Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Slapdash

***Official PSF Moderation Thread***

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Herb said:

None of us appreciate your childish behavior. You don't engage in good faith conversation,  you post fallacies consistently, you treat others poorly and you whine to the mods at every opportunity. These traits are not even exclusive to the PF.

That you have the audacity to call out ANYONE else on this board for their behavior is just continuing proof of your inability to conduct yourself in a manner that will benefit the community. 

@Joe BryantI don't believe I've ever addressed you directly in the 17+ years I've been a member/ subscriber here. I've never reported anyone or put anyone on ignore and I've never received so much as a warning,  let alone a suspension. You're a busy guy that doesn't have time to follow individual posters and their content. I respect that. I like this place, always have. But this poster is a perfect example of the things you claim you don't want on your board. And you're allowing him to dictate what goes on, to the detriment not only of discourse,  but the enjoyment of a majority of members. Changing thread titles has always been a part of this place.  Are you going to tell @Capellathat he can no longer make jokes with the NBA thread title? That would be a net loss for these boards, IMO.

Thank you for your time and hearing me out, and for your efforts to improve our experiences here.

 

:goodposting:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sho nuff said:

#2 is difficult...as people then snipe and call people board cop and start a back and forth that derails threads. 

General thoughts:

1. Don't be board coppy about it. A quick - "Can we please drop talking about other posters and talk more about the issue?" will do it.

2. When someone posts that, others chiming in or just liking the comment asking people to please drop talking about other posters and getting back to the topic" will help a lot.

3. Being cool yourself and being known as a person that's not constantly agitating will go a LONG ways towards other people taking you seriously when you ask them to stay on topic. If you're often take shots at other posters, they're going to laugh at you when you ask people to stop doing what you often do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Herb said:

I don't put people on ignore, and your little games aren't going to make me change that. I have no problem being respectful to you or engaging you elsewhere,  but if you'd like to put me on ignore or not respond to me ever again in the PF then I would be amenable to that arrangement.

I won’t try to change your mind but the board is much more tolerable for me having folks who do nothing but argue or consistently discuss in bad faith or troll or act like the board cop on ignore.  I do miss out on some discussion and I also will show posts from people I have on ignore if the conversation is interesting.  Honestly, if people like squisiton and sho on the left and supermike and Noonan on the right would put each other on ignore it would help things immensely.  Just my 2 cents.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

General thoughts:

1. Don't be board coppy about it. A quick - "Can we please drop talking about other posters and talk more about the issue?" will do it.

2. When someone posts that, others chiming in or just liking the comment asking people to please drop talking about other posters and getting back to the topic" will help a lot.

3. Being cool yourself and being known as a person that's not constantly agitating will go a LONG ways towards other people taking you seriously when you ask them to stay on topic. If you're often take shots at other posters, they're going to laugh at you when you ask people to stop doing what you often do. 

1. I’d agree. And this wasn't just about me.  It gets thrown out al over the place when someone calls something out.  

2. I’d agree when that happens.  Been nice to see the following around being called out by others.

3.  I agree here as well and typically you won’t see me start a conversation about a poster.  Though, I admit I do comment on posters when it’s been brought up already. And yeah even that doesn’t help 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tonydead said:

Are you talking about Sho or Blutarsky?  Because I can't honestly tell

In this case it's opposite sides of the same coin. That you can't tell should be evidence of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John Blutarsky said:

I’m not the one preaching like he does. I am quite aware of things here. 

Just not yourself

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sho nuff said:

1. I’d agree. And this wasn't just about me.  It gets thrown out al over the place when someone calls something out.  

2. I’d agree when that happens.  Been nice to see the following around being called out by others.

3.  I agree here as well and typically you won’t see me start a conversation about a poster.  Though, I admit I do comment on posters when it’s been brought up already. And yeah even that doesn’t help 

Except you're right back to doing the same old schtick in the latest Trump thread.  But yes, it's everyone else but you.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Except you're right back to doing the same old schtick in the latest Trump thread.  But yes, it's everyone else but you.

The fact he thinks he doesn't instigate anything here is astounding.

Edited by John Blutarsky
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Blutarsky said:

The fact he think he doesn't instigates anything here is astounding.

I don't have anyone on ignore but he is making me reconsider that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

 

"Can we please drop talking about other posters and talk more about the issue?"

Let's see if it works!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Let's see if it works!

Did it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

I think this subforum is a lost cause (and I say that as someone who still posts in it on occasion).  Think about this: a thread about Jon Stewart wanting to make sure the 9/11 first responders get taken care of has a whopping 36 replies in over a week (still 1 page), while a thread the Goodbye Sarah Sanders thread, which is basically a pissing context, is over 6 pages in less time.  Most threads are snipping and #####ing at one another rather than actual, real discussion. 

I think it's interesting to think about the Shark Pool, because to me that's the anchor forum here. 

