Ian Needs To Clarify What Is Acceptable

[shmessy]

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

Oops! I just noticed that was post #61. I honestly didn't know that when I wrote it.

 

[Ian]

The only "Mega Threads" I'm going to continue to encourage are the "Game Threads" and "PostGame Threads" - those are active discussions that people actually use and people are reading them live as they happen. I didn't fix the server set up for these threads for nothing - so obviously we're going to use them

I will say however, is that if you see a post within that thread with a topic that's being discussed and want to expand on that point - I have no issue with someone starting a thread on it. Again - just be sure to check the board as well before you post and make sure it's not a duplicate ,and also take the time to really explain yourself and create a good thread that we can discuss with you.

Ian

 

[JMarr]

Merging multiple threads on the same topic or shutting down really bad ones that are started just to inflame people is one thing. But I believe the OP was mainly referring to the practice of closing threads that, in Ian's words, are "starting to get ugly" [i.e., too negative], but otherwise might be discussions on completely legitimate topics.

For example, there was a thread about whether having Galloway on the field would have helped us against Denver. Totally legit topic that was closed after someone posted "yea maybe we should just bench Brady too." The post was a completely sarcastic response to someone else that was easily overlooked, but the thread was closed almost immediately "before things get any uglier."

I think that Ian does a great job with this board, but closing off discussion based on over-the-top negativity, or because the subject is taboo (like the infamous "Should We Trade Brady? one) is a slippery slope and IMO just REALLY got out of hand last night.

Might be :deadhorse:, but my .02 anyway:

 

[Ian]

Merging multiple threads on the same topic or shutting down really bad ones that are started just to inflame people is one thing. But I believe the OP was mainly referring to the practice of closing threads that, in Ian's words, are "starting to get ugly" [i.e., too negative], but otherwise might be discussions on completely legitimate topics.

For example, there was a thread about whether having Galloway on the field would have helped us against Denver. Totally legit topic that was closed after someone posted "yea maybe we should just bench Brady too." The post was a completely sarcastic response to someone else that was easily overlooked, but the thread was closed almost immediately "before things get any uglier."

I think that Ian does a great job with this board, but closing off discussion based on over-the-top negativity, or because the subject is taboo (like the infamous "Should We Trade Brady? one) is a slippery slope and IMO just REALLY got out of hand last night.

Might be :deadhorse:, but my .02 anyway:

I'll admit that in my haste late Sunday night into Monday morning, there were probably a few threads that I could have left open and may have jumped the gun on. But when you're scanning through so many threads and trying to get a bead on things - I'm typically working to move up threads which had some great substance and good discussion and try and close threads that may have gone off topic or had sparked off some arguments. It's not a 100% science by any means but there has been a tendency here lately (particularly after a loss) for people to start several negative threads that are simply rants and not something everyone can really discuss. They end up leading to arguments, which sparks off another point that someone comes up with, and in an effort to prove their point they start a new argument by starting another similar thread. It becomes madness - and dozens of e-mails start coming in all night when people start reporting them.

The best way to describe it is this: After a game we can have 7 or 8 really good discussions, or we can have 15-20 arguments. No one wants to be in a room full of people arguing, and that was more of what I was trying to accomplish. Typically after things settle down we get back to where we are now. So my goal is just to circumvent it by requesting the things you see in the new set of guidelines I posted in the top of the forum.

Contrary to what a couple of people have said, it has nothing to do with any type of control, "being anal", etc. I'm just trying to do the best I can to help make it a fun and productive place for everyone to be - that's really about it. This shouldn't be considered to be such a major change and as I've said there's no censorship involved. Just try and start good discussions so we can all participate. I'm sure most would agree it's a better environment for everyone.

 

[Steamer86]

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.

I agree 100%. We can point out that Brady doesn't seem to have his accuracy back yet...or question a coaching tactic, but at the end of the day, we can't whine that BB is getting outcoached and TB is sucking every time we lose. These guys are legends and are doing everything they can to win. We just have to suck it up sometimes - as we are not going to run through the league any more....

