Changes coming - And an FYI on potential actions

[n6249c]

You mean, like this thread hijack?

Lemon Gelato. Heathen.

 

[Kasmir]

LMAO!!! I swear,O'Connor must be posting HERE under an alias....

Are you kidding? According to many here hiring BB cost Tom Brady at least 6 additional Super Bowl wins!

 

[Triumph]

The point is that there’s not a topic that is specifically an issue here. It is a behavior that is an issue. If there is a thread about OTAs and you appear and say “I love chocolate ice cream, if you love vanilla ice cream you’re an idiot” and then someone else replies “no YOU’RE the idiot, vanilla is obviously better because…” and then you return fire again, and it is now 2 pages or more of people arguing about ice cream flavors in a thread about OTAs, congrats you did the bad thing.

I don't read every thread.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

I didn't have an issue with her. She was quick to ban, but it kept things in order. Ross I feel tends to be a bit nicer in order to be "one of the guys." The problem is you can't do your job as a moderator if you are trying to be friends with everyone. You are going to pi$$ people off and they are going to run to Ian.

Ross was a member of this forum long before he was a mod, the idea that moderators should have to be cold and not get along with people just so they can lay down the hammer is ridiculous. He's not getting a paycheck so its not a job, he volunteers his time to try help Ian keep this place member friendly.

Being a moderator is like being an offensive lineman, its a thankless job but critically important to maintaining a healthy forum community so that the inmates dont start running the asylum. They are fans too, that's why they spend so much time and effort on this site, trying to make it enjoyable for everyone

 

[JarOfMayo51]

BGC *should* get special treatment because he does actual work producing novel and interesting content. I have my differences with the guy but nobody here does anything like the work he does producing pre-draft content. He's a treasure.

A long, long time ago I used to think Bacon was a rough, mean old man!

but he's really a soft, snuggly teddybear that knows a lot about football

and that turns me on.... (#notgay)

 

[Steve102]

A long, long time ago I used to think Bacon was a rough, mean old man!

but he's really a soft, snuggly teddybear that knows a lot about football

and that turns me on.... (#notgay)

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Been busy myself, so I just saw this thread.
Thanks, Ian, as someone who has defended open speech out here, I think that this is a balanced and reasonable approach. I hope it works.
Most importantly, we seem to have a competitive team. No "guarantees" of Playoffs or SB, but it should be fun to watch. I look forward to seeing what Mac can do when given as full and fair a shot as he is going to get.

 

[Dingleberry]

A long, long time ago I used to think Bacon was a rough, mean old man!

but he's really a soft, snuggly teddybear that knows a lot about football

and that turns me on.... (#notgay)

I think @BaconGrundleCandy is a little of both. He can be an ornery bastard when pushed, but he is typically a snuggly bear.

Here he is studying his 2024 draft charts already. Couldn't you just get lost in that bear-like body hair?

No homo.

 

[crawhammer]

The point is that there’s not a topic that is specifically an issue here.

Isn't the not so unwritten target the TB v BB exchanges? You can't micromanage every thread for subject continuity, it's not going to work. Very often sub-topics develop in any number of threads so I don't see where you can draw an equitable line across all threads (and practically enforce it).

The real target here is probably any comparison which puts a current coach or player in an unfavorable light, because that's being "negative" and "disruptive." So that would exclude TB v BB or TB v MJ exchanges because there's not much to say favorably of BB w/o TB or to this point of MJ in a comp with TB. So why not just make a forum rule of no TB v BB legacy debates (except in the offseason with limitations or until BB retires)? And furthermore, no comparisons of TB and MJ (which is considerably less frequent anyway). If the goal is to remove TB's large shadow from hanging over the franchise (or to prevent those with an inclination to draw attention to it from doing so) then just make a rule of no TB mentions in threads about the current team?

It is a behavior that is an issue.

This is an interesting point because on one hand you have the alleged proprietors of the all TB all the time fan club while on the other hand it is these same members who receive the brunt of the baseless personal attacks. It just so happens that this minority group with unpopular takes is comprised of all of the MB "trolls", "sadists" (someone actually said this), literal "children" (according to another), "malcontents", "idiots", and "******s." Will this line of "behavior" be regulated moving forward as well? In other words, there should be an expectation of at least minimal civility and respectfulness held up in member exchanges.

 

[Ross12]

I don't read every thread.

I'm not sure I follow this as a response to what I said

 

[Ross12]

Isn't the not so unwritten target the TB v BB exchanges? You can't micromanage every thread for subject continuity, it's not going to work. Very often sub-topics develop in any number of threads so I don't see where you can draw an equitable line across all threads (and practically enforce it).

The real target here is probably any comparison which puts a current coach or player in an unfavorable light, because that's being "negative" and "disruptive." So that would exclude TB v BB or TB v MJ exchanges because there's not much to say favorably of BB w/o TB or to this point of MJ in a comp with TB. So why not just make a forum rule of no TB v BB legacy debates (except in the offseason with limitations or until BB retires)? And furthermore, no comparisons of TB and MJ (which is considerably less frequent anyway). If the goal is to remove TB's large shadow from hanging over the franchise (or to prevent those with an inclination to draw attention to it from doing so) then just make a rule of no TB mentions in threads about the current team?


