Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Slapdash

***Official PSF Moderation Thread***

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, bostonfred said:

Out of curiosity, is anyone posting in this thread under 40? 

Imagine being in your mid-40s and getting worked up about moderation on a magic football website.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


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

Imagine being in your mid-40s and getting worked up about moderation on a magic football website.

I'm not going to lie. I have gotten worked up about it before. To do so every day over the same issues and people, though, and to then rehash it every day in every argument seems like...

well, I hope we're not just lonely is all. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I'm not going to lie. I have gotten worked up about it before. To do so every day over the same issues and people, though, and to then rehash it every day in every argument seems like...

well, I hope we're not just lonely is all. 

Hold me.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

You know what would help a thread where people are getting too worked up anot politics?  Maybe bring up religion. Good call, d-less.

Share this post


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

You know what would help a thread where people are getting too worked up anot politics?  Maybe bring up religion. Good call, d-less.

You mean gasoline will not put out this fire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Imagine being in your mid-40s and getting worked up about moderation on a magic football website.

Sure, it's obviously kinda silly, and I don't get the people who spend a lot of time in this particular thread and the stuff they say here. This thread seems far worse to me than all the other threads that people come here to complain about :loco:

But at the same time, this is a longstanding and tight-knit community, and people who have been around for a while justifiably want to know how it's managed and who/what is allowed or prohibited in their community and why. If I left, either by choice or not, I'd kinda miss a bunch of the regulars.  Even guys whose real names and offline lives I know nothing about, like you :wub:

 

Share this post


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

Imagine being in your mid-40s and getting worked up about moderation on a magic football website.

Agreed.  Or still complaining about “fair”.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Agreed.  Or still complaining about “fair”.  

I don't think anyone expects it to be fair with the track record here but that doesn't mean you can't point out a group of 40 somethings or older needing special treatment in a liberal echo chamber. It's a real circumstance caused by the last election and an interesting case study to watch. 

Share this post


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

THIS. For the love of all that is holy...

THIS.

Most of these issues would go away if  a dozen people would just put Sho on ignore.

I'm new in these parts, so I've only seen his posts for a couple weeks, but his posts nowhere near justify the amount of snowflake tears and outrage that are generated... It mostly seems people just don't like being asked to provide links backing up their false claims or for people to provide any dissenting opinions in a thread designed specifically to be an echo chamber.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I'm new in these parts, so I've only seen his posts for a couple weeks, but his posts nowhere near justify the amount of snowflake tears and outrage that are generated... It mostly seems people just don't like being asked to provide links backing up their false claims or for people to provide any dissenting opinions in a thread designed specifically to be an echo chamber.

That is the crux of it. And the problem is they not only refuse to provide a link for any distortion, misreprsentation or a outright lie, they go a step further and demand that anyone who challenges the claim has to provide proof they are wrong. What is so frutrating about it is then the same false claim is then repeated as gospel again or again.

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

That is the crux of it. And the problem is they not only refuse to provide a link for any distortion, misreprsentation or a outright lie, they go a step further and demand that anyone who challenges the claim has to provide proof they are wrong. What is so frutrating about it is then the same false claim is then repeated as gospel again or again.

Dude, you chase people around thinking you have the authority to demand that they answer your questions or else you'll spread untruths about them. It's silly and childish. sho chased me around one day and made me do a ####-ton of work he should have done to prove an off-handed (and in the end, very correct) point I was making.

I resent that. I did this for a living in the late nineties, and when I'm talking about political commentary, I'm not providing every ####### link or fact to suit everybody.

Deal. 

  • Love 6

Share this post


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

Dude, you chase people around thinking you have the authority to demand that they answer your questions or else you'll spread untruths about them. It's silly and childish. sho chased me around one day and made me do a ####-ton of work he should have done to prove an off-handed (and in the end, very correct) point I was making.

I resent that. I did this for a living in the late nineties, and when I'm talking about political commentary, I'm not providing every ####### link or fact to suit everybody.

Deal. 

Excellent post.  This isn’t medical school.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Dude, you chase people around thinking you have the authority to demand that they answer your questions or else you'll spread untruths about them. It's silly and childish. sho chased me around one day and made me do a ####-ton of work he should have done to prove an off-handed (and in the end, very correct) point I was making.

I resent that. I did this for a living in the late nineties, and when I'm talking about political commentary, I'm not providing every ####### link or fact to suit everybody.

Deal. 

Stop...I didn’t chase you around.  In addition you slung several insults at me and we both were suspended for it.. if its the day you were talking about.

And no, its not up to everyone else to do the work when you make a claim.  Its on the poster making the assertion to back it up.