 

[Ian]

I agree 100%. We can point out that Brady doesn't seem to have his accuracy back yet...or question a coaching tactic, but at the end of the day, we can't whine that BB is getting outcoached and TB is sucking every time we lose. These guys are legends and are doing everything they can to win. We just have to suck it up sometimes - as we are not going to run through the league any more....

I know looking back a few pages I'll reiterate this: I have no issue with any sort of criticism, regardless of who it is as long as someone can make actually make a point. If someone just wants to post "so and so sucks - he's playing like crap" but can't explain in depth why or can't answer the question when asked "then what would YOU do" and they don't have an answer - that's a person I don't want starting a new thread.

Threads are a place to post not only an opinion, but also need facts to go along with it so that others can contribute to it. If a thread contains just an opinion with nothing else, it's just someone shouting out their opinion and then it creates an argument. Nothing good can come of that.

So I guess all I'm saying is you can say whatever you want - but simply try and take some time in your post before you make it a thread because it needs to contain more than just an opinion.

 

[Brady to Brown]

I'll admit that in my haste late Sunday night into Monday morning, there were probably a few threads that I could have left open and may have jumped the gun on. But when you're scanning through so many threads and trying to get a bead on things - I'm typically working to move up threads which had some great substance and good discussion and try and close threads that may have gone off topic or had sparked off some arguments. It's not a 100% science by any means but there has been a tendency here lately (particularly after a loss) for people to start several negative threads that are simply rants and not something everyone can really discuss. They end up leading to arguments, which sparks off another point that someone comes up with, and in an effort to prove their point they start a new argument by starting another similar thread. It becomes madness - and dozens of e-mails start coming in all night when people start reporting them.

The best way to describe it is this: After a game we can have 7 or 8 really good discussions, or we can have 15-20 arguments. No one wants to be in a room full of people arguing, and that was more of what I was trying to accomplish. Typically after things settle down we get back to where we are now. So my goal is just to circumvent it by requesting the things you see in the new set of guidelines I posted in the top of the forum.

Contrary to what a couple of people have said, it has nothing to do with any type of control, "being anal", etc. I'm just trying to do the best I can to help make it a fun and productive place for everyone to be - that's really about it. This shouldn't be considered to be such a major change and as I've said there's no censorship involved. Just try and start good discussions so we can all participate. I'm sure most would agree it's a better environment for everyone.

People complain to you via email about other posters?

That is sad, no worries sir I will never bother you because someone said something on the internetz that I didn't like. That is sad and laughable.

 

[Ian]

People complain to you via email about other posters?

That is sad, no worries sir I will never bother you because someone said something on the internetz that I didn't like. That is sad and laughable.

They don't complain via e-mail about posters - they complain about posts by clicking the

button, and we get notifications via e-mail

 

[spacecrime]

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.

This is not helpful. I do not think there is any censorship on this board, that closing threads that have become venomous is NOT censorship, but this is the kind of post that kicks off the attacks and poisonous posting. The Coltsfans posts are similar, calls for no moderating are one thing.

There are often two sides to a story, and discussion goes better if we can stick to the topic at hand without insulting the other side because they don't agree.

 

[spacecrime]

Merging multiple threads on the same topic or shutting down really bad ones that are started just to inflame people is one thing. But I believe the OP was mainly referring to the practice of closing threads that, in Ian's words, are "starting to get ugly" [i.e., too negative], but otherwise might be discussions on completely legitimate topics.

I think you and I and Ian are more or less in agreement in general, it is just a matter of degree, i.e., where do you draw the line. You have a greater tolerance than some.

In my observation, once a thread crosses the line, it almost never gets back on track.

It isn't just threads started simply to inflame, though there are a lot of them, it is going from "I disagree with that idea" to "anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron" that are discussion busters.

On another forum to which I belong, rather than closing a thread, individual posts are deleted. Of course, we get the same hue and cry about censorship, but when the ad hominem attacks and over-the-top negativity are removed, the threads actually contain great discussions. And people eventually stop posting nonsense because they know they are wasting their time as posts won't be around long. Serious abusers are given a one-day supension.

