One Moderator's Warning

[The Wolf]

You need a league something smaller than four teams or bigger than forty teams? Whatever for?

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

You need a league something smaller than four teams or bigger than forty teams? Whatever for?

because I wish it. What other reason is there? (assuming this was in reference to my post. If not, disregard)

[The Wolf]

Just because you want to go to bizarre extremes doesn't even come close to making the 25 choices "extremely limited."

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Just because you want to go to bizarre extremes doesn't even come close to making the 25 choices "extremely limited."

if it wants my dollar it does.

Twenty-fve preset options may be great otu start out with, but some may wish to expand past the virutal limitations. Seems to be enough folks that wish to do that, otherwise it wouldn't be posible in any text-based sim out on the market.

And this is a good idea for a thread, I'll be movign this to it's own thread title for futhur discussion.

[Zitofan75]

Reading this thread reminds me why I don't bother with this board anymore. Too many people on the one hand defending everything about the game ad nauseum and too many people on the other who can't deal with the game moving on from 6.51. And too many people of all persuasions who can't let go of the fight or drop an argument. Yawn. Not that I've given up, the game is excellent and I can't stop playing the new versions but this place? Bahhh.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Zitofan75

Reading this thread reminds me why I don't bother with this board anymore. Too many people on the one hand defending everything about the game ad nauseum and too many people on the other who can't deal with the game moving on from 6.51. And too many people of all persuasions who can't let go of the fight or drop an argument. Yawn. Not that I've given up, the game is excellent and I can't stop playing the new versions but this place? Bahhh.

I wonder which camp I fall into?

[andymac]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

False.

"Puresim has an expansion feature that was able to implemented quickly because the league setup options for that game are extremely limited."

There's no "compared to" anywhere in that sentence. That's a standalone absolute statement. And it's false.

"Exactly. Puresim has an expansion feature that was able to implemented quickly because the league setup options for that game are extremely limited. OOTP offers many more options when it comes to league creation and many of those options also will serve to make an expansion feature more complicated under the hood."

Amazingly, when you add in the next sentence the comparison magically appears. You can read into the post or the single line whatever you want, but it doesn't change the point the entire post made one bit...a point which you never addressed I might add.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Just because you want to go to bizarre extremes doesn't even come close to making the 25 choices "extremely limited."

Herein lies your lack of perspective. Many people do not see these league setups as being "bizarre". There is an NCAA league setup floating around here that would be quite impossible to achieve in PureSim. Would you consider college baseball a bizarre setup for a baseball simulation?

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Carplos

You keep going on about how only Markus can tell us how feasible something is, yet all your ideas seem to start out about how "simple" it is.

If you actually go back and read my posts, you will discover that only once did I ever talk about something being simple, and that was when I said that adding a column to a database table and programming something to work with it was simple. Other than that, you will not find any evidence that I have ever called an idea simple.

That being said, it was wrong for me to project my own experiences with programming database tables onto Markus. I was applying a limited context from my experience to what he would have to do with the recommendation that I made. So that was my mistake, and I apologize.

Now, I'm man enough to admit a mistake. How about you? Would you like to admit to making gross generalizations about me without the supporting evidence? Would you care to apologize for calling my sincere thoughts "garbage" and falsely accusing me of doing something "all" the time?

My guess is that the answer is a resounding no. I would expect another argument or insult of some sorts. But that's fine. It's all just pixels on a computer screen in the end.

There doesn't seem to be much of an audience for my message anyway. People would rather attack each other than find a more reasonable way to go about it, and we have more than 5,000 years of human history as evidence. So have fun with this thread, folks. I'm taking my queue from Zitofan75, and I'll catch the rest of you elsewhere on the forums.

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by Zitofan75

Reading this thread reminds me why I don't bother with this board anymore. Too many people on the one hand defending everything about the game ad nauseum and too many people on the other who can't deal with the game moving on from 6.51. And too many people of all persuasions who can't let go of the fight or drop an argument. Yawn. Not that I've given up, the game is excellent and I can't stop playing the new versions but this place? Bahhh.

^^^ Get's it

&

I agree 100%

[Carplos]

Now, I'm man enough to admit a mistake. How about you? Would you like to admit to making gross generalizations about me without the supporting evidence? Would you care to apologize for calling my sincere thoughts "garbage" and falsely accusing me of doing something "all" the time?

I'll apologize for saying "all." Although you did it say it in the initial 1.0.3 thread too, IIRC. I don't actually care if you or anyone else says it, I just found it amusing that you keep telling people not to, yet had. For all I care every response could be about whether or not an idea is easy/hard to implemet. Discussion about the idea is undoubtedly more preferred, sure.