I've noticed that the most trafficked threads are often about the most mediocre or insignificant players. So Christine Michael had 3 (IIRC) threads. Manziel had a couple hundred pages? Trent Richardson had 110 pages or near that. Etc. Meanwhile truly great players who carry their teams week after week, year after year are often ignored. Why is this? Speculation, Controversy. And so much score settling. I mean people don't comment for weeks, then a player has a bum game and boom there they are to declare victory served with cold crow.  Want to talk about what happened and why and next week? Nah not so much.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 2:54 PM, Joe Bryant said:

I hate the giant threads where you can't find anything. I hate taking a huge thread and posting a new title with a serious accusation in the title and you click on the first page and it's something 4 years old. I know the "inside people" like it. Someone visiting looks at it and is :confused:   Probably why we have so few new people coming in. 

I just want you to know up front this isn't an an angry or critical post, I just want to share something about FBGs, or at least the Shark Pool. My feeling is that I was drawn here and your product because of the SP culture. It was a long time ago now but I was originally at FFT. Football only, (almost always). And like a lot of people I landed there because (surprise) I was looking for an edge for information. I think I looked at this site for maybe 2 years (?) before even getting a forum login. It was another 3-4 years after that before I got a subscription. Anyway FFT was and is a hodgepodge of who do you start today, hey man whaddya think about this guy, some occasional cursing, and venting or celebrating. Sometimes I like it because people speak from their gut and they are willing to talk about stuff like who is a good FA pickup WR2 5 minutes before gametime. And there are good posts there, especially by Mike who posts new threads on articles he writes. 

Anyway my personal story is that I was drawn to the SP and your site by the order and especially by the fact that posters automatically maintained it. Ask advice about your lineup? Take it to the AC forum. Want to start a new thread on Russell Wilson? Dude there is an excellent thread with 5 years of info and everything you need in it. And I found it... incredibly useful. After I started coming to FBGs my FF game got better. Ultimately I won trophies. I personally kind of think that culture carried over to the FFA and now the PSF. I think it's kind of great. And I do think that new posts with new ideas is great - your posts are terrific, so are the discussions that follow. But again I think overall the culture is pretty great, and I mean that for the SP, FFA and PSF too. Anyway there's my anecdotal thought on the matter. Thanks again Joe for a great site and here's to you. :banned:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think it's interesting to think about the Shark Pool, because to me that's the anchor forum here. 

I've noticed that the most trafficked threads are often about the most mediocre or insignificant players. So Christine Michael had 3 (IIRC) threads. Manziel had a couple hundred pages? Trent Richardson had 110 pages or near that. Etc. Meanwhile truly great players who carry their teams week after week, year after year are often ignored. Why is this? Speculation, Controversy. And so much score settling. I mean people don't comment for weeks, then a player has a bum game and boom there they are to declare victory served with cold crow.  Want to talk about what happened and why and next week? Nah not so much.

I agree that's interesting @SaintsInDome2006

My personal theory is advanced players (the average Shark Pool guy is on the far end of the serious level for the average fantasy footballguy) like to dive into the obscure stuff. They'd rather talk Manziel than Brady.

I get it. We do the same thing on our player spotlights. Nobody cares to read another Patrick Mahomes is great profile. They want to know if Kyler Murray can make it. Or if Josh Allen can be really good. That kind of thing. I do think I understand that. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think it's interesting to think about the Shark Pool, because to me that's the anchor forum here. 

I've noticed that the most trafficked threads are often about the most mediocre or insignificant players. So Christine Michael had 3 (IIRC) threads. Manziel had a couple hundred pages? Trent Richardson had 110 pages or near that. Etc. Meanwhile truly great players who carry their teams week after week, year after year are often ignored. Why is this? Speculation, Controversy. And so much score settling. I mean people don't comment for weeks, then a player has a bum game and boom there they are to declare victory served with cold crow.  Want to talk about what happened and why and next week? Nah not so much.

I get what you are saying: the Sarah Sanders thread has tons of posts because she is controversial, while Stewart's position is one that most agree with, so not many feel the need to debate it, right?

Assuming that is what you mean, while I agree, it is sad that those who always disagree or go out of their way to argue and/or disagree with the same people day after day after day (no names, but I think most of us know who those people are), cannot at least come together in agreement on an issue like the 9/11 First Responders getting taken care of.  I guess it is more much fun for those people to find threads where they can argue with and troll those with whom they disagree.  And it is what this subforum has largely devolved into. :no: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 6:52 AM, John Blutarsky said:

I see you're trying to stir the pot again :lmao:

Beginning to think toy don't know what that means. What i said wasn't remotely controversial. You and sho aren't all that different. :shrug:

Stirring the pot would be one who responds to poster whos apologizing and clarifying with "do better" after ignoring the apology and the clarification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Beginning to think toy don't know what that means. What i said wasn't remotely controversial. You and sho aren't all that different. :shrug:

Stirring the pot would be one who responds to poster whos apologizing and clarifying with "do better" after ignoring the apology and the clarification. 

