. As was the case yesterday for it seemed dozens of threads, the thread was closed.

And no, I don't understand having only one thread of hundreds of posts to discuss various aspects of a given game and trends going forward. It seemed better in the past when folks who wanted threads on various aspects were free to post them.

This is just my two cents. I think this is a great board, with lots of great posters. And I think that Ian does a great job and is free to have whatever rules he wishes on his site.

It is just that I have been personally frustrated with the change in policy and the new censorship.

 

[BadMoFo]

Oh boy, another thread to close.

 

[Ian]

mgteich - I clarified it in the other thread. To be honest your threads are a great example of what we need to start some insightful and interesting discussions. Some of the stuff that comes out on the heels of a loss gets to be a bit too over the top. The threads that were closed were ones that started off fine but became ugly - so there have been a bunch that I shut down. Some were quick rants that were getting in the way of better threads.

The postgame thread is just to prevent 10 threads of similar discussions immediately after the game, especially after a loss when they tend to involve a ton of negativity. As I said if you were here late last night and first thing this morning you would have seen what I meant. Things are just now returning to normal now that we've had a full day to recover.

As I said in the other thread, all I'm saying is if someone is going to start a new topic that you simply consider the following: "if you're going to criticize something or question it, please do so in a manner where you outline what you feel is wrong, and what you think they should do to fix it." That at least gives people something to discuss or debate. Saying so and so "sucks" or "needs to go" doesn't do that.

That's it - so I'm not trying to censor anything. Again - I'm just trying to encourage everyone to offer threads that we can discuss, because saying someone "sucks" without saying why isn't productive and doesn't allow us to have a good discussion with that thread. Nor do we need 7 threads that are similar but with slight differences. You've been here for nearly 10-years and have been a great poster and a mod, I'm sure you would agree with that.

I guess there must be severe strains on the capability of the board. I have not seen so many threads closed since I started posting on the internet.

In the past two weeks, so many threads have been closed that I think Ian needs to clarify what is acceptable. I read just read a thread suggesting that Belichick should call all the offesnive plays. As was the case yesterday for it seemed dozens of threads, the thread was closed.

And no, I don't understand having only one thread of hundreds of posts to discuss various aspects of a given game and trends going forward. It seemed better in the past when folks who wanted threads on various aspects were free to post them.

This is just my two cents. I think this is a great board, with lots of great posters. And I think that Ian does a great job and is free to have whatever rules he wishes on his site.

It is just that I have been personally frustrated with the change in policy and the new censorship.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Frankly its very simple- For the success of the Combo of Bill Belichick and Tom Brady we don't need any crybaby spoiled members posting Belichick/Brady sucks threads ..despite free speech and all per say

Its a team effort and even though some players like Maroney for example deserve a little criticism for lack of effort and productivity, Brady and Belichick are two men that stand out to deserve better and more respect - win OR lose.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Frankly its very simple- For the success of the Combo of Bill Belichick and Tom Brady we don't need any crybaby spoiled members posting Belichick/Brady sucks threads ..despite free speech and all per say

Its a team effort and even though some players like Maroney for example deserve a little criticism for lack of effort and productivity, Brady and Belichick are two men that stand out to deserve better and more respect - win OR lose.

That's not the policy at all... try again.

 

[Ian]

Frankly its very simple- For the success of the Combo of Bill Belichick and Tom Brady we don't need any crybaby spoiled members posting Belichick/Brady sucks threads ..despite free speech and all per say

Its a team effort and even though some players like Maroney for example deserve a little criticism for lack of effort and productivity, Brady and Belichick are two men that stand out to deserve better and more respect - win OR lose.

That's not exactly what I'm saying - I'm simply saying that for anyone who starts a new thread, just take some time to put together your thoughts before you post them so that for those of us who'd like to participate in your thread we have something to work off of

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

That's not exactly what I'm saying - I'm simply saying that for anyone who starts a new thread, just take some time to put together your thoughts before you post them so that for those of us who'd like to participate in your thread we have something to work off of

Oh O.K., My wrong assessment of the rules :bricks:

 

[Ian]

Also - the Postgame thread is like the actual "Official Game Thread".

Imagine the board filled with 30+ threads during the game about similar subjects - it doesn't make a lot of sense since it would be hard to follow live discussion that way - hence the reason why we have the "Game Thread".

I decided the PostGame thread could be used the same way - it gives people a chance to bounce their immediate thoughts off of everyone else, and after things cool down we can start actual threads to break down and discuss different aspects of the game.

So that's really all I'm trying to accomplish - hopefully that clarifies things a bit further.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I think the censorship is good. Too many guys start threads because they feel a need to be noticed. Like they have what really needs to be discussed even though there's already a thread for it.

