Ian Needs To Clarify What Is Acceptable

[MoLewisrocks]

uh-oh...our team is imploding!

I hear where your coming from mhgteich.
I was posting on a thread that got moved while I was typing. I thought I was on the wrong thread.

I also understand the Mods need to be fair and make sure the server and all that technical stuff works so we can all have fun.

It can be insulting to be judged.

Most boards are venting mechanisms for us die hard fans. I was on here before....I think it was a diff board-and I had a diff name. No, its not NEM!!!!

lol...

I love the insight from all fans, all ages....though I may be a jerk at times-I still love coming here because I love the team and I love to vent.

Sometimes we just need to express ourselves.
The threads usually disappear pretty fast anyway.


We have quite a few heartbroken fans...we need to vent.
Its all temporary anyway.

So what is the problem...Ian isn't saying you can't vent, he's just asking it be restricted to a venting thread. I think the real problem is some folks feel their venting deserves special attention so as not to be lost in the venting shuffle... Can we at least be honest and admit that...

 

[crowell33]

Perhaps all post can go through a review board to make sure that they are suitable and well-supported. Spellcheck and grammarcheck can then be applied. And yes, restrict folks on how many ideas they can share.

Not exactly. If you review this very thread from start to finish you might find it predictably dominated by a mega poster shouting down other peoples ideas. A per day post limit ( five ?) would have stopped this pages ago.

 

[mgteich]

A per day limit of five posts would have stopped this board long, long ago. Many of the regular posters would not have continued posting, or would have at elast found other boards to post in addition to this one.

It would have been very, very boring for us if mayo and I had been restricted to five posts a day during the weeks leading up to the draft. There were many, many hours in which we posted more than five times.

Not exactly. If you review this very thread from start to finish you might find it predictably dominated by a mega poster shouting down other peoples ideas. A per day post limit ( five ?) would have stopped this pages ago.

 

[Ian]

Wow - leave for 90-minutes and all hell breaks loose.

You're taking this way too far, and I'm stunned that everyone is freaking out over this and making it seem like there's a movement of some sort going on. Here's the deal, and I'll see if I can address each and every concern:

Regarding the PostGame thread:

Again - this is a thread for people to post their immediate reactions, vent, say whatever they want about the game. I don't care - you can go on and on about who you think is terrible - etc. That's the point of that thread. Watch the "Game Thread" and you'll see that happens anyway. It's like being in the room with a bunch of people and listening to them rant and rave. That's usually what happens anyway - such is life, I'm obviously cool with that and have been.

mgteich mentioned during the Postgame Thread that there are lots of good topics but they're hard to follow. What I'm trying to encourage is for those people who have a good solid topic that they want to discuss with everyone THOSE are the ones I'm looking for people to start new threads for. It's very difficult immediately following a game to have 10 different threads with people going on about the same thing in a similar variation. Forget that one thread makes a discussion hard to follow - 10 different threads about one topic lead to 20-30 of each which makes the entire board hard to follow. It just gets insane and it takes away from the ability to try and hold different discussions.

I was in probably four or five threads where I said the same thing last night - it was a bit much and instead of having different conversations about things, I was having the same one but with different people.

Post Count Restrictions - I'm not changing the current format, nor am I limiting game day "new threads". That's insane. EVERYONE who can start a thread is free to post one. All I'm asking (which is why I don't get the issue) is for people to simply take the time to explain your thought and give all of us something to work off of. As I've posted now for the 5th time - ex: "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." 10 Threads about Dean Pees and Brady's play are just silly and ends up making people repeat themselves and makes it impossible for people to agree/disagree/whatever with you.

Each of you post a thread because you WANT people to hear your opinion and have a conversation with you. All I'm asking is for you to take the time to check and see if a similar thread has been posted (which I hadn't mentioned previously) and then if no one else has, go ahead and start a thread - but just explain your point and why you feel that way, and offer some input as to what you like, or what you don't like and why.

I don't get why this is such a big deal for people. Rather than have you get irritated when threads are closed, merged, etc. I'm trying to encourage people to just put a little more effort into the threads that are started so all of us can have better discussions with you. It's not about censorship, etc. - that's just insane.

Again, I can deal with negative posts. Think Dean Pees sucks? By all means - tell us so. But take the time to explain what frustrated you and what you think needs to change, or what situations occurred that make you think he should be fired. That's what I'm shooting for.

Think Brady or Belichick sucks? By all means, post why you feel that way and which situations you felt they messed up on that has you questioning the way they operate and why you feel the way you do.

At least doing that will allow people who feel the way you do the opportunity to join in, and you'll have given enough of an argument to battle those who don't agree with you.