They have a lot of mods, though, and it is a lot of work for them.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Here's my vote. There are two kinds of "negative" threads.

One, there are threads that advance our understanding of what is going on and enable people to have a good discussion that often also includes some serious criticism of how the Pats are doing things. God forbid we should lose these! Then this just becomes a homer board and no one will take it seriously.

Two, there are threads that are primarily rants that let people blow off steam and express disappointment; unfortunately, not all the people who vent in these threads know a whole lot about football so some (not all) of them say some pretty embarrassing things sometimes.

I'd like the board to be known for the first kind of thread and to tolerate, especially after a tough loss, the second, but only to a point. It's fine with me for Ian to consolidate, move or shut down threads in the second category if he feels they are starting to dominate the board.

I want this board to continue to be primarily a place where people can learn something and express thoughtful opinions. I also want it to be a community where people can express their feelings of disappointment, but not to the point that a lot of uninformed, negative stuff takes over the board. It's fine with me for Ian to find this balance according to his best judgment.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Here's my vote. There are two kinds of "negative" threads.

One, there are threads that advance our understanding of what is going on and enable people to have a good discussion that often also includes some serious criticism of how the Pats are doing things. God forbid we should lose these! Then this just becomes a homer board and no one will take it seriously.

Two, there are threads that are primarily rants that let people blow off steam and express disappointment; unfortunately, not all the people who vent in these threads know a whole lot about football so some (not all) of them say some pretty embarrassing things sometimes.

I'd like the board to be known for the first kind of thread and to tolerate, especially after a tough loss, the second, but only to a point. It's fine with me for Ian to consolidate, move or shut down threads in the second category if he feels they are starting to dominate the board.

I want this board to continue to be primarily a place where people can learn something and express thoughtful opinions. I also want it to be a community where people can express their feelings of disappointment, but not to the point that a lot of uninformed, negative stuff takes over the board. It's fine with me for Ian to find this balance according to his best judgment.

Censorship is a mechanism and topic related to the gov't's ability to limit a citizen's ability to expression. This is Ian's board and he has final say. By definition, this his his property and our ability to participate is determined by his opinion.

Ultimately, Ian has to decide his target audience. Running a website is consuming. As such, the quality od material has to be tailored to generate content, clicks, and advertising.


I would highly recommend going over to patriotsdaily.com and reading the article "Birth of the Dumb Girls" after week three.

Read that article and I think everyone would understand where Ian is coming from.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Why is this thread still going on?

I thought I already clarified what's acceptable on the forums and who can do what.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Last three posts are spot on. (make that three of the last 4... ).

I think Ian proposed or tried the removing the problematic post/poster approach a few weeks back. But either it proved to be unweildy or was a one time/thread experiment.

The issue Ian is left to grapple with is striking a balance of interests between upsetting those (including himself apparently) who prefer to maintain some semblance of quality discussion and sense of community here versus upsetting either the posters who aren't capable of or interested in more than kneejerk venting or those more intent on defending their misunderstanding of the right to free speech...including some of his mods.

I doubt Ian was surprised to see some opposition to his efforts, but I'm pretty sure he was disappointed to see the initial lack of understanding, appreciation or support for his postion. I have a feeling this was mostly due to people fully expecting this thread to be locked, or due to the fact that quite a few people have become conditioned to avoid this place post game because of the tenor of the vocal minority, and sadly due to the fact that a lot of posters have given up on being active here anymore because they don't like what the place has become and they'd given up on any meaningful efforts to restore it to what it once was. If it's not a friendly place to visit you lose the casual poster interested in community, if it's not an interesting or intelligent or informative place to read or post, you lose the hardcore football fan. What's left to manage then is the football version of the political forum...

BTW that article at Patriots Daily is one I missed and well worth a link and a read.

Spawn of Dumb Girl | Patriots Daily

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

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

I totally agree that something had to be done.