Im not going to apologize for asking for links when people post questionable things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

a liberal echo chamber

One more reminder that a large number of people who oppose Trump are not actually liberals.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Dude, you chase people around thinking you have the authority to demand that they answer your questions or else you'll spread untruths about them. It's silly and childish. sho chased me around one day and made me do a ####-ton of work he should have done to prove an off-handed (and in the end, very correct) point I was making.

I resent that. I did this for a living in the late nineties, and when I'm talking about political commentary, I'm not providing every ####### link or fact to suit everybody.

Deal. 

If one makes a statement and it is unclear what exactly was meant, then it is entirely appropriate to ask specifically what their position is and if they refuse to answer, then one should be free to draw whatever appropriate inferences they can from that.

For instance, many years back in the FFA a poster stated that white people are smarter and have a higher IQ than black people. I asked him if he believed in white racial superiority since that was the obvious inference. He refused to answer, I pressed him repeatedly and he countered with "How dare you demand an answer from me!" From that response it was obvious where he stood on the matter and I didn't think it unfair to label him after that.

Whenever I have been asked my position on any topic that I have discussed, I have never once said, "I won't answer that and I don't have to" Now it is true you don't have to answer any question you don't want to, but then you can't turn around and indignantly complain that people are drawing negative inferences from that and/or mischaracterizing what you are say (since you have the power to immediately set the record straight).

Edited by squistion

Share this post


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

Stop...I didn’t chase you around.  In addition you slung several insults at me and we both were suspended for it.. if its the day you were talking about.

And no, its not up to everyone else to do the work when you make a claim.  Its on the poster making the assertion to back it up.

Im not going to apologize for asking for links when people post questionable things.

No. It wasn't our fight. It was a pretty off-handed comment about the reason Donald Trump winning the election was court composition. You badgered me until I found four articles claiming that, with stats. You still disputed it.

I decided then that I would no longer link or put forth the effort when either

1. It is easily confirmable for the listener

2. It's common sense or definitional

And yes, burdens of proof are not always on the purveyor of information to the public. That's why trials often run the way they do with differing burdens of proof for different functions in a court. 

Share this post


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

I don't think anyone expects it to be fair with the track record here but that doesn't mean you can't point out a group of 40 somethings or older needing special treatment in a liberal echo chamber. It's a real circumstance caused by the last election and an interesting case study to watch. 

Who needs special treatment?  Who is calling for people to be banned for liking posts?

Who is calling for people to be banned for asking questions?

Who is complaining because people are being negative in a Trump thread?

Who is calling for thread creators to be able to basically ban people from their threads?

 

Share this post


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

If one makes a statement and it is unclear what exactly was meant, then it is entirely appropriate to ask specifically what their position is and if they refuse to answer, then one should be free to draw whatever appropriate inferences they can from that.

For instance, many years back in the FFA a poster stated that white people are smarter and have a higher IQ than black people. I asked him if he believed in white racial superiority since that was the obvious inference. He refused to answer, I pressed him repeatedly and he countered with "How dare you demand an answer from me!" From that response it was obvious where he stood on the matter and I didn't think it unfair to label him after that.

Whenever I have been asked my position on any topic that I have discussed, I have never once said, "I won't answer that and I don't have to" Now it is true you don't have to answer any question you don't want to, but then you can't turn around and indignantly complain that people are drawing negative inferences from that and/or mischaracterizing what you are say (since you have the power to immediately set the record straight).

It is a wild and reckless way to potentially mischaracterize someone's position. There are many reasons one may not wish to discuss something personal like the instance you just mentioned.

Share this post


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

No. It wasn't our fight. It was a pretty off-handed comment about the reason Donald Trump winning the election was court composition. You badgered me until I found four articles claiming that, with stats. You still disputed it.

I decided then that I would no longer link or put forth the effort when either

1. It is easily confirmable for the listener

2. It's common sense or definitional

And yes, burdens of proof are not always on the purveyor of information to the public. That's why trials often run the way they do with differing burdens of proof for different functions in a court. 

I have no idea even of that conversation nor do I think I ever chased you around.

And I believe my dispute was that doesn't explain him being the nominee...as any conservative would have done that.

Often things some claim are common sense...are just their bias and opinion.(not saying this for you in this particular case, but it has been used as a crutch before).

The reader shouldn't have to search and confirm. If stats are readily available, the burden remains on the person making the assertion.  Especially if asked.  And you just stated above you had to do a #### ton of work.  Expecting someone else to back up your own claim with a #### ton of work would be ridiculous.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A slapfights about a slapfight in the thread about slapfights.