The Belichick Thread mgteich referred to
I closed the Belichick playcalling thread because there was a severe amount of venom that was beginning to go back and forth between several people and was trying bring some sense of normalcy back to the board at that time. I probably could have left it open a little longer and tried to mediate it a bit - but I was trying to move up some other discussions that people had started and move down some bad threads that were at a standstill at the top of the forum and bring back some ones that were off to a good start.

I think there are several who are taking things WAY too personally and are missing the point. I'll go back to week two, open another forum, and will grab for you in order all of the threads that were posted immediately after the Jets game and into the day after and show you what I'm trying to prevent. Coming off of a loss (or even a win for that matter) - that kind of thing ends up lasting from Sunday night all the way through late Monday until we can actually have civil discussions. I just thought if people took the time to post a better thread when they posted their thought - we could have that happen sooner.

Again - not limiting it to any number, or to anyone in particular. Everyone can post whatever they want - all I'm requesting is to check and see if a similar thread exists and then take the time to really voice your opinion in a way people can have a discussion with you.

Is this really censorship? Because this has nothing to do with what you say - simply just how you say it.

Does that finally explain it???

 

[mgteich]

Ian,

Thank you for your clarifications. I'm certainly fine with all that you posted.

mgteich

 

[Ian]

Ian,

Thank you for your clarifications. I'm certainly fine with all that you posted.

mgteich

Thanks mgteich

I'd like to think that all of you here know me well enough by now to understand what I was getting at. I'm not trying to suddenly control each and every thing you say, that's just ludicrous and I would have thought everyone here would know me better than that. Believe me, after all this time I know the majority of you here and how each of you work - and I think you all know that I appreciate the fact you're all here in the first place. All I was looking for is to try and make everyone's life easier and make the overall experience for everyone here better. There's so many really great people here - the more good threads with different topics and opinons, the better the discussions with all of you.

That's all I'm trying to achieve - so hopefully it makes sense to some of the rest of you....?

 

[shmessy]

People get cranky after a loss.

 

[SmokeShowin]

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.

This is exactly it. If people want to see a great example of what we don't want here, go to the mesageboard on the official Bills site. You'll see dozens of threads on the same topic on a game day. It's sickening.

As always, great site here. Although, I couldn't get on just after the game ended. I'm sure you were inundated with Denver fans wanting to bust balls.

 

[PatsFan37]

Funny thing, Ian, about fixing the servers to handle lots and lots of traffic. Suddenly it starts working and you get lots and lots of traffic and now you've got a different problem. You can put in lights, traffic cops, big signs -- it doesn't matter. All those posters are going to get in a jam. Especially when they're all going every which way.

I think you do a great job with a hard problem, you're creative with your efforts and as usual, everyone is pretty busy misinterpreting the simple things you're trying to do.

I'm curious to see how this sorts itself out.

At the end of the day, the messageboard software folks will have to catch up before we'll see a good solution.

 

[aluminum seats]

Put me in the camp of those who would like to see some restrictions in place. I get that this isn't the Sons of Sam Horn, with memberships, etc., but there is something to be said for shaping the content here a bit more. I'm a huge Pats fan, but I find I don't come here very often anymore because there's just WAY too many threads and posts of little value. And it's simply the nature of the beast that asking posters to be thoughtful or whatever won't do much good.

Now, I do understand that if certain members have a lot of value to contribute (regarding the draft, for example) it would be counterproductive to institute a post count. But I do think there should be some thought given to some POSSIBLE changes, such as:

--Retrict the number of different threads that a poster can contibute to each day.

--Requiring a certain number of posts to start a thread (is this the case already?)

--Restrict the number of new threads a member may post during a certain time period.

And so on. And with any and all changes, the moderators can use their discretion. A certain poster brings a lot to the table and wants to post more? Appeal to the moderator and he can them let do that, etc. It's just about trying to cut down the considerable noise level here.

Anyway, I'm sure there's pros and cons to all, but I know for me at least, some changes would make this site a more frequent destination.

 

[Mainefan]

I think that if we can simply resist the premature wallowing in despair, this forum would be much more readable. I'd like to see intelligent and detailed analysis and explanation.

And for God's sake, what kind of fans are we anyhow? Must our team always win to earn our affection and respect?

 

[MassPats38]

I just don't understand the censorship claims here. Censorship is when you are not permitted to express a view at all. Ian isn't placing topics of discussion on some "taboo" list. What he is talking about is thread management - vent to your heart's content under the "I hate . . . " thread, but you need not have 45 separate threads for each of the 45 objects of that hate. Carpet bombing the board with separate threads because you want to identify and highlight something or someone else you hate at that point who may have been omitted just drags the whole board down as you have to page through threads to discern where the intelligent discussion might be found.

