Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Slapdash

***Official PSF Moderation Thread***

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It would balkanize and tribalize it, it's bad enough already.

The best thing this place (TSP, FFA, here, all of it) does is bring people together of opposite POV's, different parts of the country, to hash things out. - In TSP sometimes people love it when homers chime in, but some people hate it because they are cheerleading or have blinders on. But if someone has something important to say because they watched a game that's great. People just get too emotional here.

I think what you and some of the other people are saying is that you think the thread ignore function would be abused.  And that's the best argument against that I've heard so far.  I don't believe that for the most part though.  We all know it's just a handful of posters that do the same thing day after day getting in pissing matches, be honest.  We could easily get rid of that.

Share this post


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

Telling them they are not welcome and putting them on ignore are two very different things.  Suppose some bored person decides to go trolling -  Telling them they are not welcome is a reward for their behavior.  Putting them on ignore stops their behavior, whether they decide to stop trolling or not.  My theory is they might just stop.

I, nor you, never said to tell someone they weren’t welcomed.  Your point (post below) was that if someone finds themself unwelcomed they should learn to post better.  My point was this isn’t likely to happen and there are tons of examples here showing it doesn’t work that way.  

8 hours ago, tonydead said:

If you find yourself not welcome post better. Problem solved. 

 

Share this post


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

I, nor you, never said to tell someone they weren’t welcomed.  Your point (post below) was that if someone finds themself unwelcomed they should learn to post better.  My point was this isn’t likely to happen and there are tons of examples here showing it doesn’t work that way.  

 

Those aren't examples when they are clearly two different things.  If it doesn't happen it still serves the purpose of cleaning up the threads.  

Share this post


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

I think what you and some of the other people are saying is that you think the thread ignore function would be abused.  And that's the best argument against that I've heard so far.  I don't believe that for the most part though.  We all know it's just a handful of posters that do the same thing day after day getting in pissing matches, be honest.  We could easily get rid of that.

Here is what started this all..

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/776645-trump-2020-hq-the-great-place/?do=findComment&comment=22009695

And everyone can read what led ti it by following the discussion...and follow that the question was never actually answered.

When asked how that was playing board cop...

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/776645-trump-2020-hq-the-great-place/?do=findComment&comment=22009824

Calling for me to be banned.  That on top of getting mad because i liked a post...and because I pointed out that someone edited their post .

I agree that leas pissing matches would be great.  It starts with people not getting personal and pissed off when asked legitimate questions on a topic.

Ive done my best to stay on topic when replying to the topic.  I typically don't initiate the personal stuff...but do reply to some of it and defend myself.  An exception the other day when someone asked what name someone used to post under and i made a comment. And even that was called out by another poster and a mod.

If more would do that more the other way with the crap that gets thrown around from their “own side” things would get better.

But to get mad being asked a question  and call for people to be banned for doing so or liking posts and then complain about pissing matches when you initiate them as much as anyone is laughable.

If you don't like me...ignore me.  Just quit constantly talking about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

If you don't like me...ignore me.  Just quit constantly talking about me.

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.

Edited by Herb
No offense, Sho
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

So your solution is to hope people stay in certain threads that you aren't interested in and hope they stay out of those you are.  Hmmm.  Sounds exactly like what I'm proposing except you wont have to hope. 

"hope" seems to be doing some heavy lifting here....I'm not sure I care about this "problem" nearly as much as you do.  I don't care who comes into what thread or what they say there.  It's just much nicer when the threads aren't muddied up with all the nonsense bickering about who the bigger troll is or who's playing board cop the best.  :shrug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes 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 get it.  Some won’t like me. Won’t like my style. Won’t like me questioning them or asking for links.

But then to accuse me of just trolling, or calling for me to be banned?  

If I dont like someone or I find theirnposting something i don’t  want to read...I ignore it.  I dint bring them up and talk and complain about them constantly while getting into crap with them.

Share this post


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

I get it.  Some won’t like me. Won’t like my style. Won’t like me questioning them or asking for links.

But then to accuse me of just trolling, or calling for me to be banned?  

If I dont like someone or I find theirnposting something i don’t  want to read...I ignore it.  I dint bring them up and talk and complain about them constantly while getting into crap with them.

Posty says Hi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching you guys repeat this same conversation for years is an instruction in group living that I've found estimable. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why is this thread always on the front page? 

Because you just bumped it?

Why do you click on it?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Because you just bumped it?

Why do you click on it?

I thought there might be something new. But no just the same old silliness. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I thought there might be something new. But no just the same old silliness. 

I'm a pretty emotional guy, have my own issues, but you'd think that after all these years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes 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 taking about a bit larger issue. But, if one person causes dozens of posters to go on ignore that’s a problem that ought to not be ignored. 

Share this post


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

Watching you guys repeat this same conversation for years is an instruction in group living that I've found estimable. 

It's like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest the board. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Why is this thread always on the front page? 

It’s a dam interesting idea. Would be a great social experiment. We should try it. 

Share this post


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

I’m taking about a bit larger issue. But, if one person causes dozens of posters to go on ignore that’s a problem that ought to not be ignored. 

Imagine if someone on the “other side” used the same schtick nipping at everyone’s ankles that don’t agree telling them how wrong they are 24/7. :lmao:

How long would that last in here. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Posted (edited)
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
Posted (edited)
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
Posted (edited)
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
2 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Very :goodposting:

This guy's back already?

You gotta be kidding me.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 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.