- Things like: "I don't know if this has already been discussed"

- "I know there's already a thread ... but..."

and many more ... take the time to read the threads and contribute ... if nobody responds to your post well then "it is what it is" ... so what.

I don't make threads anymore ... there's already enough and the regulars are excellant at covering all the topics at hand ... join in to discussions already made ... be part of the team.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

It's too hard to clarify anything on this board. I'm just glad more threads are being closed and I think that's about the only way to handle it. Hopefully people will eventually get the point if enough similarly pointless threads get closed.

It always seems to happen after a loss when one person will complain about Dean Pees, another will complain about the team having no heart since 04, another about being fed up with Maroney, literally about 10 one line threads that can simply be thrown in the postgame thoughts thread. I guess these ground-breaking observations must be heard somehow someway and paid attention to.

Another thing that might help is a post count requirement in order to be able to start a thread. My suggestion would be somewhere around 2,200

 

[Ian]

I think the censorship is good. Too many guys start threads because they feel a need to be noticed. Like they have what really needs to be discussed even though there's already a thread for it.

- Things like: "I don't know if this has already been discussed"

- "I know there's already a thread ... but..."

and many more ... take the time to read the threads and contribute ... if nobody responds to your post well then "it is what it is" ... so what.

I don't make threads anymore ... there's already enough and the regulars are excellant at covering all the topics at hand ... join in to discussions already made ... be part of the team.

Again - I hate the word censorship, but as I said I'm just asking people who start threads to make an effort to give people something to bounce their thoughts off of. I'm not going to call attention to anyone because I've never really enforced this before. For the sake of everyone here in this community we need to at least have some solid threads to have an actual debate with, otherwise it turns into a "B*&^hfest" after the game and since everyone's already upset it's nice to be able to at least take an objective look at what went wrong and talk about it.

Basically we have the "PostGame Thread" for everyone to vent and go off - that's the point of that thread. Read the game threads and the mix of emotions during that thread and you'll see what I mean - plenty of people end up saying things they wish they could take back after the fact. In the PostGame Thread everyone gets to get all their emotion and anger out there, and then the other threads are for us to discuss different aspects of the game. People come here to read what all of you have to say because they enjoy your insight. If things go south and this turns into a weekly "B*&^$ session" you're going to see fewer and fewer people here to talk to and it's going to become miserable for everyone. I'd like to prevent that and at least make things as fun/interesting as possible.

Does that make sense???

 

[Ian]

I come here from time to time to check it out and basically it seems if you say anything Ian thinks is negative, or that Ian doesn't like, it gets closed or you get banned.

I visit many teams boards and this by far is the most censored and controlled.

It's his site though, but I don't get the "If I think it's negative it's gone" mentality. What good does that do?

I mean, you go over to the Indy Star boards and you have Pats trolls run amok, but no one over there deletes threads or freezes threads or bans someone for saying something negative about the team (sometimes I wish they would but they don't and in all honestly the forum is better for it).

Not only does this delete/ban/freeze policy affect threads that have already been started but then you have people not saying what they really feel because Ian will swoop in and put a stop to it.

Just saying censorship isn't good. Yes it's Ians site but he comes off as a guy who if he doesn't like the way the game is going takes his ball and goes home.

Clearly you've missed the point - but since you're not here all the time you don't know me nearly well enough to realize that's not accurate. It has nothing to do with that at all

I'm off to Watch Monsters vs. Aliens with the family - I'll be back on here later.

 

[NePatriots]

Another thing that might help is a post count requirement in order to be able to start a thread. My suggestion would be somewhere around 2,200

Classic. 250 would be reasonable though.

 

[mgteich]

I must say that it doesn't make sense to me. There is room for more than 30 threads per page. I don't find it unreasonable at all to see a couple of pages of threads after a game, as we used to. Sure, threads were reasonably consolidated when they dealt with the same issue, but trying to consolidate to one thread or a very few threads seems to be overkill.

In the end, most of us figured out how to title threads in order for them to stay around for an hour or more before they were closed.

In the past two weeks, I waded through the hundreds of posts in the official allowed post game thread. There were literally dozens of good football discussions, but the arguments were very difficult to follow. It is as if allowed on one preseason thread during the preseason with all posts on the board to be posted in the one thread.

The fact is that after the game all anyone wants to do is to discuss the game, and perhaps effects on future games. To me, it is not reasonable to have this discussion among over a thousand posters to be restricted to one thread. It just makes no sense to me.

Again - I hate the word censorship, but as I said I'm just asking people who start threads to make an effort to give people something to bounce their thoughts off of. I'm not going to call attention to anyone because I've never really enforced this before. For the sake of everyone here in this community we need to at least have some solid threads to have an actual debate with, otherwise it turns into a "B*&^hfest" after the game and since everyone's already upset it's nice to be able to at least take an objective look at what went wrong and talk about it.