 

[aluminum seats]

I just don't understand the censorship claims here. Censorship is when you are not permitted to express a view at all. Ian isn't placing topics of discussion on some "taboo" list. What he is talking about is thread management - vent to your heart's content under the "I hate . . . " thread, but you need not have 45 separate threads for each of the 45 objects of that hate. Carpet bombing the board with separate threads because you want to identify and highlight something or someone else you hate at that point who may have been omitted just drags the whole board down as you have to page through threads to discern where the intelligent discussion might be found.

Agreed, but I think the larger point is that the kind of change you're talking about won't happen without some procedural changes on the board. (I should note that I don't know how any of these changes would work technically speaking, just that they would improve the board immeasurably.)

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I just don't understand the censorship claims here. Censorship is when you are not permitted to express a view at all. Ian isn't placing topics of discussion on some "taboo" list. What he is talking about is thread management - vent to your heart's content under the "I hate . . . " thread, but you need not have 45 separate threads for each of the 45 objects of that hate. Carpet bombing the board with separate threads because you want to identify and highlight something or someone else you hate at that point who may have been omitted just drags the whole board down as you have to page through threads to discern where the intelligent discussion might be found.

Too many "LOOK AT MEEEE!!!" threads. Yah, I know guys wanna get their ideas out in print but somehow contributing to an on-topic thread without your own name in lights is too limiting for many.

Most of us (poster included) have on occasion started stupid threads or threads that were on-topic in existing threads. Let's just try to think a bit first and limit our impulses.

 

[farn]

I might be alone in this but : I never read threads with hundreds and hundreds of posts. I come from the Sesame Street generation - I don't have the patience or focus to wade through all of that.

I purposeless read most of the smaller threads because of the fact that they are short. Therefore, I guess I would much rather have 30 small threads and fewer "all posts here" threads.

On the "Plus side" I'm glad I don't have Ian's job - I'm sure it's difficult and aggravating at times.

 

[shmessy]

Too many "LOOK AT MEEEE!!!" threads. Yah, I know guys wanna get their ideas out in print but somehow contributing to an on-topic thread without your own name in lights is too limiting for many.

Most of us (poster included) have on occasion started stupid threads or threads that were on-topic in existing threads. Let's just try to think a bit first and limit our impulses.

As long as there are people in this world who feel that they didn't get enough love from their parents, there will always be cries of "censorship" when redundant threads are merged.

 

[PrairiePat]

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

How 'bout we divide that # by, say, 10 or so?

Actually I don't care that much; I rarely start threads out here. It doesn't sound like Ian's going that route anyhow, but I can definitely understand the logic behind it. Once you've been lurking here for a while, you get a pretty good idea who starts interesting threads, who uses 'tease' subject lines just to stroke their own ego (wow, look how many views my 'I think Tom Brady should...' thread is getting!), and whose threads are generally worthless.

On the other hand, if I post to a mega-thread like "This defense is too passive on 3rd downs" or "Some thoughts on the last game", my post runs the risk of never being seen by the majority of people here because it's buried on page 15. And let's face it, it's hard to wade through 15 pages of messages, especially if there's something on page 2 that you really want to reply to. So you get redundant posts in mega-threads. I guess it's that, or redundant threads....

 

[Fencer]

I might be alone in this but : I never read threads with hundreds and hundreds of posts. I come from the Sesame Street generation - I don't have the patience or focus to wade through all of that.

I purposeless read most of the smaller threads because of the fact that they are short. Therefore, I guess I would much rather have 30 small threads and fewer "all posts here" threads.

On the "Plus side" I'm glad I don't have Ian's job - I'm sure it's difficult and aggravating at times.

I remember the first episode of Sesame Street, but never watched it because I already knew all that stuff. That said -- I much prefer shorter threads myself. Best part of a thread is commonly the initial post and the first few responses.

 

[shmessy]

I kind of see what some are saying about "mega threads" and how posts there can get lost in those oceans.

Perhaps we can merge redundant threads, but also keep separate threads if the central thread has gone beyond 60 or so posts.

Good points, folks. Excellent food for thought. I'm not sure if Ian is on the forum right now, but I'll bring it up to him on the admin forum.

 

[Ian]

I put this up last night which hopefully we can simply use going forward:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...s-please-read-before-starting-new-thread.html

Sorry that what should have been so simple made everyone think I suddenly lost my mind and became dictator-like. Hopefully this entire thread explains my intentions a little more - and the new post above (which is stickied) as I said will be the one we'll try and stick to.

Ian