[Reserve Clause]

I haven't posted here in awhile, and now that I see its becoming a slapstick version of Nazi Germany, I'm never posting here again. This is idiotic, plain and simple.

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own"

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Reserve Clause

I haven't posted here in awhile, and now that I see its becoming a slapstick version of Nazi Germany.

You know, I never thought I'd ever hear that, but eyt, here we are. Yikes.

[Hellion9]

Potential imposers of the dreaded warning/ban,

I've been critical here as well, and, whilst I used to regret those decisions (as arguing with the unreasonable is rarely useful), I no longer do. Simply put, and in my opinion only, it no longer seems reasonable to sit back and simply observe thread after thread being hijacked by nearly identical postings. It is fine if people don’t like the game – it is not acceptable (in my mind, nor in the mind of others, I suspect) to see so very many suggestion threads, comment threads and question threads overwhelmed by what are, increasingly, pointless attacks against the game and against those that enjoy it.

This leads to defenders, both of the game and of other posters in general – something I readily admit I have (and probably will) take part in. Perhaps I should not bother, but some of us do not readily bow down before others and some of us are sick and tired of sound-bite politics, shock slogans and mindless token tantrums. If you’re going to throw tantrums, I believe they should be well thought out, grammatically sound and intellectually stimulating – I am most assuredly in the minority in this regard.

Many of us I am sure, although I speak for myself alone here, are tired of seeing dozens of repeat complaints, most of which have been discussed, compiled, appended to official suggestion compilations and otherwise addressed. To me, there has to be a limit to how frequently “suggestions for improvement” should be tacked onto every thread – especially when they are by the same posters.

When I reach my limit, I post, and “campaigners” may not like that, but it is a risk they run, in my opinion. When accusations and guerilla marketing accompany these “campaigns”, however, it becomes a point of personal contention – one that I will happily and actively oppose, at least until you or some other moderator sees fit to ban me. It frankly upsets my sense of personal balance to see one side of every story, especially when the story is a one-line refrain.

I believe critics are well received here, in general, until they become tiresome. When that occurs, however, it seems equally unreasonable to whinge about oppression, unpleasant tone and impolite behavior. Most of us (and I should follow my own advice here) need not read any of the banter, and those that choose to actively engage ourselves should be strong enough to handle the argument. I think most of us have been.

Fundamentally, I believe people should be willing to accept the disapproval of others, both for their affirmations and denigrations. It has become far too common to see our community exhaust topics (both in support and in opposition) because they feel they (the topic and the person) are not being paid their perceived due attention. Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll stand by it – if people don’t want their suggestions discussed, supported, criticized, addressed or opposed, they should not suggest them in this sort of forum.

Criticism of one’s cherished ideals can be aggravating to be sure, but it does not seem precisely balanced to say that opposition (even opposition of opposition) is somehow unjust and unwarranted. If people feel criticism of the game is overblown, they should have the right to respond as they see fit, just as the critics typically reserve the right to respond to people who enjoy the game. This is part of the dynamic nature of the internet forum. For myself, when I have determined that posters are not willing to engage in reasonable (even if it is somewhat heated) debate, are one-dimensional, or are simply trolls, I stop arguing with them altogether (sweet, sweet ignore button). Not everyone chooses to do that.

That there exist trolls, hijackers and generally mean-spirited people (that's me, sunshine!) who choose not to allow some statements to go unchallenged (or repeated hijackings for that matter) is not considered a problem in most forums. That said, I suppose, as moderator, it is "your" forum and you have the right to do as you will. I will risk it - the interaction here is pleasant overall, but I will choose to engage people when, how and for whatever reasons I see fit.

I am not so delusional as to believe that participation here is in any way meaningful to my overall enjoyment of the game or my life, and if/when that results in a ban, I will move on. I, for one, will not be intimidated into “playing nice” – I’ve tried that and have seen little to support the idea that raising the tone and rhetoric here does anything to improve the game and certainly does nothing to help achieve a balance between two clearly disparate camps.

At least we no longer see so many people attacked for asking questions that were answered 13+ pages ago. “Do a search, idiot” hasn’t come up in quite some time!

One man’s opinion.

Cheers and good luck for the future.

[CalvinHobbes]

Originally Posted by Zitofan75

Reading this thread reminds me why I don't bother with this board anymore. Too many people on the one hand defending everything about the game ad nauseum and too many people on the other who can't deal with the game moving on from 6.51. And too many people of all persuasions who can't let go of the fight or drop an argument. Yawn. Not that I've given up, the game is excellent and I can't stop playing the new versions but this place? Bahhh.