This is an interesting point because on one hand you have the alleged proprietors of the all TB all the time fan club while on the other hand it is these same members who receive the brunt of the baseless personal attacks. It just so happens that this minority group with unpopular takes is comprised of all of the MB "trolls", "sadists" (someone actually said this), literal "children" (according to another), "malcontents", "idiots", and "******s." Will this line of "behavior" be regulated moving forward as well? In other words, there should be an expectation of at least minimal civility and respectfulness held up in member exchanges.

The most glaring example is Tom and Bill, yeah. But this could also apply to someone who starts unloading about Malcolm Butler being benched in the Super Bowl for no clear reason, or about how other better receivers were drafted after N'Keal Harry, or whatever. You are right that it is not necessarily about enforcement of keeping every thread "on-topic" since yeah, that would be a nightmare. But there's a difference between a thread sliding off-topic naturally because many folks in the thread are positively engaging in that discussion, vs. the thread getting derailed by 2 or 3 individuals all going back and forth about a specific point over and over. That's the difference between more normal conversation flow between a group of people, and a small number of folks being disruptive.

I think your second point isn't really part of discussion here. We already try to keep personal attacks to a minimum but I am sure @Ian and I have missed things. We will continue the approach as we have in that regard. I imagine if people going back and forth with each other end up getting hidden from view of others, it will likely lead to lower frustrations from the general populace and probably fewer things said out of anger anyway.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

Would not be a bad idea to specify exactly what is forbidden moving forward.

I haven't read every word of every post but reading between the lines it's pretty obvious.

The Brady/Bill debates have gotten stale, both sides are entrenched. It's a dead topic that only brings an argument not something insightful. I'm not learning anything new and truthfully most here won't budge off their hill so again it's not a productive topic that spills into many threads.
I don't think there's a ban or anything is forbidden but rather Ian asking people to drop for a while. The guy has asked several times now it's kind of rude of people to keep ignoring it.
I don't take this as you can't talk about Bill's recent drafts, decisions or we but the "who was more important", "Bill made Tom leave", "Tom is a crybaby" bs can probably be deaded for a few years. It's an interesting subject for sure but it's gotten personal at times. Posters rarely bring up anything new and it spills into different threads.

Real debate and conviction is great but we've had people here rehashing old subjects for years. Just going back and forth with each other.

There are a lot of post that just don't need to be written. So much going back and forth to make someone look bad as opposed to making a case with evidence. Bringing something original or thoughtful. Nobody is censoring anyone or telling anyone what to do.

Go after the post not the poster and try to keep it specifically Pats related. This is from what I'm reading and my opinion. I'm not telling anyone anything or what to do.

I just feel bad that Ian has been asking adults this for a while now.

 

[Triumph]

I'm not sure I follow this as a response to what I said

I have not seen threads veering wildly off topic per your example.

In my opinion a thread about defense should include the QB and the offense because the offense keeping the ball exposes that teams defense less.

Time of Possession killed the Pats last season.

If the NE QB is not relevant to the NE defense than it should be spelled out now.

 

[Steve102]

I have not seen threads veering wildly off topic per your example.

Then I suggest you have selective vision. There's plenty of posters who want to harp about players who are no longer here, decisions that were made years ago, and general BS that goes on that has zero to do with the 2023 New England Patriots.

Whether or not the Mac Jones led offense goes 3 and out is 100% germane to the topic of defense. Whether or not Bill sucks' at WR drafting, or he ran Tom off, RKK's handies, the various gates of the past, or the dating habits of the ex-Mrs Brady have zero to do with the 2023 season.

I really think you know exactly what I mean and are just being deliberately obtuse about it, but let's just move on.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

I have not seen threads veering wildly off topic per your example.

 

[Ian]

I have not seen threads veering wildly off topic per your example.

You also literally said, "I don't read every thread."

This isn't as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. This is essentially me letting people know that the discussions that tend to derail threads will be confined to people involved in them at a certain point. This is obviously subjective, and initially I'll be testing it before it's fully rolled out where @Ross12 has access. That way, if anyone has an issue once I begin instituting it, I'll be the one you can talk to about it.

At the same time, if people want a "view all" button or a notification to go along with it, I guess I can include that. But again, as I mentioned, I also don't want people being irritated with me knowing these posts and discussions exist.

That's one of the reasons why I'm trying to be transparent that it's happening, with the idea of keeping threads on topic and allowing the people involved the ability to continue battling it out.

The challenge is going to be due to the posts-per-page count potentially making it where one page has three posts, the next one has six, etc. Because clearly, there will be ones missing. So again, there will be things that will need to be ironed out and for those that do view a fair amount of threads, that's what I'm referring to.

But I'm letting everyone know it's coming, and it's a necessary step that I'm hoping will reduce the need for me to have to deal out any further action. Not to mention, it will also hopefully make life a little easier for people who casually browse these threads and don't want to read all the noise.