What's it called when you go one past "meta"?  Meta-plus?  Uber-meta?  Meta with cheese?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Dude, you chase people around thinking you have the authority to demand that they answer your questions or else you'll spread untruths about them. It's silly and childish. sho chased me around one day and made me do a ####-ton of work he should have done to prove an off-handed (and in the end, very correct) point I was making.

I resent that. I did this for a living in the late nineties, and when I'm talking about political commentary, I'm not providing every ####### link or fact to suit everybody.

Deal. 

I didn't see your interaction with him and certainly wasn't referencing it with my comment. It was meant as a general statement. Not every little comment needs a link. But when people are making wild claims (like that Trump would've won the popular vote if not for 3 million illegal immigrants voting in CA), that needs to be backed up. A certain portion of the voting public has been known to take wacky claims at face value, so we really need to combat that. These are crazy times we're living in right now and fake news has been a big factor in that: https://www.politico.eu/article/un-special-rapporteur-donald-trump-worst-perpetrator-of-fake-news/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Dude, you chase people around thinking you have the authority to demand that they answer your questions or else you'll spread untruths about them. It's silly and childish. sho chased me around one day and made me do a ####-ton of work he should have done to prove an off-handed (and in the end, very correct) point I was making.

I resent that. I did this for a living in the late nineties, and when I'm talking about political commentary, I'm not providing every ####### link or fact to suit everybody.

Deal. 

Very :goodposting:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to PM @jon_mx but couldn't.  I hope he doesn't leave permanently.  He is a just taking things too personally/seriously of late.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I didn't see your interaction with him and certainly wasn't referencing it with my comment. It was meant as a general statement. Not every little comment needs a link. But when people are making wild claims (like that Trump would've won the popular vote if not for 3 million illegal immigrants voting in CA), that needs to be backed up. A certain portion of the voting public has been known to take wacky claims at face value, so we really need to combat that. These are crazy times we're living in right now and fake news has been a big factor in that: https://www.politico.eu/article/un-special-rapporteur-donald-trump-worst-perpetrator-of-fake-news/

Yes, but that's different than what some of the posters in this forum want of the claimants of information, and even when facts are either confirmable or common knowledge, they feel the onus lies with the speaker to back up any and all assertions they demand be backed up. Like I said, they can do their own verifying of certain common-sense claims. Those up for debate are fairly requested. 

Share this post


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

I don't think anyone expects it to be fair with the track record here but that doesn't mean you can't point out a group of 40 somethings or older needing special treatment in a liberal echo chamber. It's a real circumstance caused by the last election and an interesting case study to watch. 

Pointing out vs whining about fair are two different things.  I would argue the majority here falls into the latter.  Also the election is just a symptom of the problem not the root cause.  Whiny adults have been a thing for a while, our POTUS is a perfect example.  No one whines about unfair more then him.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I have no idea even of that conversation nor do I think I ever chased you around.

And I believe my dispute was that doesn't explain him being the nominee...as any conservative would have done that.

Often things some claim are common sense...are just their bias and opinion.(not saying this for you in this particular case, but it has been used as a crutch before).

The reader shouldn't have to search and confirm. If stats are readily available, the burden remains on the person making the assertion.  Especially if asked.  And you just stated above you had to do a #### ton of work.  Expecting someone else to back up your own claim with a #### ton of work would be ridiculous.

Sho,

I am a fair guy. I bloviate, castigate, make weird titles, say "commie" a lot, do weird ####, but having to verify every niggling point in every niggling conversation is too much. In all walks of life, there are instances where it is up to the listener to verify. You guys have a weird "gotcha" way of going about this stuff, and you're often incorrect in your assertions and biases, too. Yes, it was a ####-ton of work to get four separate and overwhelming articles that all said the same thing and had stats. That's the point: it's a message board and the amount of work was not commensurate with any claim nor reward.

That's just how I'm going to approach it (and have been) in the future.

Edited by rockaction
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like meta with cheese, Tobias. That's probably your most inspired one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This guy's back already?

You gotta be kidding me.

Yes.

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Sho,

I am a fair guy. I bloviate, castigate, make weird titles, say "commie" a lot, do weird ####, but having to verify every niggling point in every niggling conversation is too much. In all walks of life, there are instances where it is up to the listener to verify. You guys have a weird "gotcha" way of going about this stuff, and you're often incorrect in your assertions and biases, too. Yes, it was a ####-ton of work to get four separate and overwhelming articles that all said the same thing and had stats. That's the point: it's a message board and the amount of work was not commensurate with any claim nor reward.