I'm with Zitofan75 and Silvam. Don't post here much anymore, because there is no point. If I want to get frustrated, this is the place. I don't want to get frustrated, so I don't come by that often.

Thanks to CanadianCreed for some light moments.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by CalvinHobbes

Thanks to CanadianCreed for some light moments.

That's my job

[battists]

Listen, like I said, I'm certainly open to more ideas. And hey, I'm happy to drop the idea, if you guys feel as a community we can come together to stop being jerks to one another.

But, think of this: in the "real world," people need to be responsible for their actions. If you behave rudely or in an insulting manner in most public situations in the real world, there are consequences. If you cuss out your co-worker loudly at work, it (in most cases) will get you in trouble with your boss. If you scream at another kid in your classroom at school, you will get in trouble. If you fight with your family, you get a miserable family or expensive therapy.

Is it unreasonable to ask participants in this public forum to follow a similar pattern? Or, is the internet simply too anonyomous to allow any kind of responsibility for our actions? Is it wrong for the owners of the forum to aspire to a more respectful and friendly environment?

Assume for a moment that you agree that there's too much anger and disrespect here right now. (I understand that you don't all agree with that point.)

Given that assumption, give me/us some concrete suggestions as to how we can achieve the goal of a more respectful and friendly forum, one where we don't have people saying things like:

Originally Posted by CalvinHobbes

Don't post here much anymore, because there is no point. If I want to get frustrated, this is the place. I don't want to get frustrated, so I don't come by that often.

If there's a valid, and implementable solution that doesn't involve moderators issuing warnings, I'd very much like to consider it!

Steve

[thbroman]

Here's a contribution from the FWIW department, and if I am only repeating what someone else posted earlier, I apologize for not having read through the entire thread:

As you can see from my info, I have been around for a lot longer than many people (although certainly not all) who claim to be veterans of the forum. I typically hang around for a while after a game or a major patch has been released, and then I drift away again because the tone of this board always puts me off. It's an old story, and the recent vituperations are just a repeat of what has been going on for years. I'm sure Henry and Steve Kuffrey would tell you the same thing.

So while I applaud Steve Battist's attempt to introduce a little civility into this forum (I really do), I think there are just certain boards that are more flame-oriented than others. Don't know why this is so, but it certainly is the case.

[Guidokid]

This post has been deleted because it did not follow the forum rules.

[KBLover]

Originally Posted by battists

Given that assumption, give me/us some concrete suggestions as to how we can achieve the goal of a more respectful and friendly forum, one where we don't have people saying things like:



If there's a valid, and implementable solution that doesn't involve moderators issuing warnings, I'd very much like to consider it!

Steve

Given the reasons he stated in his post, you'd have to ban constant defense of the game as well as criticizing the game based on what 6.51 had and this one doesn't, as well as those who carry a fight on too long (good luck defining that!).

Since criticizing the game isn't "illegal" and of course praising the game isn't "illegal" and good luck trying to "legalize" when a fight is going on "too long" - that gets back into subjective areas.

The difference between what you seem to have presented and the illustrations you've given throughtout the post:

-Beanballing a hitter: That's objective. The ball either hit the guy or not. There's rules that govern that which are objective. Whether or not the umpires enforce them is another issue. The strikezone is objective - it's the umpires that have made it (and have been allowed to) subjective for whatever reason.

-Yelling in the classroom: That's objective. Doesn't matter if you yelled because your broke your pencil, got an F, or just because you're crazy. Don't Yell.

-Yelling at your boss/co-workers: Objective. You're either yelling or not. You're either yelling at your boss or not.

-Saying certain words: That would be objective. You either said it or not. If you want to get into the whole **** or putting the first letter, the ending, and **** in the middle, go for it - that's objective too (censor bypassing I think it's often called?)

-Personal attacks: These can be objective because you can determine the subject of the statement and use the overall context.

The problems with your proposal aren't that you want to make people responsible, it's that saying don't be "rude" is very subjective. For what I can read, you can not yell, not cuss, not keep fights going, but still get warned if you've been "rude" or sarcastic in your view. THAT will invite trouble.

Rules should be black and white, imo. You either broke it or you didn't. No judgement calls. Then it is up to the umpires (moderators) to enforce them uniformly, fairly, and consistently. There will be human error just like there is in umpiring, but if you stick to the premise of the objective rule, at least "appeals" can be made on an objective grounds and evaluated for error thusly.

Also the difference between an internet forum and the real world communication is tone. You can have a hard time getting tone from text. In the real world, there's subtle, often subconcious/intuitive clues that we can use to infer/understood tone or intent. Emoticons try, but they are limited as well, and can be abused/used to cover up maliciously intentional posting, but there's no objective way to determine it.