 

[NCPATSFAN1971]

Although I don't post often, I enjoy reading this forum very much and read it almost every day. There are other Patriot Fan Sites on the web but this one is without a doubt the best of them all.

Speaking of other fan sites, I've been a member of another fan site for many years and it is the same thing over there. Let's face it, some people just want to argue and perhaps have a compulsion to be right. Unfortunately, IMO once a point has been made on an internet site and is repeated over and over again there is nothing to be won. Does anyone think that minds are going to be changed? LMAO Then after an argument begins on the net, all you need is a couple of fans of both sides of the issue to jump in and the original argument turns into a Cluster Fck of noise that accomplishes nothing but waste time.

I've read a few interesting metaphors regarding this issue on this thread and would like to add my own and that is after the first couple of posts arguing the SOS "e.g", BB vs. TB, Butler, etc., it can be comparable to watching and listening to a married couple in the process of divorce argue.

Also the arguing in a bar metaphor was of particular interest to which I would add that if some of the arguments that happen on the internet happened live in a bar there's a good chance someone might get their ass kicked. And that can be a whole different can of worms.

 

[Chevy]

You also literally said, "I don't read every thread."

This isn't as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. This is essentially me letting people know that the discussions that tend to derail threads will be confined to people involved in them at a certain point. This is obviously subjective, and initially I'll be testing it before it's fully rolled out where @Ross12 has access. That way, if anyone has an issue once I begin instituting it, I'll be the one you can talk to about it.

At the same time, if people want a "view all" button or a notification to go along with it, I guess I can include that. But again, as I mentioned, I also don't want people being irritated with me knowing these posts and discussions exist.

That's one of the reasons why I'm trying to be transparent that it's happening, with the idea of keeping threads on topic and allowing the people involved the ability to continue battling it out if those parties have the energy to do so.

The challenge is going to be due to the posts-per-page count potentially making it where one page has three posts, the next one has six, etc. Because clearly, there will be ones missing. So again, there will be things that will need to be ironed out and for those that do view a fair amount of threads, that's what I'm referring to.

Your two concerns here:

@Ross12 - I think we can all agree that when it comes to mods, Ross12 is about as patient and level-headed as one can get. Why wait when volume will really show how/if this new process works? Especially since it can be undone? Assuming, of course, it's merely a 1/0 value in a table in the database that the code checks for, so it can easily be reverted to the default state,

Post count oddities - this is a good thing. If someone is joining the thread late, the odd count is a bright neon sign announcing "We've had trouble here!" which should have the effect of making participants think twice. Especially as it has been said time and again "Disagree - it's good for debate. Present facts, or call it a gut feeling/eye-test. Just stop beating the dead horse, or beating other posters with said dead horse."

 

[crawhammer]

The Brady/Bill debates have gotten stale, both sides are entrenched. It's a dead topic that only brings an argument not something insightful. I'm not learning anything new and truthfully most here won't budge off their hill so again it's not a productive topic that spills into many threads.
I don't think there's a ban or anything is forbidden but rather Ian asking people to drop for a while. The guy has asked several times now it's kind of rude of people to keep ignoring it.
I don't take this as you can't talk about Bill's recent drafts, decisions or we but the "who was more important", "Bill made Tom leave", "Tom is a crybaby" bs can probably be deaded for a few years. It's an interesting subject for sure but it's gotten personal at times. Posters rarely bring up anything new and it spills into different threads.

Brady's retirement closes the book on his résumé. Belichick will be adding to his until he retires (or substracting from it, depending on how you want to look at it). It's going to get brought up one way or another eventually (i.e. by either "side") because either he continues to post 0's (generally speaking) or there's a notable accomplishment (division title, postseason run, Super Bowl, etc.). I agree though it makes sense to put the topic to rest until at least next offseason.

 

[Triumph]

You also literally said, "I don't read every thread."

Exactly

Therefore how would I know what the problem is? Perhaps there might be others who are wondering as well.

This isn't as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. This is essentially me letting people know that the discussions that tend to derail threads will be confined to people involved in them at a certain point. This is obviously subjective, and initially I'll be testing it before it's fully rolled out where @Ross12 has access. That way, if anyone has an issue once I begin instituting it, I'll be the one you can talk to about it.

At the same time, if people want a "view all" button or a notification to go along with it, I guess I can include that. But again, as I mentioned, I also don't want people being irritated with me knowing these posts and discussions exist.

That's one of the reasons why I'm trying to be transparent that it's happening, with the idea of keeping threads on topic and allowing the people involved the ability to continue battling it out.

The challenge is going to be due to the posts-per-page count potentially making it where one page has three posts, the next one has six, etc. Because clearly, there will be ones missing. So again, there will be things that will need to be ironed out and for those that do view a fair amount of threads, that's what I'm referring to.

But I'm letting everyone know it's coming, and it's a necessary step that I'm hoping will reduce the need for me to have to deal out any further action. Not to mention, it will also hopefully make life a little easier for people who casually browse these threads and don't want to read all the noise.

Im not one for messaging the Moderators or anyone else.