That's just how I'm going to approach it (and have been) in the future.

I don't think its every point though rock.  But major things when questioned...should be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I don't think its every point though rock.  But major things when questioned...should be answered.

Yeah, fair enough, like I said. But I don't see that in practice. Perhaps a good way to go about it is to say, "well assume Point A is correct;" does the argument flow therefrom?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This guy's back already?

You gotta be kidding me.

Yours was just a make-up call.

Edited by tonydead
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Yours was just a make-up call.

It’s was a tough 6 hour stretch. I took the punishment like a champ

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The General said:

What goes on in here?

Think of this thread as he after show . Sit down, put your feet up & relax. Have a drink, whatever your pleasure, whisp, beer , a fine wine or if you’re like our great President, a Diet Coke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rockaction said:

Sho,

I am a fair guy. I bloviate, castigate, make weird titles, say "commie" a lot, do weird ####, but having to verify every niggling point in every niggling conversation is too much. In all walks of life, there are instances where it is up to the listener to verify. You guys have a weird "gotcha" way of going about this stuff, and you're often incorrect in your assertions and biases, too. Yes, it was a ####-ton of work to get four separate and overwhelming articles that all said the same thing and had stats. That's the point: it's a message board and the amount of work was not commensurate with any claim nor reward.

That's just how I'm going to approach it (and have been) in the future.

Rock's good people. Some of you need to lighten up a little.

Unless he said something that I missed that I would find offensive in which case I reserve the right to use really big words and long run on sentences, like this one, to castigate him and extend and revise my remarks above, herein.

I don't find much offensive though. Barbara Streisand, Red Sox fans, scooters at Disney, Ketchup on steak, this idiot we have in the same office as Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and people with no sense of humor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankee23Fan said:

k, this idiot we have in the same office as Abraham Lincoln

:penalty:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Who needs special treatment?  Who is calling for people to be banned for liking posts?

Who is calling for people to be banned for asking questions?

Who is complaining because people are being negative in a Trump thread?

Who is calling for thread creators to be able to basically ban people from their threads?

 

Don’t worry, your behavior is safe here. Wouldn’t recommend in the real world. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Pointing out vs whining about fair are two different things.  I would argue the majority here falls into the latter.  Also the election is just a symptom of the problem not the root cause.  Whiny adults have been a thing for a while, our POTUS is a perfect example.  No one whines about unfair more then him.    

Fake news, count up the threads in here.....all but one are whining about something with the root cause being the election that didn’t go their way. No one in here is solving any world problems in a football chat room with a fake name, just complaining and attacking others with opposing views. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Don’t worry, your behavior is safe here. Wouldn’t recommend in the real world. 

And yet another post about me rather about what was posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Fake news, count up the threads in here.....all but one are whining about something with the root cause being the election that didn’t go their way. No one in here is solving any world problems in a football chat room with a fake name, just complaining and attacking others with opposing views

Seriously enough parroting of the Trump quotes with the “fake news” call outs, in case you didn’t notice I’m not a news organization.  I’m merely stating my opinion, that’s not fake news.  

While I don’t agree at all with the first part of your statement I’m not going to waste any time going back and forth with you on it.  It’s fruitless.  But the second part (bolded) I certainly agree with.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

And yet another post about me rather about what was posted.

Stop

He posted about the forum and you responded with 5 questions that started with "Who?"  You made it personal not him. 

Without naming names you were smart enough to figure out that you are a big part of the problems everyone is talking about. Take some responsibility and be smart enough to do something about it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Stop

He posted about the forum and you responded with 5 questions that started with "Who?"  You made it personal not him. 

Without naming names you were smart enough to figure out that you are a big part of the problems everyone is talking about. Take some responsibility and be smart enough to do something about it. 

Take your own advice for once man...and realize back and forth nitpicking everything I say seem to be a big part of the problems most are talking about.

My post with the “who” was spot on to the “special treatment”.

I will continue to be smart enough to discuss topics and let you and others go personal and talk about posters 

Share this post


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

Fake news, count up the threads in here.....all but one are whining about something with the root cause being the election that didn’t go their way. No one in here is solving any world problems in a football chat room with a fake name, just complaining and attacking others with opposing views. 

You seem kinda bright, but your "fake news" betrays you.

Share this post


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

Take your own advice for once man...and realize back and forth nitpicking everything I say seem to be a big part of the problems most are talking about.

My post with the “who” was spot on to the “special treatment”.

I will continue to be smart enough to discuss topics and let you and others go personal and talk about posters 

I will never respond to you, you never respond to me, deal?  

  • Like 2

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.