I don't preach like he does and yesterday he actually said he never instigates anything after Joe called him out. He also can be seen in multiple threads in pissing matches. I don't operate like that.  Have a great weekend good buddy! :thumbup:

Edited by John Blutarsky
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing that for some they simply do not have a reflection in a mirror, like a vampire. They promise to look, they likely even do look, but then do not see a thing. 

For others it is likely a need to defend reputation even as their reputation suffers through far too vigilant a protection of it.  The old, me thinks you doth protest too much.

Me, I respect those who know that their reputation will speak for itself.  Those who have established respect through practice.  Those who have earned it rather than whined for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Beginning to think toy don't know what that means. What i said wasn't remotely controversial. You and sho aren't all that different. :shrug:

Stirring the pot would be one who responds to poster whos apologizing and clarifying with "do better" after ignoring the apology and the clarification. 

I would disagree how different we are. 

But won’t get into a pissing match with him.  Not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

I would disagree how different we are. 

But won’t get into a pissing match with him.  Not worth it.

He's not making the assertion. I am. And I'm not saying you too are the same type of person. I am saying with respect to the current topic the style nets a very similar result both of which add nothing to this board. 

Whether its you along people's over and over to "back things up" when you know they arent going to or him policing the police man it doesn't matter. Neither is a net benefit IMO

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 8:44 AM, Maurile Tremblay said:

Unless you’re a moderator, telling someone to stop being a board cop is inherently hypocritical. Ignoring people who exhibit bad behavior is far better than calling them out on it, IMO.

I understand that every once in a while, something needs to be said, and the moderators may not be on top of things. So you might take it upon yourself to say something. That’s fine, but please make sure it’s once in a while, not twenty times a day. Twenty times a day isn't helping fix the problem; it’s amplifying it.

Look at this guy telling us what to do.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yankee23Fan said:

Look at this guy telling us what to do.

That guy is always playing board cop.  :hot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 3:46 PM, Joe Bryant said:

 Nobody cares to read another Patrick Mahomes is great profile.

Why yes, yes he is.  My league-mates call him the Angel of Death.  😈

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

Wait, Maurile is a guy?

Yes. Maurile has been my good friend for 20 something years and is one of the finest men I know. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

Yes. Maurile has been my good friend for 20 something years and is one of the finest men I know. 

My wife knows him much better then I but the few times I’ve spent time with Maurile he’s a good dude for sure.  And his measured demeanor and well thought out posts here are invaluable.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dkp993 said:

  And his measured demeanor and well thought out posts here are invaluable.  

His educated and elucidated posts have set me straight on a number of occasions.  He literally has made me re-think and re-form my opinion more than anyone else I have ran across on the internet. *Talking about the RL topics, not football. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2019 at 6:46 PM, Joe Bryant said:

I agree that's interesting @SaintsInDome2006.

I get it. We do the same thing on our player spotlights. Nobody cares to read another Patrick Mahomes is great profile. They want to know if Kyler Murray can make it. Or if Josh Allen can be really good. That kind of thing. I do think I understand that. 

You nailed it exactly with this part. The great players are more consistent week to week. We know what they do, they do it well and just keep plowing along. There's little speculation to be had until a great player gets injured or gets old. That's why the Brady Bust Alert thread has stayed on the first 2 pages like the last 5 years. There's plenty to speculate on his downfall and when it occurs. His missing an easy throw, or a 2 interception game could be the first sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

@Don't Noonan you are constantly dissembling here.

- I don't think I've ever reported someone for content or discussion but you are really getting close to the line. You cannot possibly be this obtuse.

You just reported him in a very passive aggressive manner 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

@Don't Noonan you are constantly dissembling here.

- I don't think I've ever reported someone for content or discussion but you are really getting close to the line. You cannot possibly be this obtuse.

SiD I had a post here a while back that must have been reported and the mods deleted. But it regarded you and your ridiculous patience regarding that particular poster.

IMO you should be just a tiny bit more judicious in engaging him. I have not seen a good faith post from him in a very long time. His purpose is to obfuscate and derail. The other conservatives here do not do what he does.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Herb said:

SiD I had a post here a while back that must have been reported and the mods deleted. But it regarded you and your ridiculous patience regarding that particular poster.

IMO you should be just a tiny bit more judicious in engaging him. I have not seen a good faith post from him in a very long time. His purpose is to obfuscate and derail. The other conservatives here do not do what he does.

I don't think he is trying to obfuscate and derail. He has his beliefs. They may be right, they may be wrong. He takes a beating for his opinions and called a troll often which the mods want stopped.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 6:12 AM, Joe Bryant said:

Yes. Maurile has been my good friend for 20 something years and is one of the finest men I know. 