Basically we have the "PostGame Thread" for everyone to vent and go off - that's the point of that thread. Read the game threads and the mix of emotions during that thread and you'll see what I mean - plenty of people end up saying things they wish they could take back after the fact. In the PostGame Thread everyone gets to get all their emotion and anger out there, and then the other threads are for us to discuss different aspects of the game. People come here to read what all of you have to say because they enjoy your insight. If things go south and this turns into a weekly "B*&^$ session" you're going to see fewer and fewer people here to talk to and it's going to become miserable for everyone. I'd like to prevent that and at least make things as fun/interesting as possible.

Does that make sense???

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I come here from time to time to check it out and basically it seems if you say anything Ian thinks is negative, or that Ian doesn't like, it gets closed or you get banned.

That's ridiculous. Maybe it's because you only come here time to time, you are missing alot then. People have made threads complaining about the site function and he didn't even close those ones.

 

[crowell33]

Just a thought, I would love to see a maximum number of posts per day ( not including game day or post game threads ). Patsfans.com has hundreds ( probably thousands ) of members, but so many of the threads are predictably dominated by the same handful of posters. Some (not all) of the multiposts are dedicated to shouting down and belittling other thread members' ideas.

A post limit would force members to use their daily posts to express their own constructive ideas. If posts were more precious it is unlikely they would be used to attack others. ( This idea was not meant to offend any individual(s) ).

 

[PATSNUTme]

I must say that it doesn't make sense to me. There is room for more than 30 threads per page. I don't find it unreasonable at all to see a couple of pages of threads after a game, as we used to. Sure, threads were reasonably consolidated when they dealt with the same issue, but trying to consolidate to one thread or a very few threads seems to be overkill.

In the end, most of us figured out how to title threads in order for them to stay around for an hour or more before they were closed.

In the past two weeks, I waded through the hundreds of posts in the official allowed post game thread. There were literally dozens of good football discussions, but the arguments were very difficult to follow. It is as if allowed on one preseason thread during the preseason with all posts on the board to be posted in the one thread.

The fact is that after the game all anyone wants to do is to discuss the game, and perhaps effects on future games. To me, it is not reasonable to have this discussion among over a thousand posters to be restricted to one thread. It just makes no sense to me.

How many "this guy sucks" threads or "the play calling sucks" threads do we need? No content, just ranting and venting. It's the same thing after every loss and every close win.

Now, if someone should post a thread that had substance with real content and information, those threads don't get closed, merged, or moved. We are not being a homer board and not allowing critical threads about players or coaches, if they have any substance to them.

 

[Dragda]

Another thing that might help is a post count requirement in order to be able to start a thread. My suggestion would be somewhere around 2,200

Nobody should post that uses the letter "b" or the term "shadow roster."

 

[IcyPatriot]

How many "this guy sucks" threads or "the play calling sucks" threads do we need? No content, just ranting and venting. It's the same thing after every loss and every close win.

Now, if someone should post a thread that had substance with real content and information, those threads don't get closed, merged, or moved. We are not being a homer board and not allowing critical threads about players or coaches, if they have any substance to them.

One thing that was nice about the old - old - old board was how we would have a major topic and then subtopics under that. Lots less graphics back then but it was nice having those subtopics under the main topic. I liked that board ... still miss it. Less bells and whistles but it was nice to pop into the subtopic you wanted and it was easier to follow. But I like simpler ways ... don't pay any attention to me ... I'm boring.

 

[mgteich]

I disagree. For example, there was a thread on offensive play calling. The suggestion was that Belichick should call all the plays, and essentially be the OC for awhile. A couple of posts within that discussion apparently were enough to close off ALL discussion. This happened a dozen times yesterday.

Ian started a "venting thread". If he had done this right after the game, this might have helped some.

But in the end, I just don't favor such censorship. The censorship occurs because the content of the threads do come up to editorial standard. Personally, I think that individuals are capable of wading through all the emotional posts. And just why is the venting so bad that it cannot even be expressed even for 24 hours? Why do all these understandable emotional outbursts need to have extensive point by point support. I might suggest that many don't have that support at the moment and need to see the posts of others who do indeed react logically. For me, the answer is not to have high editorial standards for a message board. I know we have been asked to use spell check and to check for grammatical errors, but this is getting a bit silly IMHO.

How many "this guy sucks" threads or "the play calling sucks" threads do we need? No content, just ranting and venting. It's the same thing after every loss and every close win.

Now, if someone should post a thread that had substance with real content and information, those threads don't get closed, merged, or moved. We are not being a homer board and not allowing critical threads about players or coaches, if they have any substance to them.