The quality of this website has fallen hard lately. I almost posted a thread about that myself this last week but it is not my battle. It was just so depressing to see so many threads with the sole purpose of slamming a couple players, and a bunch of utterly pointless threads posted (ironically by your mod who seems to have issue with your new policy and others like him) who are simply trying to pat themselves on the back about their stunningly accurate assessment of some rookie safety's entire NFL career based on a preseason game, and other such nonsense.

Anyway, long story short, this board has to change for the better and anything you try at this point is worth it because the board has literally been unreadable recently, with no topics at all except whine fests and slam jobs.

The reason I leave this forum for extended periods of time is that there are only two points of view around here, which have been affectionately coined as 'homer versus chicken little'. I find that to be a rather limited scope to build an intelligent forum around and lately it has really hit the fan, IMO.

 

[SunnyDenmark]

My 2 cents from infrequent poster but semi-frequent reader.

a) Post count limit per day or per thread or whatever. Sounds good but ultimately won’t work as people then open several user accounts. Then post as aliases so you are not sure whom you are replying to.

b) Postgame ‘vent’ thread for kneejerk reactions. Why not give it a try? Can always discontinue it if it doesn’t work out as expected.

c) More threads vs less threads debate. The more threads there are: means easier for posters to find precise topic of interest. Moreover, easier for posters to follow the thread (as less posts to wade through) and easier in finding the post one wants to go back and reply to. BUT it means more work for the Mods to monitor many more threads as well as merge, close, etc. Less threads means harder for posters to follow the flow, harder to read the whole thread end-to-end, find precise post to reply to, etc. But less threads means easier on the Mods to monitor and maintain (merge, close, etc). Really depends how many Mods are on duty at any one given time. Would be nice if there was better consistancy between the Mods in merging, closing, etc.

d) More threads does mean a good discussion can be ‘buried’ on page 6 or so. But that doesn’t mean to helps its ‘visibility’ one needs to start closing down threads just for that sake alone (by limiting thread count). We need to encourage more the star rating system as that usually is a pretty good indicator of the quality. I normally just jump to the high star threads.

e) Re: censorship or ‘aggressive’ handling of threads and/or users (ie. Merging, deleting, locking, baning,etc). As it is privately owned, Ian has the right to choose whatever standard he desires based on the level of his given target audience. And the Mods have the duty to try to abhold whatever standard(s) Ian sets. I see no reason why Patsfans.com can’t TRY to be at a level above other fan sites. There are plenty of other free-for-all website slugfests one can go to if that is your cup of tea. Yes a strict policy will lose some members. But I believe it will also foster greater posting by those ‘fringe’ majority who read but rarely post due to fear of getting into a mud slingfest. True, some posters can get offended when their threads are deleted, or locked or merged (or worse yet, temporarily banned as a ‘time out’ to cool down). Then again my 5 & 7 year old also get offended when they are reminded they have crossed the line. But they are less likely to do it again the next time.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Why is this thread still going on?

I thought I already clarified what's acceptable on the forums and who can do what.

i had been away and just wanted to make a comment. you didn't have to read it if you didn't want to.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Last three posts are spot on. (make that three of the last 4... ).

...

Spawn of Dumb Girl | Patriots Daily

Great link. Thanks for bumping it. The only problem is that some of the savviest posters out here are "girls."

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Great link. Thanks for bumping it. The only problem is that some of the savviest posters out here are "girls."

The best poster here is a "chick"

 

[MassPats38]

Censorship is a mechanism and topic related to the gov't's ability to limit a citizen's ability to expression. This is Ian's board and he has final say. By definition, this his his property and our ability to participate is determined by his opinion.

Not exactly. In the First Amendment sense, that would be true as the government has to limit the right to free speech to invoke that Amendment. By definition it is "an act by any person who supervises the manners or morality of others." It has a broader definition that does not require government action.

I believe Ian made clear earlier he has no wish to censor anyone, nor does he express an interest in exercising his legal right to do so. His concern is thread management, not censoring. Any speech (with limited exceptions not related to content), even venting (non-fact based emotional response to a game that do not inspire logical discussion), is accepted on this board, he is simply limiting the number of threads for emotional venting to avoid that sort of post becoming the theme or tone of the board and discouraging rational debate.