I know the gentleman only through his work here, but I hold him in high regard.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Herb said:

SiD I had a post here a while back that must have been reported and the mods deleted. But it regarded you and your ridiculous patience regarding that particular poster.

IMO you should be just a tiny bit more judicious in engaging him. I have not seen a good faith post from him in a very long time. His purpose is to obfuscate and derail. The other conservatives here do not do what he does.

Sorry for quoting the Mueller report and stating facts.  I thought that was what we are supposed to do.  I do know we are not supposed to call out posters like you have several times.  Grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Herb said:

SiD I had a post here a while back that must have been reported and the mods deleted. But it regarded you and your ridiculous patience regarding that particular poster.

IMO you should be just a tiny bit more judicious in engaging him. I have not seen a good faith post from him in a very long time. His purpose is to obfuscate and derail. The other conservatives here do not do what he does.

I appreciate it. I know you've advised me before, I'll stick to it this time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Blutarsky said:

I don't think he is trying to obfuscate and derail. He has his beliefs. They may be right, they may be wrong. He takes a beating for his opinions and called a troll often which the mods want stopped.

No, this is not accurate. He says he is quoting from the report, which he is not. He has been shown this once, twice, three, maybe more times. He continues to claim he is quoting from "the report." It is purposefully false.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

No, this is not accurate. He says he is quoting from the report, which he is not. He has been shown this once, twice, three, maybe more times. He continues to claim he is quoting from "the report." It is purposefully false.

No one can determine if he is intentionally trying to be false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, John Blutarsky said:

No one can determine if he is intentionally trying to be false.

Dude it's a quote. Step 1. Look at the report to see if the quote is there. Step 2. If NO, then, after being informed so, repeatedly, he is making it up (polite version).

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Dude it's a quote. Step 1. Look at the report to see if the quote is there. Step 2. If NO, then, after being informed so, repeatedly, he is making it up (polite version).

Dude, maybe that is how he interprets it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

No, this is not accurate. He says he is quoting from the report, which he is not. He has been shown this once, twice, three, maybe more times. He continues to claim he is quoting from "the report." It is purposefully false.

 

20 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

It is in the introduction to volume 1.  It states "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

So, with that said, Mueller being asked when did he conclude the above is a valid question.

Saints, you are wrong.  This is my post from yesterday where I quoted directly from the report.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Dude it's a quote. Step 1. Look at the report to see if the quote is there. Step 2. If NO, then, after being informed so, repeatedly, he is making it up (polite version).

Not making anything up.  Feel free to apologize

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

It states "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Quote

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Quote

 

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks’s releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

 

And your original post:

On 6/26/2019 at 3:15 PM, Don't Noonan said:

Mueller stated in the report "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government"

And yet:

3 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

So you are admitting that Mueller found no evidence of crimes committed by Trump correct?

This is a constant game of pretending not to read what has been constantly explained over and over again. I plead guilty to engaging it, it's true. But it's obvious the point was to shoehorn this :bs:into Barr's original statement and all in all create a false impression about the nature of things.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Dude it's a quote. Step 1. Look at the report to see if the quote is there. Step 2. If NO, then, after being informed so, repeatedly, he is making it up (polite version).

My 2 cents: it is better to reply to potential trolls with sentences like this, in the thread, again and again.

If they are trolls, then they should not be given the satisfaction of provoking an impassioned reaction.

If they are not trolls, then the best you can do is provide facts and call out untruths. You may not change the pseudotroll's mind, but you're still doing a service to the community by preventing lucid members of the forum from believing what the psuedotroll says.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

And your original post:

And yet:

This is a constant game of pretending not to read what has been constantly explained over and over again. I plead guilty to engaging it, it's true. But it's obvious the point was to shoehorn this :bs:into Barr's original statement and all in all create a false impression about the nature of things.

No, I don't have time right now to explain but I will later.  Nothing was intentional and the first quoted post was admittedly wrong.  That was probably the confusion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

Sorry for quoting the Mueller report and stating facts.  I thought that was what we are supposed to do.  I do know we are not supposed to call out posters like you have several times.  Grow up.

I only call out posters politely that do not discuss issues in good faith. You are the only one that comes to mind recently. I am not interested in continuing engagement with you in the psf and am only responding to you because you told me to "grow up" which, coming from you, seems... never mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Herb said:

I only call out posters politely that do not discuss issues in good faith. You are the only one that comes to mind recently. I am not interested in continuing engagement with you in the psf and am only responding to you because you told me to "grow up" which, coming from you, seems... never mind. 

Well, you couldn't be more wrong.  But carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the old pile on to get someone banned for no reason works anymore guys. Let’s be adults here, doesn’t sound like a big deal. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.